19890215 Ver al_Complete File_20100726

JUL 1989
rail
By Betty Gray
Starr Writer
The state Department of Trans
portation will challenge a decision
denying it a permit for a 45-fcx,t
high-rise bridge across Blount.,;
Creak in Beaufort County, a t.op ofli-
citll says.
The N.C. Division of Coastal
'Management turned thumbs down
yesterday on plans for the $2.8 mil-
lion span even though DOT already
has begun buying rights-of-way for
i t.
The decision was regarded as a
victory for environmentalists, in
IM11iCI dar the Pamlico-'bar River
Foundation - The P"1'RF aIf rd the
county's Environmental Task Force
opposed the bridge which they said
w%Mlld danrtge wetlands and prom
me developrncnt in the fU•ea which
would foul the water.
With 20 days to appeal, DOT will
fight the ruling, a spokesman said.
"`ry'e were somewhat surprised b)
the denial," Larry Goode, DOT pro
ject supervisor, said in a telephone
interview from Raleigh. "W,-.do plan
to appeal."
The new bridge was also opposed
by three government agencies --
Wildlife Resources Commission, Di-
vision of Marine Fisheries and the
Division of Environmental
Management.
It had the support of the Beaufirrt
Count)' Commissioners and the
(;renter Washington Chamlx r of
Commerce. A group of developers
met with the county commissioners
in 1987 and said if the bridge were
constructed, development of the
wren, including construction of it
marina, would follow.
The permit denial was announced
by John I'm-ker, head of coastal
rnanagenient's rmljor permit pro-
cessi ng section. A perrni t for the pro-
ject from coasud management was
required by the Ccricst,ll Area hlan-
agernent Act because construction
of the bridge would destroy wetland
£l1-e a S .
It, telephone interview, Parker
said al certified letter denying; the
permit was mailed to DOT Friday.
The letter cited 10 reasons for de-
nying the illmmt?4 Creek permit, in-
cluding "significant secondary im-
pact to water gaadity, wetlands and
fl-,heries" that a high-rise bridge
,rnd 'IuhscqIf cnt 111;11-ina develop-
ment would produce. Blounts Creek
ervcs as rcn overwintering ,heal for
ac variety .& fish species that would
Ix, hurt by further development, the
letter to DOT said.
-By considering the secondary ef,-
kwts of, this bridge, coast l nulnage-
rnent took a major step in trying to
prod-ct the nalurad resources of the
Pamlico-Tar Piver•," P'I'RF director
David hlcNaurght said.
Another major environmental
fight, preservation of an area of the
Roanoke River in Halifax, Bertie
and IMv-tin counties, will take cen-
ter stlge during the next two weeks
its proponent:; rlnd opponents of
wildlife refuge status for the area
Sec BRIDGE, Page 2
PAGE 2 -- WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS, 'ruESDAY, JULY 11, 1989
Bridge From P, 1
meet with Gov. Jim Martin i
Raleigh.
And on July 26, groups intereste
in a little known ecosystem on th
state's Outer Banks, the maritim
forest, will gacther in Beaufort to dis
cuss ways preservationists and de
velopors can work together to pro
test the refimining forests.
The North Carolina efforts t
sacve wilderness nr(ens are part of a
growing ruitlonw'lde rnovernent.
"Our wild lands are our most im
portant endnnge•red species," for
rner Senator Gaylord Nelson of'Wis
consin and counselor to the Wilder
ness Society has been quoted a.
1 t
n saying.
This September will mark the
d 25th anniversary of the 1964 Wil-
e derness Act which initially set aside
e 9.1 million acres of national forest to
remain forever in their natural
state. Since then, 90.7 million acres
in national jmrks, forests and wild-
life refuges have been placed off-
limits limits to roads or commercial
f development.
The 474 wilderness at'ea s range
over 44 states. They comprise four
percent of America's 2.2, billion
acres. Alaska, with 56.49 million
acres or 15.5 percent has the most
s ]find in wilderness while Ohio, with
77 acres, or .0003 percent has the
least.
North Carolina has 109,000 acres
or .4 percent of its land in wilder-
ness, 19th in the nation.
Two million acres of'open land are
lo,t to commercial development an-
nually, necordirg to the Wilderness
IN >(ciety. More than half of the na-
tion's 215 million acres of environ-
mentally critical wetlands have
lwen dostn)yr d sinc•o the 1950's, it
"rid.

" l
/ J
- __
Z-7
a--v/.
F . 0 4
?s
to STATt' o
.tea..... wV' 3
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street Y Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
July 6, 1989
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Dr. Larry R. Goode
N. C. Department of
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Transportation
Dear Dr. Goode:
Co G
19
D ?9
?"
This letter is in response to your application request for a permit under
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) to construct a new bridge immediately
upstream of an existing bridge in order to improve a Beaufort County highway
facility. The project, involving construction of an 1110 foot bridge with a
45 foot vertical clearance, is located over Blounts Creek on the SR 1112
corridor in the Blounts Creek community. Processing of your application,
which was determined complete on February 8, 1989 and for which notice of
extended review was given on April 27, is now complete.
Based on the foregoing review, including onsite investigation by
state review agencies and input by local citizens and citizens organizations,
the Division of Coastal Management has made the following findings:
1) During the course of the review, three state agencies submitted actual
objection to the proposed project, one agency submitted an expression of
concern; and two citizens organizations submitted objections;
2) The project, as proposed, calls for a three-fold increase in vertical
clearance over the Creek with a clear intent to provide for future
sailboat related marina/ residential development upstream of the new
bridge structure. No other conclusion can be reached for the proposed
navigational clearance. Significant, indirect or secondary impacts on
water quality, area wildlife habitat and important wetlands will
inevitably result from development stimulated by the new high-rise
bridge. These cumulative impacts will contribute to the continued
degradation of the already stressed Pamlico River system;
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
r
Dr. Larry R. Goode
Page 2
July 6, 1989
3) The project will result in the direct loss of .32 acre of forested
wetland. Such impacts would be avoidable with replacement by a bridge
structure of similar height and alignment to the existing structure.
Avoiding direct wetland impacts would keep the project consistent with
the Antidegradation Policy of the Environmental Management Commission's
Water Quality Standards;
4) During the review of the Environmental Assessment under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), key review agencies submitted comments
similar to those submitted in response to the CAMA permit application
record. Available alternatives discussed in the SEPA document, if chosen
by DOT, would have most likely been routinely and favorably reviewed
under this CAMA review;
5) Blounts Creek serves as an important overwintering area for estuarine
species such as striped mullet, red drum, spotted seatrout, southern
flounder and striped bass;
6) The land mass upstream of the existing bridge structure is classified as
"Rural" in the Beaufort County Land Use Plan. This land class suggests
farming, forestry and low density residential as appropriate uses.
Additionally, an area from well into the upper watershed to the shores of
Blounts Bay is shown as a "Unique Natural Area" in the Beaufort Plan.
Development of the intensity that will be stimulated by a high-rise
bridge would likely be inconsistent with the County's intended land use
for the area and would bring about predictable adverse impacts described
in item No. 2 above;
7) The applicant did not select the least environmentally damaging
alternative;
8) No documentation of the need for the selected option was provided during
SEPA review nor was such need documented in the CAMA application;
9) Because the CAMA review process, by statute, is an open public process,
we find it appropriate to quote from a letter of record from the
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation which, among other comments of interest,
states "It would seem inconsistent to build a bridge to accommodate
development, while contending that such development is too much an
uncertainty to include in the assessment of environmental impacts".
J- '
Dr. Larry R. Goode
Page 3
July 6, 1989
10) The project, as presently designed, is determined to be inconsistent with
this partial listing of Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission:
a) NCAC 7H.0207 - Public Trust Areas (c) - Management Objective which
sets forth a requirement to manage these areas so as to safeguard
and perpetuate their biological value;
b) NCAC 711.0208 - Use Standards (a)(2)(A) requires the permit-letting
authority find that the location and need for development is
consistent with the management objective; and (B) the permit-letting
authority will find no suitable alternative site exists for the
development and further that the applicant has selected a
combination of sites and design that will have a minimum adverse
impact upon the productivity and biologic integrity of important
fish and wildlife areas; and
c) NCAC 7H.0208(a)(c) requires that development not violate water
quality standards.
d) NCAC 7H.0601 which requires that no development shall be allowed in
any AEC which would result in a contravention or violation of any
rules, regulations or laws of the State or local government.
It should be noted that commenting agencies, including this office, would
interpose no objection to maintenance of the existing structure or replacement
with a structure of similar alignment and vertical clearance. This option was
discussed in the review of the SEPA document.
Given the foregoing findings, it is necessary that your request for a
permit under the Coastal Area Management Act be denied. This denial is made
under N.C.G.S. 113A-120(a)(8), which requires denial of projects inconsistent
with the State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern and
113A-120(a)(10) which requires the permit-letting body to deny a permit in any
case where the proposed development would contribute to cumulative adverse
effects that would be inconsistent with CAMA guidelines.
If you wish to appeal this denial, you are entitled to a hearing. The
hearing will involve appearing before an Administrative Law Judge who listens
to the evidence and arguments of both parties and then makes a recommendation
to the Coastal Resources Commission. Your request for hearing must be in the
form of written petition, complying with the requirements of Chapter 150B of
the General Statutes of North Carolina, and must be filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P. 0. Drawer 11666, Raleigh, NC 27604 [phone]
within twenty days of this decision on your permit application. A copy of the
petition should be filed with this office.

Dr. Larry R. Goode
Page 4
July 6, 1989
Also, you should be advised that as long as this state permit denial
stands, your project must be deemed inconsistent with the N. C. Coastal
Management program, thereby precluding issuance of Federal permits for this
project. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) gives the
right to appeal this finding to the U. S. Secretary of Commerce, within 30
days of receipt of this letter. Your appeal must be based on the grounds that
the proposed activity is (1) consistent with the objectives or purposes of the
CZMA, or (2) is necessary in the interest of national security, and thus, may
be federally approved.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. John
Parker at 919-733-2293, P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611.
S'nc ely,
TGeorgoe T. Everett
GTE/aw
cc: Don Critchfield
US Dept. of Commerce, OCRM
Washington, D. C.
Colonel Paul W. Woodbury
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, NC
I ? 3
'4Y Q.w Ny
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor June 16, 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Parker
FROM: Bill Mills
Subject: Application of Water Quality Certification
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Replacement of Blour_ts Creek Bridge
Beaufort County
Our Water Quality Section has reviewed the application for
CAMA Major Permit for the replacement of the existing SR 1112
bridge with a new bridge. The new bridge is to be located south
of, and tangential to the existing bridge. The existing bridge
is approximately 600 feet long and has a vertical clearance of
approximately 20 feet. The new bridge is proposed to be
approximately 1,110 in length and will have a 45 foot vertical
clearance. The proposed construction will result in the fill of
0.32 acres of wetlands on the west side of the creek. This
project is covered under General Water Quality Certification No.
1734, issued August 28, 1984 for bridge construction.
There are two specific concerns identified in our review that
are related to the effect of the project on water quality in this
area. one concern is the loss of the wetlands to be filled by
the new bridge. These wetlands which are waters of the State
have certain beneficial uses that must be protected. The loss of
these uses due to filling should be avoided so as to be
consistent with the Antidegradation Policy of the Environmental
Management Commission's Water Quality Standards. It is our
understanding that the fill of these areas can be avoided if the
replacemdnt bridge is built as a low-level bridge similar to the
existing bridge rather than a high-level bridge. Additionally,
we have a concern for the secondary impacts to water quality of
development activities along and in Blounts Creek that are
expected to be induced once a high-level bridge is constructed.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

John Parker - Memorandum
June 16, 1989
Page Two
The high-level bridge is intended to facilitate access to the
upper portions of Blounts Creek by high-mast sail boats and will
ultimately stimulate development in Blounts Creek.
We believe that such development pressures will threaten the vast
acreages of vegetative wetlands present in the upper portions of
Blounts Creek. Experience in similar areas has shown that the
wetland areas need to be protected in order to prevent water
quality degradation. The construction of the alternative,
low-level; replacement bridge would continue to restrict the type
of potential development as described above and help prevent
further water quality degradation.
Our concerns over the secondary impacts of the bridge
construction were clearly stated earlier in our comments on the
environmental assessment. Although this Division and several
other agencies indicated a need for further evaluation of these
impacts, it has not been made available by the State Project
Agency. Therefore, based on the loss of wetland, the potential
water problems as described above and our inability to provide
assurance that water quality will be protected, we object to the
proposed new high-level bridge. It is recommended that the
alternative replacement bridge design be pursued by the
Department of Transportation to eliminate this wetland impact and
not encourage extensive development of Blounts Creek.
BM/kls
Goode4.ltr/vol.D-1
cc: Washington Regional office
. STATE-l
?? + }} Z -1Z?
.W r-if?,? Ala:
??V U? v?N??•
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
May 26, 1988

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghous.
FROM: J. M. Greenhill._-->;?`???;,??
Manager of Pl ann/l g & Research
SUBJECT: Beaufort County, SR 1112, Bridge Over Blounts Creek,
Project 8.2150301, B-1045 -- -
Mr. Bill Ingram asked me to respond to your memorandum of May 19, 1988
regarding the subject project.
We appreciate the comments of the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development on the secondary impacts of the project. We agree there
could be potential adverse environmental consequences of increased development
in the Blounts Creek area. However, we do not believe we should address possible
secondary impacts in more detail than what are already discussed in our EA/FONSI.
These impacts are the responsibility of development and not of NCDOT, even though
our project as currently planned would facilitate development. We cannot control
development but local government and environmental regulations can. Development
will occur regardless of the type of bridge NCDOT places at the subject location.
It is no secret NCDOT's decision to construct a high level bridge was made
essentially to accommodate economic development. The County Commissioners, area
Chamber of Commerce, State.legislator, and private interests all have strongly
endorsed this project. They believe a high level bridge would help stimulate
the economy of Beaufort County through increased employment, tax base, and travel
and tourism. We believe the project, despite its higher cost, would be a good
investment toward enhancing economic development of the area.
We hope you understand our reasons for not revising the current EA/FONSI.
If we can be of further assistance on this matter, please let me know.
RGD/rm
cc: Mr. Bill Ingram
An Eoual Oooortunity/Affirmative Action Emolover
t
,` ,? ,
e w. Si.Vt °?
40
It
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. ;Martin, Governor Edythe McKinney
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee•l
Project Review Coordinator
RE: Bridge Replacement, Blounts Creek, 088-0699
DATE: May 15, 1988
In August of 1985 the Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development reviewed the Department of
Transportation's request for scoping information and had no
objections to the proposed bridge replacement. Our response
was based on replacing the Blounts Creek Bridge along the
same alignment at existing heights. According to the
EA/FONSI, the Department of Transportation has chosen to
construct a high-level bridge that not only will cost more
but would contribute to further development of the
area. Heavy development would potentially degrade water
quality in Blounts Creek.
With development already being planned in conjunction
with the construction of the high level bridge, the
Department of Transportation needs to thoroughly discuss the
issue of secondary impacts. In the attached comments our
divisions raise some significant concerns that need .to =77.7
- -` seriously considered aril adequately-Addr"e`ssea. These- issues
,are important enough that they need to be incorporated in
the EA/FONSI we reviewed in March. Once this adjustment has
been made the revised document should be recirculated for
ap
,proval.
Since the commenting period has closed, the Department
of Transportation was notified that additional comments would
be forthcoming. At that time, I was told this project was
still in the planning stages and that our additional,
comments would be accepted.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond:*
K_
MM:bc _
attachmenf %Boa 27687, Ralcigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
r
MEMO TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: Terry Sholar T
FROM: Jess Hawkins
SUBJECT: FONSI - Bridge No. 9 - Blounts Creek
State Project 8.2150301, B-1045
DATE: 26 April 1988
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has concerns over
the secondary impacts of the Blounts Creek bridge replacement project.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) seeks to replace an existing
602 ft bridge, 14-16 ft high with a 1010 ft bridge, 45 ft high.
Secondary concerns of the project involve the anticipated marina
development upstream due to the high navigational opening at the bridge.
The higher navigational opening will, of course, allow larger vessels
to utilize Blounts Creek, especially due to its already relatively deep
water (>5 ft in the middle reaches). Blounts Creek is a major spawning
and nursery area for the anadromous river herring (alewife and blueback
herring). The creek also serves as an important overwintering area for
estuarine species such as striped mullet, spotted seatrout, southern
flounder and red drum in addition to the anadromous striped bass. Intense
or large marina development have a high potential to degrade water duality
in Blounts Creek, potentially impacting the anadromous and estuarine
fish utilization of the creek.
The Department of Transportation originally proposed six alternatives
for bridge replacement. 1.1ost review agencies recom:iended using Alternatives
No. 1 and 2, which replaced the bridge in the same site or just upstream,
minimized replacement costs, and maintained existing heights. Interestingly,
DOT chose Alternative No. 5, which cost approximately 31,000;000 more than
. .
Alternatives No. 1 and 2 and involved ..rel-ocataon-.of---t hree:_dom?c?_ies-at-a
-R-Way-a`cquf sitions.
cc: 11i ke Street - Dhl'
i ii ke Gantt - USFWS
Bill Moore - DEM
Don Baker - WRC

r

APR 28 1988
y'
u1!` A, `;?r-^-.?::'.-,??•?? '. ,.
a ?-
-
k ?y"'? .' ` -.... STAL RESOURCES COMM.
'i
t ?!-1??1`{??f.? n"??i<:.-.i ?""'??N ? ?
?'
? A??l1? ~? .
it+l
_ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
712 N. Salisbury -Street, Rileigli, North (:arollina 27011, Qty-733-3 301 --
Charlcs R. Fu11\\00d, Excc utivc L)ircc tur
April 2E, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Parker, Jr., Chief
Major Permits Processing Section, DNRCD
FROM: Richard Hamilton
Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Additional Comments - DOT Bridge, Blounts Creek, Beaufort County
Further consideration of the subject project revealed that secondary
impacts were not adequately addressed in our previous review. Exploitative
development along the Blounts Creek shoreline has been limited by the presence
so the existing bridge near the mouth. The area therefore has retained many of
its natural characteristics which are conducive to high guality fish and
wildlife habitats. Construction of the high rise bridge as proposed would
result in significant secondary impacts to these resources by actually
stimulating development of commercial and residential facilities in a near
pristine situation containing extensive prime wetlands.
This agency can see no justification for construction of a much more
expensive high rise bridge which will stimulate development to the detriment of
a gh =qua3 ty=fishery aril wildlife-resources---when 'a low-- eve ri ge wi
adquately"serve transportation needs. We, therefore, strongly urge that the
issue of secondary impacts be throughly discussed in the FONSI and considered in
construction plans.
RBH/lp
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Marine Fisheries

i
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
May 6, 1988
lD nC .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Planning and Assessment
THROUGH: Roger K. Thorpe, Water Quality Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
FROM: William J. Moore, Environmental Technician V (NU
Water Quality Section
Washington Regional Office
SUBJECT: FONSI Document
Blount's Creek Bridge Replacement
Beaufort County

r.

Recently, it was brought to my attention that your office has not received any
comments from the Division of Environmental Management regarding the subject
document. The original Environmental Assessment Document for the proposed
project was circulated in late 1985. In a memo dated December 10, 1985 (copy
attached), the Division indicated no objections to Alternative 111. Alternative
111 would involve the replacement of the Blount's Creek Bridge with a low-rise
structure along the existing alignment.
According to the FONSI document dated January 29, 1988, the DOT has selected
Alternative 115 which involves' the construction of a high-rise structure (45'
vertical clearance, 90' horizontal clearance). The construction of a high-rise
bridge would allow access by larger boats, including sailing -craft, and enhance
the development potential of the area. It is my understanding that two
commercial marinas are being planned for this area, one of which is somewhat
dependent on the construction of a high-rise bridge over Blount's Creek.
It is generally accepted that marinas, and the activities usually associated
with them, have the potential to adversely affect water quality. The FONSI
:document -makes-- no -
-- - =or-t_tom-addzess---thene_:?.mpacts.::::-: _-__---_---.._:-----------.--_-----------_--_-_-
The watt; rs of Blount's Creek are classified SC, while Blount's Bay is classified
SB. Based on conversations with Jess Hawkins, Marine Fisheries Biologist, there
are no known commercial shellfish resources in Blount's Creek or Blount's Bay.
There have been numerous reports of fish kills, algae blooms, and dissolved
oxygen problems in the Pamlico River. At times, these problems have extended
into the Bays and tributaries of Pamlico River. The location of marinas in
areas which are already experiencing water quality problems could further
degrade water quality and in effect, might increase the likelaihood of
?. contraventions of existing water quality standards.
K-

Melba McGee
May 6, 1988
Page 2
The secondary impacts associated with the construction of a high-rise bridge
over Blount's Creek raises serious concerns regarding water quality. It does
not appear that these potential impacts have been properly considered in the
public review process.
WJM/ekw
Attachment
cc: Lorraine Shinn
Jess Hawkins

F-y

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
December 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Howard Moye
Regional Office Manager
FROM: William J. Moore, Environmental Technician
Washington - Northeastern Region
SUBJECT: A,95 Review
# 864380 NC DOT
Blounts Creek Bridge
Beaufort County
The subject document has been reviewed, This Division would have no -
objection to alternative #1. This alternative may be covered under
the general certification for bridge replacement.
Alternatives which result in placement of till in wetlands may require a 401
water quality certification.
WJM/cm

K-_
.a
7 '
MEMO TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Ihomas B. Richter
Division of Conrrnmity Assistance
Washington Regional Office
SUBJECT: FONSI B1045
Blounts Creek Bridge Replacement
DATE: April 29, 1988
The proposed alternative is the most expensive to the public of all
listed alternatives.
The increased costs to the general public (for other than replacement
alternatives 1, 2A and 2B) offer very little benefit: but would provide
windfall profits to upstream landowners.
Perhaps upstream owners should cost-share in the costs above those
envisioned in Alternative 2B.

TBR:jt
cc: Jess Hawkins

T
Jul
WA1 PAMLlco-T,xiz RIVER FouNDATION
SEL 11'vi d P.0.130S1854,\%ASIiINGT0N,1NC27889 [phone]
j
-? ri 7 f ]
May 24, 1989
R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
NRCD
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
l
re: Blount's Creek Bridge replacement under current CAMA
review.
Dear Paul:
We have been commenting to various agencies and
administrative offices for over a year now regarding a most
questionable project proposed by the Department of
Transportation. The enclosed comments were submitted to
CAMA in February; I understand that DEM has yet to comment
on the project.

It is our hope that your office will contest the Corps of
Engineers approval of the project under general permit. We
believe that the significant cumulative environmental
impacts associated with the project warrant an individual
404 permit. In regard to an individual permit, we would
then recommend the 401 certification be withheld until
completion of a full EIS which would address the impacts of
subsequent development of the upper creek. The whole intent
supporting the bridge replacement alternative is to foster
marina/residential development in the upper creek. This
development may result in considerable loss of wetlands and
degradation to water quality.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
David McNaught, Executive Director
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation

EDUCATION. ADVOCACY. RLSFAKCII.
?? 100",tucy00 paper
A
j t-
PA NILICO-'tAIt IZIVLIt FoUNDA-1ION
P.O. BOX 1854, AMI IIN6I ON, NC 27880 [phone]
February 21,1989
Dr. George Everett, Director
Division of Coastal Management - NRCD
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
re; DOT Project #88-E-0699; Blount's Creek bridge
replacement open for comment for major CAMA permit.
Dear George:
Congratulations on your new position with DCM; we welcome
you to the post with these comments on a proposal over which
we have been concerned for nearly a year now. As you know,
the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation is a 1,700 plus member
grassroots organization dedicated to the protection of
natural resources and high water quality standards in our
watershed. Numerous symptoms attest to the fact that our
estuarine system is under-stress from the cumulative impacts
of human activities.
We have been opposed to a proposal from the Department of
Transportation to replace the Blount's Creek bridge with an
expensive high rise option since it was first suggested.
Th,e proposed action is now open for review under CAMA. In
their assessment, DOT opted to build a new high rise bridge
rather than to simply maintain and repair the old bridge.
DOT attempts to justify their decision with an EA and FONSI
that we find inadequate. To date there has been no effort
to assess the secondary environmental impacts that would
result from development of the upper watershed of Blount's
Creek.
DOT suggests that the uncertainty of such development made
adequate consideration of it in the EA/FONSI impossible.
However, the adoption of the high-rise option for bridge
replacement and the 'local support' expressed by the County
Commissioners, is rationalized through a "need" to
accomodate future development.
It would seem inconsistent to build a bridge to accomodate
development, while contending that such development is too
much an uncertainty to include in the assessment of
environmental impacts.
During the preparation of the EA and FONSI, several review
agencies within ?rf+-1=1esources and
Community Development I€lu'¢?a¢?i;.frllu-1?D'.yit?_ti?>slite?. Division of Marine
Fisheries, Wildlife Resour&l!?,.? ion, and the Division
f
of Environmental Management) objected to the report; these
agencies did, in fact, raise concerns similar to those
expressed by us about the need to include a discussion of
the issue of secondary impacts.
This proposal, by encouraging development of a relatively
pristine area, seems to contradict the intent of Governor
Martins Coastal Intiative which was to encourage
development in areas with existing infrastructure while
protecting important undeveloped areas in their natural
state.
This action is financially, as well as environmentally,
unjustifiable. The "high rise" choice will cost taxpayers
more than SO times as much as "the maintain and repair"
alternative. In addition, the high-rise alternative was
encouraged with a $100,000 offer from developers (the Jessup
Group of New York City) with interests in the upper Creek.
Even this relatively small investment by those who stand to
profit substantially, leaves the taxpayer with the nearly $3
million expense of building this bridge.
We appreciate your attention to our concerns. Like you, we
believe that future development of the coastal region must
not be at the expense of the environment.
Sincerely,
awp,?(Kt*g
David McNaught, Executive Director
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
' `' + ?..t l?? ms's; 3 _
-- - - ' rw.r?•.r - ?? ..?r n.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
f)CITT i,I :I:N Q !=':I:l...E: 1'1 r^s4 i R'' I' :t-J :t) ? !°C?I;i°i 1 11 F, t:;r°tiir°s ilE:?<; i 1:l; ;:?;;'
C.,C?I";i) I IA"S, 1:rl:::i! i',I Ir^si'1G;1".D , f*;E.C., .?i lt:? i0:::> s i 1='1(C) 1) 1 (>;
C) J : NC 1)ClI:rl...t.?t.Ji TIS, CF ,1< :BF,,DC' C't:?1..11,l.T .''r : (3 E::r'tt.11"taf;T' i E C, :C?i:} : ;...,
4, 0 1) I i! 1 is 0 :I: C E::: i!
i7C:IE-;T1"'.I:ia:0N i;;E::C;('.'I itl:.,N.)
.r. t . i
x r,' ? 1 1°'i! . ..i,)?i E?;E:::i:, • t.Ji:: • I?;I:::t:'E:.I: ?: f::? s: ?,.? ,.:
C. (I 'i A C) i l I : 'r' C; (:; : D F' 'i:1) (:, I: i:;
1)1'' C'f`si'ir^t (Jf I::: t:)
I::. (.. L:..i. ''v .1. I'! Cr _ , "S,
i:::r^t DI...C)I. I .iIT'S' (:'i 1:::1- 1' C."IS 1..
>"1'f; ii
`• (.. l" s^s
" ET F 1...(a(:'f'tT F., 1) .:: F' i 1 1 r' r>s f DI._Clt.JNTS'
F'!1,0F,:? L. T' (a RE,F,I...r"r(:'l::: TIIE. E:: 'S T'TNG; 1.*4L.0UNTCE,;E 17K' 1:{1-;1:1)G;E., C) N F'1 -i i :;r. t.J:I:T}'I 0 i''1I::: WIAT'C'I- I
t,:l I... I... I-I A %, I': 1:) 4 ` 1::: 1" '1' :E (:: r^s L_ i:: I_.1: r^t I ; r't i ! C' I:-
2 AC'0F' WC)C?1)E::1) .::(!,lr^sHF, t-,I:EL_E_ D1::: F':f.1...L.1:1) ON TIll:i: tJT .'1:1)E'
>':I:T'1::: :1: 11 t;I:::.>T(:;PIT (:li! ON t?J a"?s'1' E:: I'?; 1)1::: I?' L•i: i d 1)1.x: ?'!'1''°• r"t ?? C.1:f:1) F'c 1:t l._ E::
rr^tCI di(:'C?i 'jF::i1"1
C 01:1 T.: Wf.) ;' C'I:.:NT E;r°sI i°i:1:i...1.... 1)C',H

w
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
March 6, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: William C. Mills
Operations Branch
jk r';V..y.,--
THROUGH: Roger K. Thorpe, Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Washington Regional Office
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental Technician
Water Quality Section, WaRO
SUBJECT: NC DOT - Blounts Creek Bridge Replacement Construction
Beaufort County
This office recommends denial of the above subject project. The NC
DOT proposes to fill 0.32 acres of wooded swamp in order to construct
the new high level bridge. It is the opinion of this office that this
proposed fill in wetlands is water dependent but avoidable. The
Division has taken the recent posture to recommend denial of all such
projects. The placement of this new high level bridge is to
facilitate larger boats and ultimately stimulate exploitative
development. The upper areas of the Creek from the present bridge
contain vast acreage of vegetative type wetlands. These areas need to
be protected in order to prevent degradation of water quality to the
waters of the Creek. If the NC DOT were to replace the present bridge
with a low level bridge, as presently in place, the wetlands and
waters of the Creek will be protected and transportation will
adequately be served.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of this office that this project is
avoidable and alternatives should be considered. The alternative of a
low level bridge replacement will serve transportation needs,
protect valuable wetlands from destruction through development, and
result in protecting water quality from further degradation.
DS/cm

G=?ftF+"?f0?' ";2;1?ZC1
'fGTQ?Y :dFrr?v
L?
Memorandum
To: Jim Mulligan V
From: David Gossett v?
Subj: Application for CAMA Major Permit and/or Dredge & Fill Permit
N.C. DOT - Blounts Creek Bridge
Beaufort County
Date: 13 February 1989
Attached is an application for a CAMA Major permit which was received by me on
8 February 1989. I am considering this application complete, have acknowledged
receipt, and have begun processing.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me.
STATE °
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
13 February 1989
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
Me attached copy of an application submitted by:
David W. Owens
Director
N.C. Department of Transportation
Applicant's Name
Blounts Creek Beaufort Count
Location of Project County
for a State permit to perform excavation and/or fill
work in coastal North Carolina and for a CAMA major
development permit...
X for a CAMA major development permit (only) ...
... is being circulated to State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
over the subject matter which might be affected by the project.
Please indicate on the reverse side of this form your viewpoint on
the proposed work and return it to me not later than 6 March 1989
Sincerely,
h R. Parker, Jr., Chief
Major Permits Processing Section
JRP:ap:2480
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative A, Lion Employer
(A) This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
(B) This agency has no comment on the project as proposed.
(C) This agency approves of the project (or project concept) and/or recommends
these minor refinements for project management.
(D) This agency objects to the project and recommends permit denial based on a
finding of:
(1) adverse impacts under G.S. 113-229(e) 1-5 (the dredge and fill law)as
enumerated below:
(e)(1) ... that there will be significant (e)(2) ... that there will be signifi-
adverse effect of the proposed dred-
ging and filling on the use
of the water by the public;
(e)(3) ... that there will be significant
adverse effect on public health,
safety, and welfare;
cant adverse effect on the value
and enjoyment of the property of
any riparian owners;
(e)(4) ... that there will be signifi-
cant adverse effect on the con-
servation of public and private
water supplies;
(e)(5) that there will be significant
adverse effect on wildlife or
fresh water, estuarine or marine
fisheries;
(1) Inconsistency with Rules of the Coastal Resources Commission
as enumerated in 15 NCAC 7H (or other). Please site
rule.
V
(3) Inconsistency with the local Land Use Plan (Please elaborate).
(4) Inconsistency with Rules, Guidelines or Standards of
this agency or a finding that the project is in conflict
with other authority or interest as stipulated below.
(E) Attachment. Include memorandum or other documentation that support
findings relating to D1-4 or provide general comments.
Signature
ate
vxvx.l)-xvv ur' I:VA.7TyU• Vilm"Im3rmm"iL LdL; }D 17 37 lV
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT Long: 76° 58' ! W
1, APPLICANT' S NAME N.C. Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE Beaufort County, Bl of ints Creek, SR 1112
photo # 12-24-84, 67-1546, F-16, G-17, F-17, G-18, H-18
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: DREDGE & FILL CAMA X
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE:
(A) DATES OF SITE VISIT 2-8-89
(B) WAS APPLICANT PRESENT No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: APPLICATION RECEIVED 2-8-89
OFFICE Washington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION: (A) LOCAL LAND USE PLAN Beaufort County
LAND CLASSIFICATION FROM LUP Conservation
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS IDENTIFIED IN LUP None
(B) AEC(S) INVOLVED: OCEAN HAZARD
COASTAL WETLANDS
ESTUARINE WATERS
ESTUARINE SHORELINE
PUBLIC TRUST WATERS X
- OTHER -
(C) WATER DEPENDENT: YES NO X
(D) INTENDED USE: PUBLIC X PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
(E) TYPE OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT: EXISTING N/A
PLANNED N/A
(F) TYPE OF STRUCTURES: EXISTING Bridge f 20' clearance
PLANNED Bridge 45' clearance
(G) ESTIMATED ANNUAL RATE OF EROSION N/A SOURCE N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
AREA
(A) VEGETATED WETLANDS DREDGED FILLED OTHER
Wooded swamp + 0.32 acres
(B) NON-VEGETATED WETLANDS:
(C) OTHER:
Bridge approaches
(D) TOTAL AREA DISTURBED:
Undetermined
+ 0.32 acres
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to replace the existing Blounts
Creek bridge on SR 1112 with one which will have a 45' vertical clearance.
Environmental setting
The project site is the bridge on SR 1112 across Blounts Creek in Beaufort County.
The bridge which is + 600' in length and which has a vertical clearance of + 20'
above the NWL at the center span was constructed in the early 1980's and is
presently in disrepair. New support pilings have been placed beneath the bridge
in the recent past, however, the decking and guard rails have deteriorated. No
large developments occur in the vicinity of the bridge. Existing are mostly single
family summer cottages and one general store. Vegetation along the edges of
Blounts Creek in the vicinity of the bridge vary from upland grasses to various
types of marsh fringes. The creek has a natural channel of approximately -18'
in depth at NWL from its mouth at the Pamlico River to some point upstream of the
existing bridge. Also upstream fram the bridge very little development exists,
other than scattered single family dwellings. Much of the creek is bordered by
upland areas vegetated by pines, and hardwoods. In many areas along the creek
vast areas of wooded swamp occur. Only small fringes of coastal wetlands (marsh)
occur.
Proiect proposal
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing bridge. The new bridge will be
1,110' in length and will be constructed south of and tangential to the existing
bridge. The new bridge will have a 45' vertical clearance. With the change in
vertical clearance (+ 20' to 45' above NWL) vessel traffic within the creek will
definitely change. At the present time no vessels other than outboards can navigate
upstream of the existing bridge, however, with the new bridge, high masted sail-
boats can navigate upstream.
At the west end of the proposed bridge an area of wetlands vegetated with mostly
cypress and red maple exists. This area is flooded irregularly as a result of
high tides within Blounts Creek. The project as proposed will result in the filling
of 0.32 acres of the wetland area as the result of approach fill which is needed for
the bridge. At the point where the bridge is to come ashore on the east shoreline
no wetlands exist. At this location is a + 15' in height vertical eroding bank.
Environmental impact
As a result of the bridge construction 0.32 acres of wooded swamp wetlands will be
filled on the west side of Blounts Creek. No other wetlands will be impacted. The
applicant is proposing no excavation of work channels for new bridge construction
or for the demolition of the existing bridge.
Some short term turbidity will exist within the creek as a result of the bridge
construction.
The major change that will occur as a result of the new bridge will be the opening
of upper Blounts Creek area to development. As previously stated high masted
vessel traffic has been restricted by the present bridge. All of the lands
upstream of the existing bridge are rural in nature and the only development that
exists is sparsely located single family dwellings.
David L. Gossett - Washington Office - 13 February 1989
0
?G ?tio4oPS
0
e?c
1
Pc?
erc
?' ??a? 5 113 P`
EGG aF`?? ti9
OSea?G `'' 113,ti VFvc`
? C'' a??? ?5 eal
?n
?evens ,R?,1ti lce??? Q? , °? Otve of 1?q9
EGG ?1a?ecs 4????? Pc`
any ? PC"-
Ste'
a
enc
of CO ens °F uri`Icl
? G oJ?ces enc
4?Q Vey°???Q
F 0.???1
C)OX, ,, p of cue
f 4 a?e? Pc
o
S??.,o? l Coe,
4 G?eat?
awe V,
-,Ne
O`SC et 0 °F
F
oc
ec??°o ?S o
5 Ply
Please type or print. Carefully describe all an-
ticipated development activities, including constric-
tion, excavation, filling, paving, land clearing, and
stormwater control. If the requested information is
not relevant to your project, write N/A (not ap-
plicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9 must be completed for'
all projects.
d. Descrilx; the planned.use of the project.
Public Transportation _
Increase in bridge height _accomodate
vessel traffic
,0
a.
Size of entire tract
Size of individual lot(s)
Elevation of tract above mean sea level or Na-
tional Geodetic Vertical Datum
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Dorovan-.lohnston series
Vegetation on tract Successional transitional
into rium-Cvnress.
Man-made features now on tract
North Carolina Department of Transportationb.
a. Name L. R. Goode, Ph.D., PE- C.
Address P. 0. Box 25201.
City Raleigh State NC d
Zip 27611 Day phone [phone]
Landowner or X Authorized agent e
b. Project name (if any) N/A
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give f.
the owner's name and address. g
a. Street address or secondary road number
SR 1112
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Blounts Creek
c. County Beaufort
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? NO
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Blounts Creek
a. Describe all development activities you propose
(for example, building a home, motel, marina,
bulkhead, or pier)
NCDOT Public Roadway and Bridge
If you plan to build a marina, also complete
and attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an ex-
isting project, new work, or both?
New Work
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Puhl i r. t)se
rk.mpr3 and operated by NCDOT
What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classifica-
tion of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
i. How are adjacent waters classified? C
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? Yes
If so, by whom? NCDnT
Complete this section if the project includes any
upland development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed
b. Number of lots or parcels
c. Density (Give the number of residential units
and the units per acre.)
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than
one acre of land, the Division of Land
Resources must receive an erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan at least 30 days before land
disturbing activity begins. If applicable, has a
sedimentation and erosion control plan been
submitted to the Division of Land Resources?
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of mean high water to be covered by im-
permeable surfaces, such as pavement,
buildings, or rooftops.
-1
t. List tk-e materials, such as marl paver s:one,
asphalt, or concrete, to be used for paved
surfaces. Asphalt for Roadway,
Concrete for. Bridge
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management
plan been submitted to the Division of En-
vironmental Management?
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities. N/A
j. Have these facilities received state or local
approval? N/A
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
N/A
b. Amount of material to be excavated from
below water level in cubic yards None
c. Type of material N/A
d. Does the area to be excavated include marsh-
land, swamps, or other wetlands? NZA
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards _NLL_
f. Dimensions of spoil disposal area N/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area N/A
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? N/A
i.
If not, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance?/ N/A
If so, where? N/A
Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamplland,'or water areas? N/A
Will the fill material be placed below mean
high water? No
Amount of fill in cubic yards N/A
Type of fill material SLi_ _ h1 e Earth Fill Materi
Source of fill material Off-Site Borrow Pit
Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes
Dimensions of the wetland to be filled 0.32 Ac.
How will excavated or fill material be kept on
site and erosion controlled? standardNCDCYP
I.
1. Describe location and type of discharges to
waters of the state (for example,-surface runoff, k.
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, or "wash down"). Storm wa a 1.
From Roadway As Shown on Individual in.
Site Plats n.
in. Water supply source Rainfall o.
n. If the project is oceanfront development,
describe the steps that will be taken to main- p.
tain established public beach accessways or pro- q•
vide new access. N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will r.
be the elevation above mean sea level of the
first habitable floor? N/A
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excava-
tion or fill activities (excluding bulkheads,
which are covered in Section 7).
Length Width Depth
Access channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Boat basin
Other (break-
water, pier,
boat ramp,
rock jetty)
Fill placed in
wetland or below
MHW
Upland fill
areas
See I ividua
Site lats.
Ana seamen A ,on M-Asir s iu ir- tences,
Si l t Basins and ChPC-k E?M,;)
What type of construction equipment will be
used (for example, dragline, backhoe, or
hydraulic dredge)? Mechanical Highway
Construction Equipment.
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equip-
ment to the project site? No If yes, explain
the steps that will be taken to lessen en-
vironmental impacts. N/A
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water
or normal water level
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months,
in feet
d. Type of bulkhead material
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed
below mean high water
f. Type of fill material
2
NO t
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected property. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then for-
ward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permis-
sion from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate work plat (including plan view and
cross sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on 8 1h x 11 white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 7j.0203 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if 16
high quality copies are provided by the applicant.
(Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regard-
ing that agency's use of larger drawings.) A site or
location map is a part of plat requirements and it
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency per-
sonnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include
county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like.
A stormwater management plan, if applicable, that
may have been developed in consultation with the
Division of Environmental Management.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners. These
individuals have 30 days in which to submit com-
ments on the proposed project to the Division of
Coastal Management. The applicant must advise
the adjacent landowners of this opportunity by sen-
ding a copy of the permit application to them by
registered or certified mail. This notification is re-
quired by G.S. 113-229(d).
Name SEE ATTACHED SHEET #11
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
A check for $100 made payable to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community
Development to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in ocean-
front and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the
project involves the expenditure of public funds, at-
tach a statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
Any permit issued in response to this application
will allow only the development described in the
application. The project will be subject to condi-
tions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the pro-
posed activity complies with the State of North
Carolina's approved Coastal Management Program
and will be conducted in a manner consistent with
such program.
1 further certify that I am authorized to grant, and
do in fact, grant permission to representatives of
state and federal review agencies to enter on the
aforementioned lands in connection with
evaluating information related to this permit ap-
plication and follow-up monitoring of project.
This is the - day of
19fiS _
LaZl6wner or Authorized agent
Send the completed application materials to the
Division of Coastal Management Office nearest you
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. See the
map on the inside front cover for the appropriate
DCM office and addresses and phone number.
3
j :1llrumur
' I 99 "1' keno, ?? 45
S I TE
?_ J?• e
wlil {NW ?I `r ,
Panteao 1 H Y D
t i C1e lern 7 Leechvdle ..lot
Calm I
32 2
261 2 M{ I
Yeatesvllle
99 I Belhaven J r 15 ake.
inl?
R T (. Scra .1/
.?l 92 a Bath a Wlnsteadvllle
Sladesvllle
1
BaYvlew ..'.Ile
I?
A / k 1
Core iEierll nI? 1 I
Pant ? Pamlico Beach If, ..
onnerlon r- _
I ? fl ?.ai./ 1
I South
rd 1 / Creek 1 Lowland \
/.I.IKO M
uraa Royal 12 ?.
` Hobucken
? ly
IN k M sic
Hollyvdle
II ICashComet ) SVandemere aorh
+ Marlbe 2 , If-,u H M.. rr
n ,Barbao / florence
20 -•-? SCALE Of MILES ONE INCH EQUALS APPROR 13 MILES
/ l0 e0 ?a SCALE Of KILOMETERS ONE INCH CQUALS APPROk 21 KILOMETERS
i' ; \ °, ..`,I -.r -: ??r '-ITS _li .\ " 11„ \1 ?\ - -... t?. ? ?(/`1 1. ??V"? III. r I -, ? . ,y
_ \ IIII
F.\I? l,?\.f 1 i\ 11 {2 `; /_J?(jr~(^' r? ill. \\I`
r e Ilsr?1 ? ? '?Y?
f ? . ? . nah rat >.
? •' 117. ? I IIII ? , ?['C I10 /?J \ /J
t 111• ' 1111 • tllf =
A I u ?.
.1 Y' ?l `? nil Y , \ ,? - •? _ ?_...,,.? ?. .. !?Ilu? l _
t ..
• nn ` ? 111. .`
r s ???s r uIJ?
N
' ` nv Eph.sw Chi 'r If/. 01 Al,) /? Tt-
?) . \I II/ ? ? ' Ills ? Illr \
I lal \\\
l./ ? ----? •? X11 OI,II 14 . Il.r 1 ?
i/ BOnOT `) /q?III?? 1 \ III] 4f _
1I2e l? 1II4 )'•, (11. '?\; 11 IIII ? _ -
.12v A
° ? J,?1. nn ?In nuI J i
C'..k Ch.
M;:Ilaw Br°MII Ch. ;J ` Y l '` 1
^ w V Jr
I? IIII 1 S
Il,r \\\ al ?.. I a ??=1•) U ? I.JI Ilbll V 1\ ,
' +'" a r(? \\IS .?f 11' rf 1. ?,•J?.II M.eJ
III. ---. (: ,/[/ •c\hr tl.unfl Ch.
I .? ,? ` `''??• rY?l ? ?: 1 ? . I;ar.rdl CAop.l ? ,I ..+ I
Y I v
,? \ k ? "?" u..r ',• r` SCALE
" i
•.' If I r• {- i r I 0 1 7 _ ] amllES N
VICINITY I:./ P
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT COUNTY
I PROJECT 6.503205 (B-1045)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE;
NO. '9 OVER BLOUNTS CREEK
ON SR 1112
SHEET I OF
PROM
A-
EX STING -EDGE OF _? - - - -
PAVEMENT
5?. PRUP EDGE
OF FAaVE1,JU AT
18 RCP--i-
111` PROP S.R.1112 z
SR
4 TONS G
CLASS 1E , I--
top
STONE
TOE OF i
SLOPE ?; ?•? LATERAL VDITCH _ A
PROP YW /
EDGE OF WEl L! N I -- /
/
Ci 5c)
HGR?. SCALE -
IC+GG 17+0 CG
FILL IN N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIGN
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PROJECT 6.503205 (B-1045)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO.-9 OVER BLOUNTS CREEK
ON SR 1112
SHEET OF f1
CLASS II RIP R P
F
PROP RWN,,?i N
O
BLOUNT
' KF f <,
d'3 m
LLJ
PROP $,R? I I12
Q% 0 PROPOSED BRIDGE
-CREEK-
PROP TOE OF z
SLOPE O 18 CM S? -
X1..1' .
EDGE OF WETLANDS
0' ScH 0RZ. SCALE - ? -
19+00
20+00
21+00
FILL IN WETLANDS

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PROJECT 6.503205 (B-1045)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO. 9 OVER BLOUNTS CREEK
ON SR 1112
SHEET 3 OF II
JNi-1 H31-VN
w
Lij
rlr
u
Cf)
z
0
1
m
z
O
lO
N
w
A
o

E
-4 P?
4
cA4
O ?0

a .?
Vl ? W U
•
? O U
o o
o
o x mo
a0
4m
W
OUn%
a N
H i
a
1
o.?
OU
AO
H
w
• W 44 w o Rai H
U?-I:D h a cn w
W a a 43
o z
• H W.
PM a NZ cn
0
O
N ?
E
CD
ry)
N
G?
r1
o .
o
N
Ll.?
U
N
Cr
9, IIN I ? 1--i3i W 0
-? rn I H a
v o?
I O a oww
O a i' 0
LL I cn cA as zH u
o x a °a o
1 a o w c?a
Hou°
A H o U o vii
?•?- ??! ??` ` ?ny` u>aooa%W w
p ?b0? •Hwaaoz x
zAWWa,zo ca
-1-
\ Cam, ? ? •, N
0 `.

is
J .SIN I I ii-WH
W
O A
a
m
L,
m
%T ?4
0W
o
o H

- oz
a v) vI m Ei U
v
? W W Z H
.

o
??
? C7 oU
ox Ma
°
o

O a
?
(D
CC E- W C_) rq I
o J N
W
H
A8P ?I
o_ o I EA
0
HOL)U)

-
Z •cnWW0MP4
UH?hW V] E-+
W
HW9aOZ .m
C N
ZOMNNZO
w
`Lf) -
N
a
a
z
o
O
LO U

V
O O
rz l
I i
U .
V / -
N o
L <
Q L.1
z
Lo
LL)
L?
o z ,
_
Lo w N
0 II
w -? O I IJ
-? _ >
Li "7
J N-
?
CI_

O r
?-- p p
O O O O O
d' r7 ti -'
W i

O A

W
O
o
a
I N I?
HXVN ?
AL
o 0 o W
W
0 A4 -
U
N vl? pgH
1 v
r
i x to
4 -
I a C7 o U
o
1 x oaa
x
I d E 0 L) N ti.
P4 t?
0
r,
,
m
EA 0
r
-
i
0 0
HODUI
O 1 •tn ww0ma H

O
I
> a 0
0
U

W
Q Hw a
oz
a
aaazo
0
x
to
U a
x
- w -

N "I:

m ?

W
U)

O 1
a

0
a ?
p
O i

CID
I
i
w
Q I LLJ
o
o a
+ I z Q ?
_ o I O U
< J

o I Q O
U
N
? >
CL
I F _
Z
, p `O
O a N to
O
+
C9 `
I I I I O O ~
O O O O O p C_>
Ul) d n N - i
O
cr
N
O
O
M
N
O
O
N
N
O
0
N
O
O
N

3Nn NOIVA
w ..
z c?
o A
H H
a

v b4
a
0
2 -orb
t!]
? Lq u
3
3 Ln
C7 0U
0
0
W4
0 0
oaaa
U?%
War4
HO I
wq??
A
r °°

AO 4E+
O.
-4 I
HOU(n
• W W W O M a H
Ufa O W
•Hwaaoz x
z0maazo W
W L.LJ

Q

U
N
O W

,O O
Ln N
O 1-0 1
Cl IINI? HXVN
I I ` I
O
Om 0 0 v 0 J
Ln re)
W
H ?H
• PG o wW
_ J 3NI-1 HD1dW 2 rl'°l
I C Ln =
I c? oU
•wUL a N
HO
40 A4 M
W r-+
AODUNOr?-+4
=towWO?LL' H
I U ?-? ] h W V] W
•Hwa9Oz x
?v I I
I
I
I
i
I
o I z
w I I
I -?
o I
=I z J J
= I U U
z
N Q
cc I ? W
CL
O I I o I .O
Cr L N
a I
o
+ flo
N - N H VN °
1 1 I 1' '( 1 1
O 0 0 0 0 O
- - 28+00 29+
0-
0-
0- PROP BRIDGE
0- W
W MEAN HIGH TIDE -'-
-Z ELEV. I.O±

S
G- NATURAL GROUND
Q
0 50
HORZ. SCALE
0 20
J. VE ITT
SCALE N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
301+0.0
PROP ROAD GRADE
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PROJECT 6.503205 (B-1045)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO.-9 OVER BLOUNTS CREEK
ON SR 1112
SHEET IO OF II

I
f ;
lO James B. Kelly
2 North Forth Avenue
Ocean Breeze Park
Jensen Beach, Florida 33457
O Floyd L. Baker
Route 10, Box 346
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
John S. ChAmblee, Sr.
v 509 East Church Street
Nashville, North Carolina 27856
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIOr
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PROJECT 6.503205 (B-1045)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDC
NO. 9 OVER BLOUNTS CREEK
ON SR 1112