20090653 Ver 1_Application_20090604

r
I!
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
June 2, 2009
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
d1'
®?
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
090653 JUN 42009
DENR -WATER QUALITY
WETIANDE AND STOR6TNATER BRANCH
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 and Section 401
Water Quality Certifications for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 75
over Big Shoe Heel Creek on U.S. 74 Business, Scotland County, Division 8.
State Project No. 8.1590701, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP - 74 (61),
T.I.P. Project No. B-4641.
Debit $240.00 from WBS 33809.1.1
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 75
over Big Shoe Heel Creek on U.S. 74 Business. A Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 and Section
401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3701 will be required for 0.51 acres of permanent
wetland impacts resulting from roadway fill, excavation, and mechanized clearing and less than
0.01 acres of permanent stream impacts associated with the placement of an interior bent into the
creek. A NWP 33 and WQC 3688 will be required for 0.05 acres of temporary wetland fill and
48 linear feet of temporary stream impacts resulting from the construction of two temporary
causeways.
Please see the enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings,
roadway design plans, stormwater management plan, and Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) acceptance letter for the subject project. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed for
this project in August 2007 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available
upon request.
This project is currently scheduled for letting on June 15, 2010 (review date of April 27, 2010).
MAILING ADDRESS: PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
NC DFPARiM6LVf OF TAANSPpRTAT1oN T ELEEHONE: 919431-2000 4701 Atlantic Ave.
FROlecf DEvEI.OmM AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSE Suite 116
NATIIRAI. ENVIRONMENT UNIT FAX: [phone] - Raleigh, NC 27604
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTEE
RAIEICH NC 27699-1598 "MITE. WIYW.NCDOT.0RG
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Jim Mason at either [phone] or ismasonAncdot.gov.
Sincerely,
Grory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
D Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
w/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Tim Johnson, P.E., Division'8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC .
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Tracy Walter, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
2
020E W ATFAOG
y
O T
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
N Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 23 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NW P or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes N No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes N No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. N Yes ? No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes N No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes N No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacment of Bridge No. 75 over Big Shoe Heel Creek on U.S. 74 Business
2b. County: Scotland
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Maxton
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: 8-4641
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. not applicable
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
not applicable
3d. Street address: 1598 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5.. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
2
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): not applicable
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 34.750525 Longitude: - 79.386780
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 2.63 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Big Shoe Heel Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C Sw
2c. River basin: Lumber
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
U.S. 74 Business is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial. Land use within the project vicinity includes heavily developed or
disturbed land, cultivated land, hardwood swamp, and mixed deciduous - coniferous forest land.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.875
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
137
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient and/or functionally obsolete bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:-
The project involves replacing the existing four-span, 168-foot bridge with a five-span,.235-foot bridge on the existing
alignment. The proposed structure will be a cored slab bridge with a clear roadway width of 36 feet. An off-site detour
will be utilized during construction. Standard road building equipment, such as trucks, dozers, and cranes will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: A JD has not been issued for this project. ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
However, all features were verified during a site visit
between Regulatory Specialist Richard Spencer and
EcoSclence biologists on February 14, 2007.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type

Final
El Preliminary El
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: EcoScience Corporation
Name (if known): David O'Loughlin Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
February 14, 2007 - site visit only
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T

Site 1 ®P ? T
Roadway Fill Riverine Swamp ® Yes ® Corps
0.30
Forest [I No ?DWQ
Site 2 ®P?T Excavation Riverine Swamp ® Yes ® Corps 0.01
Forest E] No ?DWQ

Site 3 ®P ? T Mechanized Riverine Swamp ® Yes ® Corps
0.20
Clearing Forest ? No ? DWQ

Site 4 ? P ®T Temporary Riverine Swamp ® Yes ® Corps
0.05
Causeways Forest ? No ? DWQ
Site 5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.51 Permanent
0.05 Temporary
2h. Comments: All impacts are located at Site 1 of the project and are listed above based on impact type.
3. Stream impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of Average Impact length
number - (PER) or jurisdiction stream (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or intermittent (Corps - 404, 10 width
Temporary (T) (INT)? DWQ - non-404, (feet)
other)
Site 1 ? P ® T Temporary Big Shoe Heel ® PER ® Corps 45 48
Causeways` Creek ?INT ? DWQ
Site 2 ® P ? T Interior Bent Big Shoe Heel ® PER ® Corps 45 <0
01 ac

Placement'
Creek
? INT
? DWQ .
.
Site 3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
I
<.01ac Perm
48 Temp
3i. Comments: ` an existing interior bent will be removed using the temporary causeways.
" The actual permanent impact for the interior bent is 32 square feet (not on wetland summary sheet).
5
4. Open Water Impacts
if there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number - waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Temporary T
Ot ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
0. Total open water impacts 0 Permanent
0 Temporary
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction Proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond Excavat
Flooded Filled Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually l ist all buffer
impacts below. If an impacts require miti gation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse
? Tar-Pamlico
? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for impact Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary M required?
81 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts .0 0
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed bridge is 67 feet longer than the existing bridge; the proposed bridge will be at approximately the same
grade as the existing structure; the project is a replace-in-place with an offsite detour; rip rap energy dissipaters will be
used at two pipe outlets draining into the wetlands on the south side of the road; roadway approach work has been
reduced to minimize fill slope encroachment into the wetlands.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOTs BMPs for the
Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during construction of this project.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ® Yes ? No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ® Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

®Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Pennittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: not applicable
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in4ieu fee program is attached. ® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 0linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): 0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0.51 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: 0 acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
8
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone
l
n for impact
6c;,o 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e .
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a . What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? n/a %
2b . Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c . If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See attached permit drawings.
? Certified Local Government
2e . Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? not applicable
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
?
HQW
4a. Which of the following state implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
10
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b . If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ® Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ®No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
see NEPA document
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
not applicable
11
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
N Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ®Yes ? No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ® Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Based on NCDOT field surveys, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database (last updated April 30, 2009), and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service website for Scotland County, it has been determined that the proposed project will have No
Effect on either Endangered or Threatened Species or Designated Critical Habitat.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes N No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NEPA Documentation
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? N Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Hydraulics coordination with FEMA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Maps
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D ??
? fJ
I ?-'
?",1
? oa/oa?o9
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Ap icanttAgenfs Signature Dafe
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
Is provided.)
12
rl"`~
May 27, 2009
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
.Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4641, Replace Bridge Number 75 over Big Shoe Heel Creek on US 74
Business, Scotland County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide the riparian wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you
dated May 26, 2009; the impacts are located in CU 03040204 of the Lumber River Basin in the Southern
Inner Coastal Plain (SICP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetland: 0.51 acre
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory riparian wetland mitigation credits to
offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this project is
permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement
between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007.
If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer
be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
6. .?-
Whore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B4641
Ratorut9... Ekka"... Pro,", oar Stag

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1919-715-0476/www.nceep. net
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Project: 33809.1.1
TIP No. B-4641
Scotland County
04/20/2009
Hydraulics Project Manager: W. Henry Wells, Jr., P.E. (Sungate Design Group),
Marshall Clawson, P.E. (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION
The project B-4641 consists of constructing a new bridge 235 feet long to replace the
existing bridge #75 in Scotland County on US 74 Bus over Big Shoe Heel Creek. The
total project length is 0.161 miles. The project creates impacts to Big Shoe Heel Creek,
which is located in the Lumber River Basin. The project drainage systems consist of
grated inlets with associated pipe systems, and rip rap energy dissipaters at the pipe
outlets.
Jurisdiction Stream: Big Shoe Heel Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The project is located within the Lumber River Basin in Scotland County, which is not a
CAMA county. There are wetland sites surrounding the bridge that will be impacted by
the proposed project. Impacts have been minimized by and using rip rap energy
dissipaters at the pipe outlets and reducing the roadway approach work to minimize fill
slopes encroachment into the wetlands.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
The primary goal of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is to prevent degradation of the
states surface waters by the location, construction and operation of the highway system.
The BMPs are activities, practices and procedures taken to prevent or reduce stormwater
pollution. The BMP measures used on this project to reduce stormwater impacts are:
• Rip rap energy dissipaters at pipe outlets.

i
?
e SITE
1
SEE MEET
SCOTLAND COUNTY
/IJ ( f i ? 11 f?j f
R .. `` 'li ( sip
Sullivan
?? \ 4 J >a
Corn
l7if ,? ? f+ ?? 'r>'°"?? \ ? y ? by ? ? ?1 . {? • -f
N.C. DBFT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WETLAND/STREAM SCOTLAND COUNTY
IMPACTS PROJECT:33809.1.1 (B-4641)
BRIDGE NO.75
OVER BIG SHOE HEEL CREEK
ON US 74 BUSINESS
SHEET-L OF2 3/31/09
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
I CITY OF LAURINBURG P.O. BOX 249
LAURINBURG. NC 28353
2 CHARLES MAYNOR P.O. BOX 1497
PEMBROKE, NC 28372
b CSX RAILROAD S00 WATER ST
15TH FLOOR
JACKSONVILLE,FL 32202
••• 0
w o
?
Q

P } W
to cr \
M
W U
r
m
w
A r a C3
g= o ?W
W N
F.i LLi W O O ..:O2N

(L
a
cr Z
-C

CC U Cn

Z
Lj Co
WO
F..i -J
be O Z 00
c
In
3IL 16 J
O 1.- M
A? ?I N
ra f
300> N CO
' mZ O
LLI
Z z O r
w
=
0 i
V
z
o

v
-?
in J
a
K

r
z2
4
00 O
ir
to U jr
T p 4
Ln
Ln -W
t0
N
W co O _ Q
?• a a s to U)
s% i^
QQ
r a s 00
a U
C W ?L I to to
U N
Q
O C m c C
O N ?
U
W
V
Y N
W N
< N
a Ln N
L) V)
? -j Ln in

m
to
3
J -
Z
LL
O
LL t 0
O
O
w O

LL V =

o

w O O

a E E
0. w U) to
°
K V; a W W

a
3 >
z
?E

? N Ul ?
Z Cl)
N f
C c T d
F-
< c N m d y
E F < ?
IL
a LLI
C
K N
Gd C U C

a wU E
a

w

E 3 m ?
U 0
0 0
} F
E v 0
K N

? c
C
N
C/) E m
U a

Q
a d N
c a
c
a
,
~ U 3

a
W
am ?
a
Q H?
N t0 ? V
?
0
O
O
O
N
5 N ??3 0 0 0 0 0
?
F U
W a
o y
a
0 > c = ?
- 0 0
3
? 0 0
5 W

W
3 y
ca
E= m o
0 o o
F LL 3 0 0 0

C N
? C C
C N V
N p0 O ? O ?
i y 3 O O OV O G
a J
Q

J J Q Q W J J
N a

J LL LL W W
J LL LL
F Q Q s S J Q Q
2 m 3 v v o 3 3
U
co a a
, O O
w
w U O O
? r

a' J W K J

J
J J J J J

O
p

O O O

+

N
O O r m N

`
(D LL
...
r
O
+
+
w
w
t
0
+ O
+ R t+0 ++ +
f (
D

m O J

UJ Z F
Q

I
Scotland County
Bridge No. 75 on US 74 Business
Over Big Shoe Heel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-74(61)
W.B.S. No. 33809.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B4641
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DA o/Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
09109107 r ova D f"?-
DATE John F?Sullivan, III, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Scotland County
Bridge No. 75 on US 74 Business
Over Big Shoe Heel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-74(61)
W.B.S. No. 33809.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4641
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2007
Document Prepared by.
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Greg S. "s, P. E.
Project Manager
S/(PA7
DATE
i-4-o7 -
DATE
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation wy_
4 Y /7w'7
Tracy alter DATE
Project Manager
Bridge Project Development Unit
10-7
Bryan . Kluchar, P.E. DATE
Project Engineer
Bridge Project Development
>'7
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Scotland County
Bridge No. 75 on U.S. 74 Business
Over Big Shoe Heel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-74(61)
W.B.S. No. 33809.1.1
T.LP. Project No. B-4641
Division Eight Construction, Resident Engineer's Office
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Scotland County Schools should be contacted
at (910) 2774355 at least one month prior to road closure.
Scotland County Emergency Services needs to be contacted at [phone] at least one month prior to
road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) - Raleigh Field Office needs to be contacted at (919) 571-
4069 at least one month prior to construction. There is a USGS stream gaging station located adjacent to
the existing bridge and this will have to be temporarily relocated during construction.
This project is located near the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport. Although this project does not conflict with
airport operation, the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport should be contacted at (910) 8445081 prior to
beginning construction.
Hydraulics Unit
Big Shoe Heel Creek is a FEMA regulated stream within a Limited Detailed Study area. Coordination
with FEMA will be required.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
August 2007
Scotland County
Bridge No. 75 on US 74 Business
Over Big Shoe Heel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-74(61)
W.B.S. No. 33809.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4641
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 75 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is eligible for
the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 37.6 out of a
possible 100 and a structural appraisal of 2 out of a possible 9. Therefore, based on Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) standards, the bridge is considered structurally deficient. In
addition, the existing structure is considered functionally obsolete due to a deck geometry
appraisal of 4 out of a possible 9.
Components of both the concrete superstructure and substructure have experienced an increasing
degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities. The bridge is
approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
H. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located northeast of the intersection with SR 1611 (see Figure 1). Land use in the
project area is predominantly woodlands. There is industrial use west of the study area. The
Seaboard Coastline Railroad runs parallel to US 74 Business north of the existing bridge.
US 74 Business is classified as a rut-al minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle
route and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use the roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 74 Business has a 22-foot pavement width with eight-foot
shoulders including two-foot paved (see Figure 3). The roadway grade includes a slight crest at
the existing bridge. The existing bridge on US 74 Business is located in a tangent. The roadway is
situated approximately 15 feet above the creek bed.
Bridge No. 75 is a four-span structure that consists of a concrete deck with asphalt wearing
surface on reinforced concrete deck girders. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete
abutment end bents with timber caps and timber piles and the interior bents consist of reinforced
concrete-caps on concrete piers with a crutch pile under one of the girders. The existing bridge
(see Figure 3) was constructed in 1924 and widened in 1941. The overall length of the structure is
168 feet. The clear roadway width is 35.8 feet.
On the downstream side of the existing bridge overhead power, cable, and telephone cross Big
Shoe Heel Creek. Telephone utilities are underground in the approaches to the bridge on the
downstream side of the bridge. Fiber optic utilities are overhead on the upstream side of the
1
bridge and underground in the approaches to the bridge. USGS Gage Station 02132320 is located
on the downstream side of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
The current traffic volume is 6,100 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 10,400 VPD
by the year 2030. The projected volume includes three percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (T'I'ST)
and five percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is not
posted and therefore a statutory 55 miles per hour (mph) is assumed. Six school busses cross this
bridge daily two times each for a total of 12 trips.
There were no accidents reported during a recent three-year period.
M. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 220-foot long. The bridge length
is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The bridge will
be of sufficient width to provide for two 12-foot lanes with four-foot offsets on each side. The
roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot pavement width to provide two 12-foot lanes.
Eight-foot shoulders will be provided on each side; four feet of which will be paved in
accordance with the current NCDOT Design Policy. This roadway will be designed as a rural
major collector. The proposed design speed is 60 mph.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Two (2) alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location: Traffic will be detoured
offsite (see Figure 1) during the construction period. The length of approach work will be
approximately 342 feet on the west side of the bridge and approximately 338 feet on the east side
of the bridge.
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridee Replacement Proiects considers
multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would include US 74 Bypass
and SR 1436 (Airport Road) approximately. 3.52 miles in length. The detour for the average road
user would result in 1.5 minutes additional travel time (0.82 miles additional travel). Up to a
eighteen-month duration of construction is expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of delay alone the detour is
acceptable. Scotland County Emergency Services along with Scotland County Schools
Transportation have also indicated that the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 8 has indicated
the condition of all roads, bridges and intersections on the offsite detour are acceptable without
improvement and concurs with the use of the detour.
Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing alignment. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site temporary detour structure located south of the existing bridge. The
length of approach work will be approximately 417 feet on the west side of the bridge and
approximately 438 feet on the east side of the bridge. The temporary detour structure will be 180
feet long.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge and closing of
the road. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by US 74 Business.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge in the existing location while maintaining traffic on an
offsite detour during the construction period is the preferred alternate. Alternate A was selected
because of the low human and natural environmental impacts associated with it.
The NCDOT Division Eight Engineer concurs with Alternate A as the preferred alternative.
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ANTICIPATED
No design exceptions will be required.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current 2007 prices, are as follows:
VL NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Physical Characteristics
1. Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-07-55 of the Lumber River Basin
(NCDWQ 2003). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040204 (Seaber et al. 1987) of
the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. The structure targeted for replacement spans Big Shoe Heel
Creek The portion of Big Shoe Heel Creek traversing the project study area has been assigned
Stream Index Number 14-34 by the NCDWQ (NCDWQ 2006b). Big Shce Heel Creek flows
Table 1. - Estimated Costs
from north to south through the project study area and enters the project study area as a well-
defined, fifth-order, perennial stream with moderate flow over a sand and cobble substrate. A
Best Usage Classification of C SW has been assigned to this section of Big Shoe Heel Creek.
Big Shoe Heel Creek is currently listed by the NCDWQ as Supporting for its designated uses.
With respect to temperature regimes, Big Shoe Heel Creek is designated as a warm water stream
(USACE et al. 2003). Big Shoe Heel Creek is not listed on the 2006 final Section 303(d)
(NCDWQ 2006) lists. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-11) waters occur within 1 mile of the project
study area (NCDWQ 2003, NCDWQ 2006b).
2. Biotic Resources
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area: (1) Cypress-Gum
Swamp (Blackwater subtype), (2) mesic mixed forest, and (3) disturbed/maintained land. Plant
communities were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each. These
communities are described below in order of their dominance within the project study area.
Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater subtype) - Approximately 10.0 acres (66 percent) of the
project study area consists of Cypress-Gum Swamp. This community is described by Schafale
and Weakley as occurring on mineral and organic soils in floodplains of blackwater rivers like
that, which occupies the vast majority of the project study area. All but the western most edge of
the project study area occurs within the 100-year floodplain of Big Shoe Heel Creek (Figure 1).
This community has a canopy dominated by swamp blackgum (Nyssa Mora) and pond cypress
(Taxodium ascenders).' The understory contains sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), red bay (Persea palustris), and tulip polar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). The shrub layer is occasionally dense, including titi (Cyrilla
racemii lora), swamp pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), doghobble
(Leucothoe axillaris), Virginia-willow (Itea virginica), giant cane (Arundinaria ggigantea), and
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Where the shrub layer is less dense, the herb layer includes
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia areolata), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and Virginia chain fern
(Woodwardia virginica). Vines, including Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and
hemp-vine (Mikania scandens), are plentiful in openings and at the edges of the wettest areas.
This community provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife. The hydrology of this community
is one of its defining characteristics and such frequently flooded areas provide a varied habitat for
many invertebrates and the species that depend on them. Amphibians that typify this community
include: river frog (Rana heckshrei), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), mud
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), many-lined salamander (Sterochilus marginatus), and river
cooter* (Pseudemys concinna). Five-lined skinks (Eumeces fasciatus) may also share the insects
and small invertebrates provided by this community. Water snakes characteristically exploit the
amphibian residents of this community. These include mud snake (Farancia abacura), rainbow
snake (Farancia erytrogamma), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), banded water
snake* (Nerodia fasciata), and brown water snake (Nerodia taxiapilota) along with more
generalist species like the rat snake* (Elaphe obsoleta). Wood ducks (Aix sponsa) and mallards
(Ands platyrhyncos) are among the waterfowl frequenting this community. These two species are
known to be breeding, year-round residents. Other avian species utilizing the resources of this
community are: red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), white-eyed vireo* (Vireo griseus), tufted
titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), mockingbird*
(Mimus polyglottos), and eastern towhee* (Pipilo eyrythrophthalmus) along with insectivores like
yellow-bellied sapsucker' (Sphyrapicus varius), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), and blue-gray gnatcatcher* (Polioptila caerulia).
Mammalian species frequently using this community are: marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris)
beaver (Castor canadensis), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and white-tailed deer*
(Odocoileus virginianus). Avian predators surviving on the fish, mamals, birds, and amphibians
inhabiting this community include great blue heron* (Ardea herodias), red shouldered hawk*
(Buteo lineatus), and belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon).
Disturbed/maintained land - Approximately 3.5 acres (23 percent) of the project study area is
disturbed/maintained land. This community is composed of roadside shoulders and embankment
around the road as well as a railway bed along the northern boundary of the project study area,
maintained by some combination of mowing and/or spraying.
The vast majority of this community is colonized by herbaceous weeds with a few species of
scattered woody volunteers. Woody species identified include Chinese privet, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Virginia creeper.
Groundcover includes seeded and native grasses and weedy forbs including fescue (Festuca sp.),
wild onion (Allium canadense), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum), white clover (T. repens),
wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), pennywort (Hydrocotle sp.), violet (Viola sp.), dock
(Rumex crispus), plantain (Plantago sp.), sorrel (Oxalis sp.), and common dandelion (Taraxacum
ojficinale).
Although this community is made up of maintained areas, it can be expected that there will be
some mammalian and avian diversity, as there is low residential density and vehicular traffic.
There are several species that are well adapted to using the ecotone between open and forested
communities. Opportunistic omnivores consume a wide variety of food such as wild fruit, fish,
small mammals, reptiles, and birds. Omnivorous species with such adaptations that would utilize
the project study area include red fox, striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum.
Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus jloridanus) is an herbivore that also prefers brushy clearings
adjacent to woodlands. Insectivorous species expected to occur within the open portion of the
project study area include red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and green anole* (Anolis carolinensis).
The bobcat (Lynx rufus) is a carnivorous species that uses disturbed/maintained land for
predation. Birds utilizing habitat within the disturbed/maintained land include American crow*
(Corvus brachyrhyncos) an ominivore, mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura) an herbivore-
granivore, bam swallow* (Hirundo rustica) an insectivore, turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura), a
scavenger, and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), an omnivore-granivore. American
robins (Turdus migratorius) forage for soil invertebrates in these more open spaces. Other
species that may occur in the project study area include eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), common
grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), red-winged blackbird (Agelius phoeniceus), blue jay* (Cyanocitta
cristata), and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna).
Mesic mixed forest - Approximately 1.7 acres (11 percent) of the project study area is mesic
mixed forest. This community consists of a forest with a well-developed canopy and a dense to
very dense understory of successional plant species. This community is located along the
northwestern and southwestern quadrants upslope from Shoe Heel Creek.
This community is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), tulip poplar, sycamore, and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracii lua). The subcanopy includes saplings of canopy species as well
as dogwood (Cornus florida), mockernut hickory (Carya alba), sweetbay, American holly (ilex
opaca), and red maple. Chinese privet and deerberry (Yaccinium stamineum) are frequent
members of a scattered shrub layer. The herb layer is essentially absent. A healthy vine
population is dominated by Japanese honeysuckle and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
The connectivity of this community to the large Shoe Heel Creek floodplain allows for an
increased assemblage of wildlife including forest interior species. This community should
support predators such as great homed owl (Bubo virginianus), copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), and ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus); herbivores such as gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and white-tailed deer; and insectivores such as red-eyed vireo, yellow-throated
vireo (Vireo flavifrons), Carolina chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), ruby-
crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), pine warbler
(Dendroica pinus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), red bat, five-lined skink, gray treefrog (Hyla
chrysoscelis), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and American toad (Bufo americanus); and
omnivores such as eastern box turtle (Tarrapene carolina) and raccoon. A summary of plant
community areas and the potential impacts to each is presented in Table 2.
2. Plant Community Areas Within Alternative Cut-Fill Limits (area in
Disturbed/maintamed land 0.77 0.09 1.04 1.13
Mesic mixed forest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cypress-Gum Swamp <0.01 0.48 0.22 0.70
Impacts associated with bridge replacement will primarily affect disturbed/maintained areas.
Impacts for Alternate A include 0.77 acre of disturbed/maintained land and 0.001 acre of
Cypress-Gum Swamp, entirely within the existing right-of-way. Total impacts for Alternate B
consist of 1.13 acres of disturbed/maintained land and 0.7 acre of Cypress-Gum Swamp. Due to
the inclusion of a temporary detour, Alternate B will impact a much larger area than Alternate A,
with a majority of that area being Cypress-Gum Swamp. Projected permanent impacts to natural
plant communities will mostly occur within the disturbed/maintained plant community, mainly
along roadside shoulders. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project
activities since potential improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins.
Construction noise and associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on
avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
B. Jurisdictional Topics
1. Surface Waters and Wetlands
Big Shoe Heel Creek exhibits characteristics of a well-defined, fifth-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a sand and cobble substrate. Big Shoe Heel Creek can be classified as
riverine, upper perennial, with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand with some
cobble and gravel (R3UB2) (Cowardin et al. 1979). The project study area contains a total of
approximately 660 linear feet and 0.6 acre of perennial stream and 8.77 acres of vegetated
wetlands.
The project study area contains four vegetated wetland areas: Wetland 1, Wetland 2, Wetland 3,
and Wetland 4. Wetlands 1, 2 and 3 are high-quality, riverine, second growth wetlands located in
the floodplain of Big Shoe Heel Creek Wetland 4 is a medium-quality, riverine, second growth
wetland.
Alternate A results in less than 0.1 acre of wetland impacts. Alternate B results in temporary
impacts of 54 linear feet to Big Shoe Heel Creek and 0.6 acre of total jurisdictional impacts
(Table 3).
Table 3. Jurisdictional Areas Within Alternative Cut-Fill Limits
Big Shoe Heel
Creek MUM 42.5 0.000 54 linear ft.
0.006 0.000 54 linear
ft 0.006
Wetland 1 PFO1C 91 0.037 0.244 0.075 0.319
Wetland 2 PFOIC 91 0.009 0.230 0.037 0.267
Welland 3 PFOIC 91 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Wetland 4
'Wetland ratings are based on N.C. Division of Environmental Management Method (NCDEM 1995). Stream rating is
based on DWQ Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet ratings.
'Art are given in acres.
It has been estimated that potential temporary fill associated with bridge demolition is
approximately 10 cubic yards. The replacement of Bridge No. 75 can be classified as Case 3,
where no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters and the supplements added to the document on bridge demolition (Appendix
A). This case classification is subject to Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BDR).
2. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), a Section
404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 from the USACE is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. A NWP No. 33 may be required
if temporary construction including cofferdams, access and dewatering are required for this
project. A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 NWP 23 and/or NWP 33.
3. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are protected under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened," but "closely
resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The USFWS currently lists six federally protected species with ranges that extend into Scotland
County (as April 27, 2006, Table 4).
Table 4. Federally Protected Species Listed for Scotland County
American alligator Alligator mississi iensis T (S/A) NA
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
Ficoides borealis
E
NO EFFECT
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E NO EFFECT
Canby's drowort Oxy lis canbyi E NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved L simachia as erulae olia E
(S/A) - Threatened, due to
a raxon -in aange
!y of appearance.
or a
American alligator
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to the Similarity in Appearance (T[S/A]) to
other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North
Carolina. American alligators can be found in a variety of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats
including swamp forests, marshes, large streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.
T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this
species is not required. Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the project study
area. NCNBP records (reviewed June 12, 2006) document one occurrence of American alligator
approximately 2.0 miles downstream of the project study area in Maxton Pond. No American
alligators were seen during the field visit. Construction activities may temporarily displace any
American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to American alligator is
anticipated as a result of this project.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable foraging habitat for RCW within the project study area was identified during field
explorations. Pine stands exist in the mesic mixed forest community at the northeastern edge of
the project study area, but this community has a dense to very dense understory of pine,
hardwoods, and shrubs. NCNBP records (reviewed June 12, 2006) document no occurrences of
this species within 2.0 miles of the project study area. No birds were observed during the site
visit. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
American chaffseed
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for American chaffseed does not occur within the project study area. The wet
areas within the project study area have a very nearly closed canopy with dense shrub layer along
the edges. No moist pine flatwoods, savannas, bog borders, and open oak woods exist within or
bordering the project study area NCNEP records (reviewed June 12, 2006) document no
occurrences of this species within 2.0 miles of the project study area. Therefore, the proposed
project will have "No Effect" on American chaffseed.
Canby's dropwort
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
The project study area contains suitable habitat for Canby's dropwort along some wetland edges
bordering wetlands 1, 2, and 3. The NCNHP records (reviewed June 12, 2006) document no
instances of Canby's dropwort within 2.0 miles of the project study area. A survey was
conducted on August 31, 2006 by ESC biologists Elizabeth Scherrer and David O'Loughlin using
systematic transects. The survey revealed no individuals of this species within the project study
area.. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on Canby's dropwort.
Michaux's sumac
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
The project area provides habitat preferred by Michaux's sumac along roadsides and upland
forest edges. NCNHP records (reviewed June 12, 2006) document no occurrence of this species
within 2.0 miles of the project study area. A survey was conducted on June 16, 2006 by ESC
biologist David O'Loughlin using systematic transects. The survey revealed no individuals of
this species within the project study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No
Effect" on Michaux's sumac.
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife does not occur within the project study area. The
wet areas within the project study area have a very nearly closed canopy with dense shrub layer
along the edges. No sandy longleaf savannas border any of the wet areas. NCNHP records
(reviewed June 12, 2006) document no occurrences of this species to occur within 2.0 miles of
the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on rough-leaved
loosestrife.
VII. HUMAN ENVERONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 500. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to
take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects) on
properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
Historic Architecture
The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) reviewed the subject project and determined that no
surveys are required (see letter dated May 1, 2006).
Archaeology
The Historic Preservation Office (FlPO) reviewed the subject project. There are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological investigation
needed to be conducted (see letter dated May 1, 2006).
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited. ..
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on
any minority or low-income population.
Noise & Air Quality
This project is an air quality neutral project in accordance with 40 CFR 93.126. It is not required to be
included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and project level CO or PM2.5 analyses are not
required. This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location
of the existing facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to
the no-build alternative. Therefore, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air
quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT
concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs. Any burning of vegetation shall
be performed in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Noise levels may increase during project construction;. however, these impacts are not expected to be
substantial considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-
made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
VIII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The proposed project will not require right-0f--way acquisition or easement from any land protected under
section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303).
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites, no regulated or
10
unregulated landfills or dumpsites with in the project area. No facility with underground storage tanks
(UST) was identified in the project vicinity.
Scotland County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The bridge is located within a
FEMA Limited Detail Study Area, Zone AE. The new structures should be designed to match or lower
the existing 100-year storm elevation upstream of the roadway. Since the proposed replacement for
Bridge No. 75 would be a structure similar in waterway opening size, it is not anticipated that it will have
any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway. The proposed alternatives will
not modify flow characteristics and will have a minimal impact on floodplains due to roadway
encroachment. The existing drainage patterns and groundwater will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
DL OTHER AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, N. C.
Division of Water Quality, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, National Marine Fisheries, U. S.
Forest Service, Scotland County Emergency Services and the Scotland County Public Schools.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in a standardized letter provided a request that they prefer any
replacement structure to be a spanning structure.
Response: The existing bridge will be replaced with a bridge and bents in the stream will minimized to
the extent possible. Equal or greater conveyance will be provided with bridge and wetland impacts will
be minimized/avoided to extent practical.
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality had no
special concerns for this project.
The Scotland County Public Schools and Scotland County Emergency Services indicated that an
offsite detour is acceptable.
X. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A newsletter has been sent to all those living along US 74 Business between the intersection with SR
1436 and the intersection with US 74 Bypass. No comments have been received to date.
Based on responses to the newsletter, a Citizen's Informational Workshop was determined unnecessary.
XL CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts
will result from implementation of the project. The project is therefore considered to be a federal
"Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
II
FIGURES
Figure 1- Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Alternate A (Preferred)
Figure 2A - Alternate B
Figure 3 - Photographs of Bridge No. 75

11]8
1611

BRIDGE NO.
1808
a
/0% ? %
F3
' w 'MAXTON
at ` I'%.O
ZMEW
memo@=,*, sbasa Dretoar
Rowe
r0mor
L AMIIU IR W ) ni
SCOIL&W OO[/1Y7tY
• GE Ma 73 ON OS 74 SM
OF= RM mm mu Ml
IV SM a4m
F2rJN12T /NF
FAMW I
i
SOUTH SIDE
OF BRIDGE

W WNT '
B=4641
T I Replacement of Bridge
APPROACH No. 75 on US 74 BUS.
Over Big Shoe Heel Creek
Scotland County
dos
FIGURE 3

APPENDIX A
Comments received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies

F
,.aA7ra.
*0-
F
0 IT
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources '4
?^;_ F
State Historic Preservation Office
Pete a. Sandbtc: Adrmmirmtnr
Afichad F. RuLcy, Crox2 nor office of Atchiro and History
Iisbcth C F.rAru, Seaeruy Division of Hiator C21 Re rp
Jeffrey J- C-, Deputy %eacury David Brool, Director
May 1, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck PAV pel
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge 75 on US 74 Business over Big Shoe Heel Creek, B-4641, Scotland County,
ER 06-0831
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 2006; concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by
the project Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Pan 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please ate the above-referenced tracking number.

ADMINISTRATION HA N. RYvmt Stmr, Rakio NC. V..17 NQ %.,cc Cc nR. Ra60 Nt: 2176W4617 (91'»771176 7 /73 1) 'S.-,
9=0RATTON 51 S N. Rka , Str¢t RakWh NC "17 Nad lervcc G.=, RaIcg.h W: 27( IPWI7 [phone]/71 Nwn
SURVEY 6 PLANNING 515 N. llk.rso Rak9th, N(: V,,17 Mail ticrvirc Cane, Kdoh NC VOYWI 7 f)19)73V4545/71S-w,1
$ $$$$$SYSTIME$$$$i
st$$USSSSSSS$SSSDGNS$SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSUSERNAMESSSS
?CONTRACT.0
0

?
db Q
?
u ti
2
O ""

n
F r
O T
O
O

C?
n
- n
R O
N
0 0 o o ?

o C5 5

y
02
?o
'__ g g
n b
1
u rrr v
?
< ? o o
y
N O 0 0 ? 22
OW II II II II II II x 8
n ???o .
°
c0
N
?ae.ae;e ,
P
g Om
0 y
a o
?
r
Z, z
O
= O
m
Z

H
9
O NI

? A
v

?

b
m v ? ?
y
ai ? n

II II II
o O O
r U P
3 3
m m

b
M

P a • ? i
b
!yy
O fn O a F U

m? 8
o ^ o m>
? ? o manna
r b

m V
y

c? i
m ~ o
{ Y
a
m
n

rn

? Baby
O
?
' '
idO
x

d

? nn
9y
a
TIP PROJECT. B-4641
aLl
3
it &
I I
m
z
bx ° m
?s l? om
AA
+Q
ND
0=
;-N O
n
e'0 L
At
b O?p?p }} I om
!! a?
p 0
V\ ` 8o I +m
a ?Ya
+ I
°o
o I I
a9 I ? '
op I
? zl I
I
A
B m r?r
a' y z
VI y
?z TSD>
' -3
xE
------ ---- --
-- -
----------------
---

x3 ?-

o
I' ? 3
+I 5 y
zm
T

O°

R/W PLANS
?z
I?
9.ro
s
C

Ry
O
b
y

N
ti
0
O
y

n
O
b
c?
0
z
N
n
k
0

CDC
b
L-1

•
m m o
N ?
a

' 0
b
A P ?
P P b

Ef {EEbf bt 6lttEfftppNiff ISS{t{SfESEEt
/ a
W
O A
O Cr
O T
O V 00
O O a Y\
/?_ \
I i
\
I Y
\
I Y \
/ * Y
\
/ a
I
/*
1
F
\ a I
\ * a}1

i Y
i
1 a I
I
O 1 F
*
I IO+pp
?

FEZ
N

/ a I

I _

Y
I I

y
D
O?
Z Z
/ a I
Ix \ a
i x
I 8* a I

I
I 1

\
" _
v$

r f. I I F
*
6 1
I
1
?

1
o
O
I I
a.
/
-6 F
a ^
I
I * 1
'b .
?
i I
N
m
F Y
//
Y
f
A u
*
I
Y I
?
BCIN /
a F I
BEGIN G E I a x E
STA. 11+6 .00 ' * a 9 F

EL 177
17 F
N

+ *
F e
* _

F I.

i

. I O
to _ a 8 *
a * I I
I I /v
/ ? \
I? F Ii I . -

I
a Y
* F a I
I
I I'?'?

m *
?
? ;
_ F F F I S
W 1 $ s
i
Y Y
? l /
i
I F
x a
I
F 1 \? $
F 1 I
I i
* 1 I "
pC1 {nt
x P
R} i
F
Y
'
U
Iy F1
?.

*
? 41
aq
?y..
Y
?•
Z
Y GR i 41
??- rT'
I a
a
x BEG IN BRIDG y F m
9 I ST 14+80.0 z a
Y
a v ?-?

u
D
4;
F F _
t
x§
1 I5+C0

Nq I
I ) "? a
x a 9/ \ to I i
1
.1 \
_
`J`?((
AN VI
I 1 F F
T
Z ?Q
°
° 44 n I N
I
°
° yC
AD Y
*
A? F.
?
?
/
1
I c $ P i u u a
:fN Q
b
m
°
m __ W - n 1 * * * =
O• K B N d F
x G7 .. ..
0"1 ,C?K p
u n`
t a i y
j G7

bn a
yP ?
T P Y * 1 61 9
I
NMI F
- a
T
?
V
u
?9
?
a
om-
Jh
I E D BRIDGE > v m
17+15.0 -
y
:
Y
C
2 2
i
z
A
.
}
co
r
a
A

II I
II II 'I q
a S` 1 „ I

? ?
'?" m
z°
O? m
tb?+ r
I ?
"'
I a ?z z
?o rp 0
m lO a F uN =N 1N
`O a A a,. ,0.T Y I ??
4' 1 Z ? ? ,n`a ? F
F vo oA
ma a -
Y.
^ a
Z
?n x
a x S °
E

N i°n

y
N
D GRAD ..
a x a
, a p
a
6
13' 40 : ZH L = 175.7 F F EXE 20
v
= F
i
H I Y
:
i IIa ? I

D?
F d
l
a _
n? o@@Qmmm?
mmmVI
V1 Vl mo
Vl V1 e
i i
$
°

r p
6411 o m
ti N
m m A ? h1 Ir, !rl C)
z 41 L7
zz lA F x ? : +f" rm

N
D1° ?
rn 0000 ?p

"?v? i

a

T
K n
T o m?
?iiim x
cook 4C m a?
m
S F S
x F ? "a *
I ? a
r
n
4'-iP z 7 t•-ir M ? ? I+I ? O ? i ? ?
? ? Tn
? F * m I z 3

C
?
m ?
n
<F v?y?m
;gia ? x
Z
?m O F "

x Ve

R,

1.-1•
t.'1.
?
0 2? 2
? a
R '
y
• e
c a a
I
I A ? p ? 2
l
i.
a x / i x -
B
I II

m II
II II II II
e j+
w??w? 11 II
n
N F
'
a
F
x a' Ixl ,
¢
a A

gA
y V k
NC
po,gm`o
' ?
O
? a I I ?
* m
? °p -e p
A Q ?
?o4
6
?? m n F F i I i F I
*
? ? a
8 <
T
V A
? T *
?
x
' ? 3
' l/
1 (
/1 V
1 Y
F
F S ? 7i
x
0
4' 12 12 4 F a
a S
x
i }.? d
a I [ a .?
x 03 I
I I' ?. ?
I a
i
$
a ,,

Y I $a
*
a x
' (? z

W A
fT
P
V OD i

Y x a I I Y I
E
*

•y

V1 D a
O O O O O O I
I
a ? ? I
Y Y
sstaspspSSYSTIMEtf Bas
5Y9EUSEPtSVFMEEff90GNee49eetiffittOe
I
8/23/99

°
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I O

_
o I I ? °

1 1 \? ?l

I I
I
I I
I o
o

i
/ F
o

m I

, _

I I I v I I
I I
I I
? I I
I
I I I I
I I

I Z
I
I I
I
? ? I
I I
I
I I I I
I I
I
j 1
I I I
I I i 1

I
?
I
1
I 1
\ !I
\ I I I I
\ l \ I
\

T I

-' \ \ Z
s 1 1
I

\
I IM I
_ I
Il o li p r II O to o r

I
I CA)
°
+ I
I ° + I I -I' -? v ? I
I
O ° 1 7.58 O I 7.73 O N 77.89 O a 78.03 O m aw 78.13
II II 1
O It
Il s O. Il o
o O Il
11 o
" O O
O I I o O O a O ° O D
I I A

O

I I ° /
I

I

I ? ? I 1
I
I I
I I
'
I
I I
I
I I
I
I

I` I
I
( I
I
i I I

li

I I
I
1
?
I ?
I
I

I
I
I
I
I 11 I
I
1 I
I
? I
I
? I
1
I
I i I I
o
I
I I °
I
I
I ?
I To
eo-
o
°

I
I ao
I
sea :22
?
I I
I a o
0 1 c

o yygg

I SL
J 4
m
I I ?
c
0
0
I

o zz
O
s 44tf$SY5 TIME$$$$,
$$S 444844E ttifffOGNtOf if Kffti Bitft
6f 4f115ERNAMEttf6
8/23/99

0 0
? I I
I I I \
I I \ _

1 \
c I I
I I
I I °
o I
I
I
I
I
1 o
I
I I 3
m _
o ? o
/ I I z

m

, I

I
I

?

n
I I I
o
I Z
I
I I
I I I ?
I I i I
I
I I I
I / I

II
/ I
I
I
I
I / I
I I
I
I / I
I I I 1
I ?
I , T
I II 1 I \ ?

I
1 \ ?

-1 m
Z
I ° h
j

Ut O? of V p
+ ?• , ?- c F: + I m
a a I
O v
CID 78.17 O N 78.13 O N 78.03 v 77.87
I ? ? t o D
I o
O O O o p v
I
L ° N
N
L
L o
o
)
i
II 1 I

I
I ?
? I
I I
I /
I ? I I
T '
I
I I 1
i ?

I I
I I

m

I I I
N
I
? v

I
I ?
I I I /
o
c I ,
I
I I
? II
I /

° o
o I
I
I I \

$ ?
3

o I I Q °
I
In
°
o
o I I j
I
I I I
I
?

0

CONTRACT:
u u
o F
a

A
Q
N
N I!??!
A 2
2=
F x?

0 f
? km
c
•

ti
o ? m
?
• CC
gg
??n b
u?(1
C
<-? SO
O< OO
o° ?
j
X
A
II
II II
m II
II II G
x x
C O o m Q G G m a
?? ?aR axaR °go a ?
aR o =
A
m r.
C
Q S S
? o a
0 0
I
6
M
n
ti
m
m
y ?

o PP o
P N P
3 . 3, I I3.
m 4
b
Y ?
?n I ai?y,Q
"w
s
ask
c
Z i
A
7 i
Y (?
2
TIP PROJECT: B-4641
7
z
m
+O
+
+O
z I ?
I
A
8 A
to
iz
i>
?k
z
w
O

'
.
t
e
.._.- S

cb

5
z
CC
m k
a?
0

?_
2
{
a -Ij
?_
_..?
am
gg
1 QQ U h

o"

G.

"C O
Q
? x
r?
b
to
y
A
+b
Ifi O
x
y
R
n
k
H

F1
®
? z
z
b

O

u 7

IJ ? ,
0

P P '

r eF
U6EH?N9MI ....
rl
N
p a
O K
v
S n
m r
'00 m #
O
O
N N N
w I?1 r
O y
N =
N
°ol
N
i
i

0

O
O
O

0
O
O w
° a
o

0
O
O

O

O _

O Ii
c `i3

0
O
O
O

I?
m
o'
S
0
m
S
a
m
m
II m
n
i
r r
N N
O O
+ o
b m
In o
° O
9
v ° > n
D
m N r r
N
o O N
m a Zi m
rt O Z
O ---I
N O O O
µ -
F Z
a
r n w Z
1 Z
O6O
A
N m r
r
00 0 o N
C] F
m ?^
>
•
? 0
m
$

O o
x
VI
Sn m
L

r r m r
r

? {
D r
INN N N N
K rt
°° can
o0 y
5
a D
"
- *
? Z
++
n m m r
o
m 00
0 4 O Z O O rt x

N N OZ Q

N N
N
ti N
0 0 - Z O ti
a
?T Z ?
c o
W
° O
N. UI
°
o° ° 0 _°
N § ti
x

pT
y ?

?O

P
C K N Ol N O N O >
.;mj it -.w; I it dpi ?3 i
. . .

L y?
3°
L
i°
s
m

o

?
ee
YY m
z
1
jig 9 T
J•
d. „ O
W P P
6 '..
v,

?@ a $ a a r
m

ZB 3 3.. jig
s

s a e
Pli
as
so?
J
F
a
5
6/2/99
k 1 ' 1 ? ' I IY
`+ a l1 ??•? } tI111 ,7+? j? ?' fl I ? ? g79
now=