19940692 Ver 1_Complete File_19940728

ai
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 25, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Columbus/Brunswick Counties, Replacement of Bridge
No. 72 over the Waccamaw River and Bridge No. 63
over Friar Swamp on NC 130. T.I.P. No. B-2120,
State Project No. 8.1430801.
Attached for yur information is a copy of the project
planning rport for the subject project. The project is being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 330
Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991 by the Corps of
Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A
(C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction
of the project.
We anticipate that a Coastal Area Management Act permit will
be required from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
The NCDOT will apply directly to DEHNR for that permit.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
B.J. ' nn, P.E.
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
?#601
C
Attachment
cc: Ernie Jahnke, COE
John Dorney, DEM
Kelly Barger, Program Development Branch
Don Morton, State Highway Engineer-Design
A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
John L. Smith, Structure Design Unit
Tom Shearin, State Roadway Design Engineer
W. F. Rosser, Division 6 Engineer
D. J. Bowers, Division 3 Engineer
Michelle Fishburne, Project Planning Engineer
7r®.
wST
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 25, 1994
Office of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
ATTENTION: John Parker
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill
SECRETARY
Subject: Columbus/Brunswick Counties, Replacement of Bridge
No. 72 over the Waccamaw River and Bridge No. 63
over Friar Swamp on NC 130. T.I.P. No. B-2120,
State Project No. 8.1430801.
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace the existing bridges over the Waccamaw River and
Friar Swamp. This project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion". It is
expected that this project will be authorized by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions
of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project. A copy of
the Categorical Exclusion document is enclosed for your
information.
It is our understanding that a Coastal Area Management Act
permit is required for the replacement of Bridge No. 72 over
the Waccamaw River. Enclosed you will find an application
for this permit, and the required application fee. If you
need any additional information, please call Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone].

Ib
Sincerely, _
B. ' inn, P.E.
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Ernie Jahnke, COE
John Dorney, DEM
Kelly Barger, Program Development Branch
Don Morton, State Highway Engineer-Design
A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
John L. Smith, Structure Design Unit
Tom Shearin, State Roadway Design Engineer
W. F. Rosser, Division 6 Engineer
D. J. Bowers, Division 3 Engineer
U
Please type or print.. Carefully describe all anticipated.
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stormwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
a. Name N. C. Department of Transportation
Address
Post Office Box 25201
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 Day phone [phone]
Landowner or X Authorized agent
B-2120, 8.1430801
b. Project name (if any)
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also- give the
owner's name and address... ..
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT .
a. Street address or secondary road number
NC 130
If you plan to build a marina, also : complete and <_
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
New work on existing facility
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Public use
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Public Highway
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS ;
a. Size. of entire tract N?A
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
tf- 11 meters
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Munksl .e lnam
e. Vegetation on tract Cypress-gum swamp
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Brunswick/ Columbus County Line f. Man-made features now on tract existing roadway
c. County Brunswick and Columbus
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
0 jurisdiction? N/A
0
e. Name of body of water nearest project
4' 1 Waccamaw River
-
0-
0*
1
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,
or pier). Construct new bridge structures,
grade, pave, drain highway facility
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
?- Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
N/A
i. How are adjacent waters classified?
C-Sw
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? No If so, by whom?
3/91 i
5 UPLAND DEVELOPMENT
Complete this section if the project includes any-land
development.
a. Type and number of buildings, facilities, or
structures proposed Roadway fill and
twom replacement bridges
b. Number of lots or parcels N/A
c. Density (Give the number of residential units and the
units per acre.) N/A
d. Size of area to be graded or disturbed
7840 sq. meters
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation 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? NA ,
f. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet of
mean high water to be covered by impermeable
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops.
NA
g. List the materials, such as marl, paver stone, asphalt,
or concrete, to be used for paved surfaces.
Asphalt road pavement and concrete
bridge decks.
h. If applicable, has a stormwater management plan
been submitted to the Division of Environmental
Management? N/A
i. Describe proposed sewage disposal and/or waste
water treatment facilities.
N/A
0
J
?j. Have these facilities received state or local approval?
o N/A
0
k. Describe existing treatment facilities.
1. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state (for example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down"). Surface runoff
m. Water supply source N/A
n. If the project is oceanfront development, describe
the steps that will be taken to maintain established
public beach accessways or provide new access.
N/A
o. If the project is on the oceanfront, what will be the
elevation above mean sea level of the first habitable
floor? N/A
6 EXCAVATION AND FILL
INFORMATION
a. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation
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
b. Amount of material to be excavated from below
water level in cubic yards None
N/A
N/A
N/A

C•:vi;•: yry

c. Type of material N/ A
d. Does the area to be excavated include marshland,
swamps, or other wetlands?
N/A
e. High ground excavation, in cubic yards
None
3/91
f. 'Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
g. Location of spoil disposal area NI/ A
h. Do you claim title to the disposal area? N/A
If not, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
i. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? N/A
If so, where? NIA
j. Does the disposal area include any marshland,
swamps, or water areas?
N/A
k.
1.
m.
n.
c. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months, in
feet N/A
d. Type of bulkhead material N/A
e. Amount of fill, in cubic yards, to be placed below
mean high water N/A
f. Type of fill material N/A
8 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the follow-
ing items must be submitted:
Will the fill material be placed below mean high A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other
water? No instrument under which the applicant claims title to the
affected property. If the applicant is not claiming to be
Amount of fill in cubic yards 3720 m3 (4951 c. y •) the owner of said property, then forward a copy of the
Type of fill material Suitable fill material deed or other instrument under which the owner claims
title, plus written permission from the owner to carry out
Source of fill material Suitable borrow the project.
o. Will fill material be placed on marsh or other
wetlands? Yes ...
p. Dimensions of the wetland to be filled
15mx1m
q. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled?
silt fences and basins with other
appropriate erosion control measures
r. What type of construction equipment wiU be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Standard highway construction
equipment.
s. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Nn If yes, explain steps that will
be taken to lessen environmental impacts.
0
v'
K
i
Z
0
0
7 SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Length of bulkhead or riprap N/A
b. Average distance waterward of mean high water or
normal water level N/A
3/91
An accurate work plat (including plan view and cross
sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black ink on an 8
12 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 18 high
quality copies are provided by applicant. (Contact the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding 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 personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include county road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and
the like.
A storniwater 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 comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management and should be advised by the applicant of
that opportunity.

0
a
K
z'
A
O
O
1
Name . Mave:.9 Webber
Address .545 Inwood-Drive
Charlotte, NC 28209
Name William B.. Mintz
Address 6048 Kingtown Road
Ash. NC 28420
Name Esther B. Miles/ Kenneth Babson
Address Route 1, Box 396
Ash. NC-28420
A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
none
A check for $250 made payable to the Department of .
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources to cover
the costs of processing the application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront
and inlet areas.
A statement on the use of public funds. If the project
involves the expenditure of public funds, attach a state-
ment documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to 10).
4
9..; CERTIFICATION AANDA PERMISSION
. TO ENTER ON LAND. .
Any permit issued in response to this application will
allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to conditions and restrictions
contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's ap-
proved Coastal Management Program and will be con-
ducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I 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 application and follow-up monitoring of
project:
This is the aO/ day of J ?'?' , 19
X
Lando er or thori d agent
3/91
s
cr
w
OOZ+I
J
J

m _
W
i-
N

m x
w
Q-
w

w
}
Q .
LL1 v
d
UJ
Qa
J -
U OC
U
O
D
3
0
J
O 1
F- I
x
w
0001I- I
J
i
I ?
Z Q
<
I -?
i f-
I W -
I
' J
1
? J
I
H
Z
NLLJ
X w
Q 3
d
I
I
I
a?a
F
a
O
z
w
a
a
FA .
W
U
N
O
O
Z
CL w
o?
cr- w
' a¢
a
N
H
Z
CL U
00

z ( I z
f-w a
-'I
LLI
wQ I o
• a / I
I l cn
w
I I pa ~
0
T
a I l
I m
l
l 1
0 0 t,7 4-1 X.
J Li.l i
J
?0\
1 J ?` r
m ?i? \1 l
Os
19 I O ` L LI
v -
w - •? I c? I ?
w i-- , z z
?- LL M
i? ?- - - -
OZ l?I z
?< Imo. - ?? 3tps
w
w w w
ww om °" O
Z
°
--- Y w Of
oca
I-- -j r
I l
OOE+I ?vS C,?c/-?( I
Go?vMS/\ ? I ,
F -
z
CL LLJ CL tD
O? Op
[Lw ?x
CL Q am
CL

I v' '
<klaa
i
I <F-
ti-
t ? ti- J
I
i
t?

w cr
L7 Liw
COQ
w
3NI-1 H01VIN
a
0
w
ra
U
IQ
z c
g

o 0 >
' 5 0
M

I
F rTr
C Q'
? C U
z j
\

00

o co

U
F

Wz
c?
yl

I
I, U A p a F
XaC
C13
Lij . o-
J -O U W W

r

C\j

/ o
z
Q.
' o
- o G
1 CC CC
CL co I
I
I I

co

C
0 I
D

cr- 0
??
r
ate. I z

- o U
F
o
M
W
\
a
- C\j x
N
I N

0

_ o 0
N _O co lD

? c/1 CV
U? W a?
!o° ax ?0?
"' : vs °OHZ w
s c'
u -oo Or:n:? W W p U OI
u U A O ?'
0 o a s H
CO cc
I CO
a
a.
O
CL V)
I X - O a
a
00
(n 1 O
co
J 1
J 1 cD ? W
~ U a
w
I a ?
I } o v
? o o ? H
J- Z O W
o ( p O
- N x
d I~ ? I p E
a 1 0 N N
I w z I _ °
O O
?p
N O co

N O
- - co

N

O

N

? w
0
u
r
W a
°-
d 1 Ln
-
a
F--
X \ N

W 1 a
O
N

x
>
?
z0 N
LO
N
N O co O O
N E

/ / W H O
/
Lf) N
ti
yy
Q w ? z
w W
L:?j p
I o ® z a

Q) Em-4

U) ? d

w o

H

coy

?? O

PROPERTY OWNER
NAME AND ADDRESS
PARCEL NO. OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS

--- Maye M. Webber 545 Inwood Drive
Charlotte, NC 28209
--- William B. Mintz 6048 Kingtown Road
Ash, NC 28420
--- Esther B. Miles Route 1, Box 396
Ash, NC 28420
--- Kenneth Babson Route 1, Box 396
Ash, NC 28420
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
COLUMBUS/ BRUNSWICK CO'S.
PROJECT: 8.1450801 (B-2120)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 072 &
U65 ON NC 130 OVER
WACCAMAW RIVER
SHEET -7_ OF 7_

Columbus County, NC 130
Bridge Nos. 72 & 63
over Waccamaw River and Overflow
State Project No. 8.1430801
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-130(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2120
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
41+1 q 4-
ate
4 '6
to
Z. L'0__
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
old
1 ?' e%?' ?/. Al, X
ichol . Graf, P. E.
COQ Division Administrator, FHWA

Columbus County, NC 130
Bridge Nos. 72 & 63
over Waccamaw River and Overflow
State Project No. 8.1430801
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-130(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2120
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 1994
Documentation Prepared by Carter & Burgess, Inc.:
,?,•..euw?r-
m'Yl c jFj?QtN,
Thomas McCloskey
Project Engineer SEAL
10359
Thomas R. Hepl r, P.E.
Project Manager
For The North Carolina Department of Transportation:
Q??_ 1
L. 1 Grime P.E., Unit Head
Consulting Engineering Unit
C(? cvrLe ?`iue.¢.?
Michelle Wago er Fishburne
Project Planning Engineer
Columbus County, NC 130
Bridge Nos. 72 & 63
over Waccamaw River and Overflow
State Project No. 8.1430801
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-130(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2120
Bridge Nos. 72 & 63 are included in the 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program. The locations are shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified
as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT "Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters", will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Additional environmental commitments include:
1) To avoid impacting the Shortnose Sturgeon, no instream construction in the.
Waccamaw River will be done during the months of February, March, April or
May. This schedule will provide spawning Sturgeon adequate time to move up
stream and return.
2) Strict erosion control, measures using the standards and special provisions for
critical habitat waters will be followed to avoid impacts from sedimentation.
3) The existing timber bridge piles will not be removed but cut at the mud line to
avoid unnecessary disturbance to the riverbed and conflicts with navigation.
4) New piles for Bridge No. 72 will be driven (or drilled, if necessary) from the top
of the existing bridge deck. If the piles must be drilled, standard erosion control
measures, such as screening the work area around the drill, will be implemented
to minimize sedimentation.
5) The existing bridge will be removed by sawing sections of the bridge deck.
Provisions will be made to prevent the sawing debris and slurry from falling into
the river.
6) No explosives or chemicals will be used in the project area during construction.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Nos. 72 & 63 will be replaced in their existing locations as shown by Alternate 1
in Figure 2.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that the replacement structure for Bridge No.
72 (Main) will be a bridge having a length of 190 feet. The proposed clear deck width of
40 feet will provide a 24-foot travelway with eight-foot shoulders. The recommended
replacement structure for Bridge No. 63 (Overflow) is a bridge having a length of 140
feet. The proposed clear deck width of 40 feet will provide a 24-foot travelway with
eight-foot shoulders.
The bridge approaches will provide a 28-foot pavement width, 24 feet travelway and
two-foot paved shoulders, with a total shoulder width of eight feet. The roadway grade
of the new structures will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during the estimated 6 month construction
period. There will be separate detours for local traffic and truck traffic.
The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is $1,489,500. The estimated
cost of the project, as shown in the 1994 - 2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program, is $1,340,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 130 is classified as a rural minor arterial route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. NC 130 is a primary access route to southern North Carolina
beach areas. In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 130 has a 24-foot pavement width with
eight-foot grassed shoulders. The vertical alignment is generally flat rising slightly to
the east of Bridge No. 72. The horizontal alignment is good with the bridges located
within a tangent which enters a three degree curve just east of Bridge No. 72. Bridge
Nos. 72 & 63 are situated approximately 22 feet and 13 feet, respectively, above their
stream beds. The approaches are on embankments ranging up to five feet above natural
ground. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is primarily low woodland
with rural residential development beginning immediately east of the bridge, and
comprising the unincorporated community of New Britton. The speed limit is posted at
55 mph. Overhead powerlines parallel the north side of the roadway. A USGS gaging
station is located on the east bank of the river approximately 200 feet downstream of
Bridge No. 72.
2
The current traffic volume of 2100 vehicles per day (vpd) is expected to increase to
approximately 4100 vpd by the year 2015. The projected volume includes 2% truck-
tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
Bridge No. 72 (Main) crosses the Waccamaw River (Figure 3) while Bridge No. 63,
located 600 feet to the west, serves as the overflow structure for Bridge No. 72 (Figure
4). Drainage channels constructed parallel to each side of the roadway provide a
hydraulic connection between the two bridges. Both structures have a superstructure
composed of a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. The substructures are composed of
timber caps, on timber piles. Characteristics of the bridges are as follows.
Length (feet)
Clear Roadway width (feet)
Year Constructed
Weight Limit (tons) posted
SV
TTST
Sufficiency Rating
Bridge No. 72 Bridge No. 63
(Main) (Overflow)
151 101
25.8 25.8
1939 1938
31 27
34 Legal Limit
46.6 47.7
Both Bridges were appraised as structurally deficient with short remaining service lives.
One accident was reported near Bridge Nos. 72 & 63 during the period from January 1,
1989 to April 30, 1992.
According to local school officials no regular school bus trips are made across either
bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Several replacement alternatives were considered for Bridge No. 74. The "do-nothing"
alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to
the traffic service provided by NC 130. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible
due to its age and deteriorated condition. A relocation alternative will introduce
additional curves in the existing tangent alignment and affect wetlands which parallel
both sides of the roadway. Relocation was not considered prudent. The recommended
alternative is replacement of the existing structure on the present alignment. This
alternative retains the present roadway alignment that has a design speed of 60 mph,
and avoids substantial impacts to the surrounding wetlands.
Bridge Nos. 72 & 63 are proposed to be 190 feet (Main) and 140 feet (Overflow) in
length, respectively. For both bridges, a clear deck width of 40 feet providing a 24-foot
travelway with eight-foot shoulders is proposed. The roadway approaches will have a
28-foot pavement width, 24 feet travelway and two-foot paved shoulders, with a total
shoulder width of eight feet.
Removal of the existing bridges and construction of new structures will require NC 130
in the vicinity of the bridges to be closed for approximately six months. During this
period the traffic will be routed onto a detour.
Three detour alternatives were studied for the replacing of Bridge Nos. 72 & 63:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) Local traffic will be detoured off-site following SR 1928,
SR 1333 and SR 1326 (Figure 6). These roads will resurfacing. Truck traffic will be
detoured off-site following NC 905, NC 904 and US 17 (Figure 7). No improvements are
necessary for this route.
Alternate 2 Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure
immediately north of the existing bridge. The temporary detour structure will be a
bridge 150 feet in length spanning the main.channel. Preliminary hydraulic studies
determined that in order to accommodate the five year storm a detour structure is not
required for the overflow channel. A temporary lateral ditch will be constructed along
the north side of the detour to channel water from the overflow structure.
Alternate 3 Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure
immediately south of the existing bridge. The temporary detour structure will be a
bridge 150 feet in length spanning the main channel. Preliminary hydraulic studies
determined that in order to accommodate the five year storm a detour structure is not
required for the overflow channel. Lateral ditches north and south of the roadway will
be required to channel drainage from the overflow structure. Alternate 3 will require
the relocation of a local store located southeast of Bridge No. 72.
The on-site detours (Alternate 2 and Alternate 3) involve construction of a temporary
roadway and bridge which will parallel the existing roadway starting approximately
500 feet west of Bridge No. 63 and ending approximately 400 feet east of bridge No. 72
for a total length of 1650 feet. Design speed for the detour will be a maximum of 40
mph.
4
V. ESTIMATED COST
The following is a breakdown of the costs for the studied detour alternates. These costs
include the removal and replacement of the existing structures.
(Recommended)
Alt.1 Alt.2 Alt.3
Structures
No. 72 (Main)
No. 63 (Overflow)
Permanent Roadway
Approaches
Temporary Detour Structure
No. 72 (Main)
Temporary Detour
Structure Removal
Engineering & Contingencies
Right-of-Way, Utilities
Total
$510,000 $510,000 $510,000
352,000 352,000 352,000
116,000 128,000 128,000
--- 93,500 93,500
250,000 415,000 434,000
44,500 68,000 68,000
185,000 213,000 216,000
32,000 43,500 90,500
$1,489,500 $1,823,000 $1,892,000
Design Speed 60 mph 60 mph 60 mph
Relocations --- --- 1 Business
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge Nos. 72 & 63 are recommended to be replaced at their existing locations.
The proposed structure for Bridge No. 72 (Main) is a bridge having a length of 190 feet.
The proposed clear deck width of 40 feet will provide a 24-foot travelway with eight-
foot shoulders. The proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 63 (Overflow) is a
bridge having a length of 140 feet. The proposed clear deck width of 40 feet will
provide a 24-foot travelway with eight-foot shoulders.
According to a preliminary hydrographic study, replacement structures of
approximately 190 feet in length for Bridge No. 72 and 140 feet in length for Bridge No.
63 will accommodate the 50 year design storm at Waccamaw River, with consideration
given to the effects of the structure on the 100 year design storm. The elevations of the
new crossings will be approximately the same as the elevation at the existing bridges.
The structure dimensions will be assessed, as necessary, during final design.
5
The recommended improvement will include approximately 1000 feet of roadway
approach work. A 28-foot pavement width, 24 feet travelway and two-foot paved
shoulders, with a total shoulder width of eight feet is proposed.
Local traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during the six month
construction period, as shown in Figure 6. Truck traffic will be detoured along a
separate route shown in Figure 7. The average vehicle (local traffic) will be required to
travel an additional 3.1 miles during the anticipated six month road closure period.
Alternate 1 is recommended because of cost and environmental consequences. The
minimum additional cost for the on-site detour is $333,500. Alternate 1 will avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. Wetland impacts are much less with Alternate 1
compared with an on-site detour (Alternate 2 and Alternate 3). Impacts to the
Shortnose sturgeon and other biological life which are dependent on the surrounding
ecosystem are minimized. The on-site detours, although temporary, do present
additional impacts.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Ecologists visited the project site to verify documented information and to gather field
data to assess the potential impacts incurred by the alternates under consideration.
Spanning the Waccamaw River, the proposed project will replace the two bridges
where NC 130 crosses the Waccamaw River floodplain on a filled causeway. At time of
the field investigation, the water level in the Waccamaw River was about 10 feet above
the normal level in summer, and all of the project area except the road and immediate
roadsides was flooded.
This investigation was undertaken to (1) search for plant and animal species (2) identify
unique or prime-quality communities, (3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife
habitat, (4) determine wetland impacts, and (5) provide information to minimize
adverse environmental impacts.
Methods
The project area is about 15 acres in size, a rectangular plot reaching (1) 250 feet on
either side of the centerline of the current road, (2) 300 feet north of the north end of the
bridge over the slough, and (3) 300 feet south of the south end of the bridge over the
river. Plant communities within this plot were delineated from aerial photographs and
ground-checked on site. Forest community types follow Schafale and Weakley (1990),
and plant nomenclature follows Radford et al. (1968). Within each community, a list of
member plant species and a general site description was developed. Dominance
6
(ft2/ac) of woody vegetation layers was determined by the variable plot method
(Husch et al. 1972). Dominance (percent foliar cover) of herbaceous layers or
communities was determined by ocular estimation, using foliar cover guides developed
by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For communities dominated by trees, tree age, stem
diameter at breast height (dbh - 4.5 feet above the ground), and total height were
measured for the largest trees. Age was determined from 2-mm increment borings;
dbh and height were measured using d-tape dendrometers and Abney-level
hypsometers, respectively (Wilson 1976). Ground distance was determined either by
estimation on the ground or by measurement on aerial photographs, but all other
measurements and all species lists were developed from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was sought on-site through observation of
all available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, and
typical wildlife communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special
attention was given to features indicative of habitat preferred by federal and state
protected species.
Aquatic system features were noted on site and available documentation of water
quality reviewed(NCDEM 1989,1991,1993). Wetland determinations followed
procedures described by the Corns of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Lab. 1987), and wetland classification follows Cowardin et al. (1979).
Plant Communities
All land within the project area west of the bridge is naturally forested except for the
occasionally-mowed roadsides which are about 35 feet wide on the south side of the
road and about 100 feet wide on the north side. Mowing is much more extensive on the
east side because powerlines parallel the road and the vegetation under the lines is
controlled by regular mowing. East of the bridge, the land is a mixture of natural forest
and suburban development. In the southeastern quadrant, Cypress--Gum Swamp
occurs adjacent the river in a band about 150 feet wide. The upland area is mowed as
part of the private yard of an adjacent house. In the southwestern quadrant, a narrow
strip of natural forest about 30 feet wide occurs immediately adjacent to the river. The
other land is developed with a small business, house with garden, and storage sheds.
The extreme southwestern quadrant contains annually-cropped agricultural land.
The Cypress--Gum Swamp community is composed of two age classes; east of NC 130
the stand is about 36 years old, west of NC 130 the stand was harvested in 1991 by clear
cutting. This harvested area has regenerated largely by coppice to the Cypress--Gum
Swamp community. Roadsides contain scattered tree seedlings of members of the
Cypress--Gum swamp community and various herbs, especially grasses.
The Cypress--Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) community occupies 9.7 acres or 65
percent of the study area. This community is called the Baldcypress--Tupelo type by
7
Eyre (1980). Forest land dominates both Brunswick and Columbus Counties, which are
74 percent and 70 percent forested, respectively (Johnson 1990). In both counties, the
Cypress--Gum Swamp community is common, occupying 25 percent and 36 percent of
the forest land, respectively. It ranks second only to the Loblolly Pine community
(Johnson 1990). The Waccamaw River itself occupies 1.1 acres or seven percent of the
study area, and the road and roadsides occupy 1.5 acres or ten percent.
In the project area, the Cypress--Gum Swamp community is a complex mosaic of small
stands, each with a somewhat different species composition. This pattern largely results
from small differences in topography and hydroperiod. The upper canopy of the
Cypress--Gum Swamp community is even-aged. The wetter microsites, generally
nearest the main river and adjacent sloughs, contain pondcypress (Taxodium
ascendens), swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), and red maple (Acer
rubrum). Many of the pondcypress and swamp blackgum have expanded bases (or
butt-swell). Somewhat drier microsites, generally small rises in the topography, contain
species less tolerant of flooding; loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), persimmon (DiosPyros
virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula nigra), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), water oak (Quercus nig-ra), and scattered Atlantic white-cedar
(Chamaecyparis th, oy ides). Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) and mistletoe
(Phoradendron serotinum) grow on several canopy trees. The largest trees are
generally loblolly pine or sweetgum, measuring 15-inches dbh, 70 feet tall, and 36 years
old. Dominance of the overstory averages 120 ft2/acre, and overall stand quality is
good.
The small tree layer contains American holly (Ilex opaca), Carolina ash (Fraxinus
caroliniana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), redbay (Persea borbonia), waxmyrtle (Myrica
cerifera), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). Foliar cover averages 20 percent.
The shrub canopy occurring well below the upper canopy, contains Virginia-willow
(Itea vir ini a), swamp pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii), sweetleaf (5y=locos tinctoria), and inkberry (Ilex
lg abra). These shrubs generally grow in drier microsites, especially on small
hummocks, crevices in tree bases, and fallen logs. Foliar cover of the shrub layer
averages 15 percent.
The ground layer was flooded with two to four feet of water. Typically the ground
layer is sparse, owing to the long hydroperiod. Netted chainfern (Woodwardia
areolata), greenbriers (Smilax rotundifolia and S. lg auca), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), poison-ivy (Rhus radicans), and giant cane (Arundinariagigantea)
occur.
The roadsides contain scattered saplings of species of the adjacent overstory, especially
sweetgum (Liquidambar stvrac_iflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), persimmon (Dios]2yros
virginiana), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Winged sumac (Rhus copal, Indian
8
grass (Sorghastrum nutans), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), panic grass
(Panicum spp.); wild rye grass (Elymus virginicus), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), vetch (Vida sp.), and morning glory
(I12omoea sp.) also occur.
Wildlife (General)
All floodplain areas surrounding the bridges and connecting causeway were inundated,
so evidence of terrestrial animals was difficult to gather. An opossum (Didelphis
virginiana) carcass lay along the road, and a Rough green snake ( h odr aestivus)
was found coiled in a sapling.
Middle-age pine stands, cutover cypress-gum forest, remnant mature cypress-gum
stands, and the periodically mowed utility right-of-way represent a diversity of
habitats. Studies by Dickson et al. (1980) indicate that the several seral stages proximal
to this project site could provide habitat for a wide range of songbirds. For example,
mature oak-gum-cypress stands ( > 44 year) in the Southeast may harbor abundant
populations of six bird species: Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Acadian
flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and Cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis). Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) are common in such stands,
another 13 species are regular visitors, and 22 species may be present at various times.
In addition, raptors, wading birds and other species may also visit or inhabit this area.
Winter examination of the project site severely limited the potential for encountering
many of these species. Only Chipping Sparrows (Spizella passerina) and a Red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed.
According to a local bait shop owner a number of fish species occur near this location:
Yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), Bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), White crappie
(Pomoxis annularis), Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and Blackbanded
sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus). He also noted that several years ago an American
alligator (Alligator mississil2l2iensis) was captured near Cruso Island approximately six
miles north of the site (see protected species discussion below).
Physical Resources
Southeastern Columbus County and Brunswick County are situated in the lower
Coastal Plain and range in elevation from sea level to 75 feet. Except for short slopes
along the major drainages, most of the region is nearly level.
Geologically, the project area lies on the Pee Dee Formation, Cretaceous-aged sediments
composed largely of sand, clayey sand, and clay of the Coastal Plain physiographic
region (Brown 1985). In Brunswick County, the soils are shown to be of the Muckalee-
9
Dorovan-Chowan association, which are "nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly
drained soils that have sandy, loamy, or mucky underlying material" (Barnhill 1986). In
Columbus County, the association is identified as Johnston-Meggett-Muckalee and
include "nearly level, very poorly drained and poorly drained soils that have a loamy
surface layer and a loamy and sandy underlying material or have a loamy surface layer
and a loamy and clayey subsoil" (Spruill 1990). At this site, Muckalee loam dominates
because the project occurs in the Waccamaw floodplain, a meandering river system
with slopes 0 to 6 percent.
Aquatic Resources
The Waccamaw River originates at Lake Waccamaw, approximately 15 miles upriver
from the project site. It flows southwest, crossing into South Carolina, and later
forming a confluence with the Intracoastal Waterway about 50 miles from the project
site and 65 miles from Winyah Bay. The Intracoastal Waterway follows the Waccamaw
River south to Winyah Bay.
A blackwater river, the Waccamaw's waters between Lake Waccamaw and NC 904, are
classified as C-Sw according to the State's classification system (NCDEM 1993) and are
suitable for agricultural uses or wildlife propagation but not human consumption or
contact recreation.
The slough spanned by the bridge north of the main river runs more-or-less east-west,
cutting across the natural bend in the river, leaving the main river about 700 feet
upstream of the current bridge and rejoining the river about 500 feet below the bridge.
Stream characteristics observed at the two sites are summarized in Table 1.
10
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Waccamaw River Crossing and Overflow.
Observation Point River Overflow Span
Substrate Sand (BMAN) Sand (BMAN)
Current Flow Very strong* Very strong*
Channel width (ft) 150 100 when visited (25 normal)
Bank Height (ft) Variable Variable
Water Depth (ft) 15+** 15+**
Water Color Black Black
Water Odor None None
Aquatic Impossible to determine Impossible to determine
Vegetation (typically sparse in blackwater (typically sparse in blackwater
rivers) rivers)
Adjacent Cypress, gum, red maple (with Cypress, gum, red maple (with
Vegetation scattered loblolly pine) scattered loblolly pine)
Wetlands Extensive floodplain Extensive floodplain.
Associated
*Flood condition increased current flow.
**Normal water depth is five feet.
According to BMAN reports (NCDEM 1989,1991) a site in the Waccamaw River near
Freeland was rated "Good" in 1984 and 1987.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
The floodplain area surrounding the elevated causeway and the bridges was flooded
when visited. Reportedly, this flooding regime lasts through the winter until late
spring with week-long periods of flooding occurring following heavy rains in the
summer. Along a meandering blackwater river complete with sloughs, oxbows, and
numerous scattered depressions, this is a forested riverine wetland system (Cowardin
et al. 1979).
Muckalee sandy loam soil occurs throughout the project area (Barnhill 1986, Spruill
1990). It is dark, grayish brown and saturated to within six inches of the surface.
Muckalee is invariably hydric (USDA 1989). The Munsell soil color observed was 10 YR
4/2.
An on-site detour would entail laying mats and filling at least 2.1 acres of wetland.
Although this filling and the temporary structures would be removed after construction
of the permanent bridges was complete, the temporary fill could negatively impact
endangered plants, perhaps eliminating them altogether if they currently exist at this
site. The potential exists for subsurface hydrologic interactions to be permanent
modified due to substrate compaction.
11
The approach work for the proposed action will fill an estimated 1000 square feet of
wetland. The off-site detour is expected to have negligible impacts on wetlands since
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
adhered to in the widening of existing roads within the right of way.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants and animals is subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973. The FWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this
resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain
plants and animals where statewide populations are in decline.
Federally Listed Species
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville Office) has identified the species listed in
Table 2
as endangered in Brunswick and Columbus Counties. Treatment of each species follows
Table 2.
Table 2. Federally Listed Species for Brunswick and Columbus Counties.
Species Status*
Brunswick
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor couguar) E
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus) E
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E
Arctic Peregrin Falcon (Falco peregro inus tundrius) T
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) E
Wood stork (My_cteria americana) E
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) T
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) E
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepido_? kempi) T
Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) T
Loggerhead turtle ( ar tta ac retta) T
American alligator (Alligator mississip?iensis) T/SA+
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) E
Rough-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia asnerulaefolia) E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus up milus) PT
Columbus
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E
Waccamaw silverside (Menidia extensa) T
Rough-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)* E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) E
12
*E= endangered; T= threatened; CH= critical habitat determined; P= proposed;
SA=status due to similarity of appearance to another species.
The Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) "needs a large wild area with an adequate
food supply for survival. It feeds mainly on deer, but its diet may also include small
mammals, wild turkeys, and occasionally domestic livestock" (Parker and Dixon 1980).
Persistent hunting of the cougar and reduction of deer herds during the early 1900's
effectively eliminated the animal, but growth of white-tail deer populations in the past
40 years has perhaps allowed cougars to survive (Parker and Dixon 1980). Parker and
Dixon say biologists are unsure where in the historical range, from eastern Canada
south into Tennessee and the Carolinas, the eastern cougar occurs in the United States;
however, "significant reports of sightings persist in North and South Carolina and
Tennessee."
Potential cougar habitat exists surrounding this site, when the river is not inundating
the floodplain, but the cougar's reclusive habits make it unlikely that individuals would
venture very close to the highway, nearby commercial sites, and the boat landing.
Human presence is usually a deterrent. Since the highway already exists, construction
activity will not pose any further danger to cougars; therefore, no impacts to this
species will occur as a result of this project.
Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus), according to Parker and Dixon (1980) "inhabit
sluggish rivers, sheltered marine bays and shallow estuaries" and require access to fresh
water and channels at least 7-feet deep. While the manatee was once subject to
commercial hunting for its meat, oil, and leather, the greatest current threat derives
from collisions with boats and barges. Because the waters occupied by the manatee are
heavily used by humans, regulating commercial and recreational boating traffic is
crucial to manatee survival.
The manatee's critical habitat identified by the FWS occurs mainly in Florida. Only in
summer does the manatee move as far north as North Carolina's southern coast.
However, this project occurs more than 50 miles upriver from the Intracoastal
Waterway and even farther from coastal access. Moreover, the Waccamaw River's
normal depth in summer is reported to be less than six feet; therefore, no impacts to this
species will occur as a result of this project.
The Arctic Peregrin Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) summers in the treeless tundra
of Arctic North America and migrates to Argentina (Parker and Dixon 1980). The
journey takes the bird through the eastern, central and Gulf Coast regions of the United
States. Like the American peregrin (Falco peregrinus anatum), the bird was historically
affected by chlorinated pesticides in its food and environment. Falcon reintroduction
efforts have been moderately successful and the ban on harmful pesticides has
decreased the threat to the population's reproductive system.
13
No habitat features associated with the project site are specifically related to this
species; therefore, no impacts to this species will occur as a result of this project.
The Wood Stork (M, ccteria americana)--a large white and black-feathered bird, 40-44"
tall with a 66" wingspan--is found on or near the coast, breeding chiefly in cypress
swamps and also in mangroves (Bull and Farrand 1977). Often seen perching
motionless on bare branches or stalking slowly through marshes in search of food,
individuals are sometimes seen circling high in the air on rising thermal currents. They
typically nest in enormous colonies, laying two or three eggs on huge stick platforms in
trees. Numbers have declined drastically as a result of land development, lumbering,
and draining of feeding grounds.
While the cypress-gum forest surrounding this project could serve as habitat for the
wood stork, examination of the bare canopy in all directions revealed no nests fitting
the description, suggesting that the birds are not using this habitat; therefore, no
impacts to this species will occur as a result of this project.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) nesting colonies usually occur in mature
pine (preferably Longleaf) stands with open understories, contiguous with areas where
pines dominate the surrounding forest to provide suitable foraging habitat. "Suitable
habitat consists of pine or pine-hardwood (50 percent or more pine) stands 30 years of
age or older" (Henry 1989). Although some colonies may be found in pine stands where
midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred, this situation is relatively rare.
RCW habitat occurs in the region, however, no typical habitats were observed
contiguous with this project. Since the forest community within the affected project
area is not dominated by pines greater than 30 years of age, no suitable habitat exists for
the RCW; therefore, no impacts to the RCW will occur as a result of this project.
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) typically require large bodies of water with
abundant fish populations and roosting habitat in proximity to this food supply
(Luukkonen et al. 1989). According to Luukkonen et al. (1989), "good perch trees are
the most important characteristics of forest stands for eagles." Eagles appear to prefer
large, open-crowned perch trees, and eagle roost habitat requires large trees with open
structures at low densities. Studies have shown that the critical flush distances for
eagles are 137.2 meters for motorized boats, 220 meters for walking approaches. "Other
researchers have reported that eagles were not significantly disturbed by normally
occurring auditory activities such as vehicular traffic, human vocalization, or logging
practices... . " (Luukkonen et al. 1989).
This project occurs a considerable distance from large, open bodies of water, and few
suitable roost trees were observed in proximity to the project. While it is conceivable
that eagles could visit this site during migration, the proposed project will have no
impact on them.
14
The Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is mainly a northern shore species that
winters as far north as the Carolinas and south to the West Indies and Mexico (Bull and
Farrand 1977). Found in "bare, dry, sandy areas, both inland and on the coast," it is
difficult to see on the beach. Bull and Farrand comment that coastal resort development
has destroyed many former nesting sites.
Habitat for the piping plover does not exist at this project site; therefore, no impacts to
this species will occur as a result of this project.
The Waccamaw silverside (Menidia extensa), at less than three inches long, is smaller
than the brook and inland silversides, to which it is related (Page and Bur 1991).
However, the Waccamaw silverside is only found in Lake Waccamaw, NC, where it
typically moves in large schools near the surface in open water. According to Page and
Bur (1991), it is "protected as Threatened because of its extremely small range."
Since the silverside's range, as described, does not extend into upper reaches of the
Waccamaw River, there will be no impact on the fish because of this project.
The Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) inhabits lower sections of larger
rivers and coastal waters along the Atlantic seaboard from Canada to central Georgia.
According to Parker and Dixon (1980) "it may spend most of the year in brackish or salt
water and move into fresh water only to spawn." Feeding on invertebrates and some
plant material, the Shortnose sturgeon is endangered because of pollution, over-fishing,
and construction of dams on rivers it uses for spawning.
This species has been documented in lower sections of the Waccamaw River, but no
surveys have been conducted this far upstream. If the shortnose sturgeon does travel
here to spawn, its migration would not be hampered by the proposed project because
flow will not be impeded. An informal consultation was held on February 3, 1994, at
the site to determine the potential impacts to the Shortnose sturgeon. Several
Environmental Commitments were developed which are documented in the
Environmental Commitment section of this document. With the implementation of
these Environmental Commitments, any threats to this species as a result of this project
will be eliminated. A concurrence was made by the National Marine Fisheries Service
in a letter dated March 21, 1994, (see Appendix). Therefore, no impacts to this species
will occur as a result of this project.
Four marine turtle species have been noted in Brunswick County: Leatherback sea
turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kem_i), Green
Sea Turtle ( hel nia m da ), Loggerhead turtle ( ar tta caretta). Parker and Dixon's
(1980) discussions of the characteristic habitats suggest that none of these four species
need to be considered further. The Leatherback, not considered common along the NC
coast, is an open ocean species sometimes moving into "shallow bays, estuaries and
15
even river mouths." Kemp's ridley prefers shallow coastal waters and was "formerly
common in summer around Carteret County and known in Dare County." The Green
sea turtle, which "prefers fairly shallow waters inside reefs, bays and inlets," "was once a
common visitor along parts of the North and South Carolina coasts" but is now
common only in the Caribbean. The Loggerhead "frequents open ocean waters as well
as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels and the mouths of large rivers."
This project occurs more than 50 miles from the Waccamaw River's confluence with the
Intracoastal Waterway and the Great Pee Dee River and 65 miles from Winyah Bay. It
is highly improbable that a sea turtle would venture this far upriver; therefore, no
impacts to this species will occur as a result of this project.
The American alligator's (Alligator mississippiensis) status in North Carolina has
improved, having been changed from endangered (Parker and Dixon 1980) to
threatened. It is found in coastal marshes, swamps, river systems, canals, and lakes
from Dare County, NC to Corpus Christie, Texas. Its varied diet includes mammals,
herptiles, fish, and birds. Although marked increases in numbers have followed the
alligator's protection from hunting and protection of its wetland habitat, its similarity in
appearance to the crocodile keeps it listed as T/SA.
A local resident reported that on rare occasions an alligator is sighted in the vicinity, the
last sighting being reported several years ago near Cruso, some distance up river. Flow
will not be impeded by this project, nor will likely habitat for the American Alligator be
permanently removed; therefore, no impacts to this species will occur as a result of this
project.
The following three federally-listed threatened or endangered plants have been found
in Brunswick and/or Columbus Counties: rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulifolia), sea-beach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and Cooley's meadow rue
(Thalictrum cooleyi).
Rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimacia asperulifolia) typically occurs in black, sandy peat
soils with long hydroperiods like that found at the edge of seep bog pocosins or boggy
flatwood savannas that burn frequently. Although it has been observed at the edge of
woods along roadsides, it more typically occurs in the understory of open stands
dominated by an overstory of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), pond pine (Pinus
serotina), or pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens). It rarely persists in dense stands
lacking fire. Associate hardwoods include swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var.
biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). Common
understory associates include inkberry (Ilex glabra, dwarf huckleberry (Galussacia
dumosa), pepperbush (Clethra aanifolia), honeycup (Zenobia pulvurulenta), ground-
cedar (Lycopodium sp.), chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), pinelands three-awn
(Aristida stricta), and white-top sedge (Dichromena latifolia).
16
Rough-leaf loosestrife was not observed during the field investigation. The typical
habitat for the loosestrife is completely lacking from the project area; therefore, it is
concluded that no impact to this species will occur as a result of this project.
Sea-beach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) occurs on the fore dunes of barrier islands,
where salt-spray winds and blowing sands predominate. The soil is invariably
composed of excessively well-drained sands, shells, and shell fragments. Associate
species include sea-oats (Uniola paniculata), beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata),
bear-grass (Yucca filamentosa), marsh elder (Iva imbricata), sand spur ( enchrus
tribuloides), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), seaside groundcherry (Physalis
maritima), pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis), and beach morning glory (Ipomoea
stolonifera).
Fore dunes are completely absent from the project area, and sea-beach amaranth was
not observed during the field investigation. Owing to the lack of suitable habitat for
this site-specific species, it is concluded that no impact to this species will occur as a
result of this project.
Cooley's meadow rue (Thalictrum cooleyi) occurs largely in pine savannas,
characterized by a sparse canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) or occasionally pond
pine (Pinus serotina) growing on wet mineral soil. Survival of both species is greatly
enhanced, when these sites burn frequently with low-intensity fire. The understory is
typically dominated by grasses, especially pinelands three-awn (Aristida stricta),
savannah muhly (Muehlenbergia expansa), and little bluestem (Andropogon
scoparius). Other herbs occur scattered among the above dominants, including deer
tongue (Trilisa paniculata), slough-grass (Scleria sp), candyweed (Polygal),
meadow-beauty (Rhexia alifanus), blazing star (Liatris spicata), bracken fern
(Pteridium aquilinum), and yellow-eyed grass (Xyris caroliniana). Scattered shrubs
occur also, especially creeping blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium), gallberry (Ilex
lg abra), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), and dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa).
Cooley's meadow rue was not observed during the field investigation; moreover typical
habitat for the species is lacking within the project area; therefore, no impact to this
species will occur as a result of this project.
State Listed Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program indicated that the Carolina pygmy sunfish
(Elassoma boehlkei) is listed as a state threatened and a federal candidate species
occurring in Brunswick County (Kelly letter 1/12/93). Additionally, Kelly noted that
the following six state-listed plants also occur in Brunswick County: golden crest
(Lophiola aurea), Harper's fimbry (Fimbristylis perpusila), Plymouth gentian ( abatia
kennedyana), dissected sneezeweed (Helenium ninnatifidum), sarvis holly (Ilex
amelanchier), and water dawnflower (Stylisma aquatica). Suitable or marginally-
suitable habitat occurs for Harper's fimbry, Plymouth gentian, dissected sneezeweed,
17
sarvis holly, and water dawnflower. According to records of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, two state-listed species, Harper's fimbry Timbristylis
peMusila) and Plymouth gentian (Sabatia dodecandra var. kennedyana) have been
observed along the Waccamaw River in the vicinity of NC 130. Whether these species
still occur and whether the proposed project would adversely affect them could not be
determined from the survey conducted in January. More detailed information on the
habitat requirements of each listed species is given below.
The Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei), like related species--the banded
pygmy (E. zonatum) and everglades pygmy (E. evergladei)--inhabits "quiet and clear or
dark, stained and sluggish streams, sloughs, and swamps with abundant vegetation"
along the Atlantic coast (Boschung et al. 1983). Apparently this species has a rather
confined range, especially compared to the banded pygmy, which is found from the
Carolinas to East Texas and up the Mississippi River Valley to Indiana and Illinois. All
three species are small, feed on crustaceans and aquatic insects, and rarely live more
than three years.
On November 29,1993, the closely related banded Pygmy Sunfish was captured near
the bridge site. Suitable habitat for the Carolina pygmy sunfish exists at this location
primarily in the sloughsand slackwater areas. If the fish does occur here, it is unlikely
that populations would be impacted by the proposed action with the implementation of
the Environmental Commitments stated in this document.
Golden crest (Lonhiola americana or L. aurea) occupies the same habitat as Cooley's
meadow rue (see above), and such habitat does not occur at the project site. Golden
crest was not observed during the field investigation; therefore, no impact to this
species will occur as a result of this project. '
Harper's fimbry (fimbristylis perpusilla) and Plymouth gentian (Sabatia dodecandra
var. kennedyana) occupy sand and/or mud bars in and adjacent to streams and rivers
or the shore of ponds. These areas are typically flooded and reshaped during times of
high water. Associate species include cat-tail (Typha latifolia), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis),
bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), various rushes uncu spp.), and pickerelweed
(Pontederia cordata). Trees are typically lacking, although baldcypress (Taxodium
distichum), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), black willow
( alix ni ra), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) may occur.
During the field investigation, high water levels covered the shoreline and obscured
any possibly existing sand or mud bars from site. Thus, it could not be determined
whether Harper's fimbry or Plymouth gentian was present.
Dissected sneezeweed (Helenium pinnatifidum) occurs either in pine savannas, like the
sites described above for Cooley's meadow rue, or in small, seasonally flooded
18
depressions, dominated by herbaceous cover. These depressions often occur scattered
within a much larger wet pine savanna or flatwood community. Associate species in
these depressions include Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), coinwort
(Centella asiatica), sundews (Drosera spp.), pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.), panic
grasses (Panicum spp.), and cutgrass (Leersia hexandra). Small, scattered trees may
occur, especially pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens) and swamp blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica var. biflora).
Pine savanna habitat is lacking, and small depressions are also lacking from the project
area, except possibly for the periodically-mowed roadside, which was largely flooded at
the time of the field investigation. Whether dissected sneezeweed tolerates mowing is
not known.
Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) occurs in several plant communities, generally either
black-water bottomlands or cypress savannas. In bottomlands, associate trees include
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), American elm (Ulmus americana), laurel oak ( uercus
laurifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), and pop
ash (Fraxinus caroliniana). Associate shrubs include swamp pepperbush (Clethra
alnifolia), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), Virginia-willow (Itea virginica), fetterbush (Lyonia
lucida), and blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii). Associate herbs include false-nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), sedge ( arex sp., especially C. gigantea), giant cane
(Arundinaria ig. ag ntea), and netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata).
In cypress savannas, associate trees, including pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens),
swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), pond pine (Pinus serotina), and red
maple (Acer rubrum), form a sparse canopy. Associate shrubs are essentially the same
as those listed above, but the herb layer is dominated by grasses, especially maidencane
(Panicum hemitomon), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon
virgiinicus), and cutgrass (Leersia hexandra).
Black-water bottomland dominates the project area, and most species that commonly
associate with sarvis holly occur. Nevertheless, sarvis holly was not observed during
the field investigation.
Water dawnflower (Bonamia aquatica, also called Stylisma acluatica) occurs in wet pine
savannas or small, wet depressions within larger pine savanna or flatwood
communities. Typical associate species are the same as those listed above for Cooley's
meadow rue and dissected sneezeweed. Neither habitat was observed in the project
area, although the wet, periodically- mowed roadsides, which were flooded at the time
of the field investigation, could possibly provide suitable habitat.
19
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat.
No unique or prime quality habitat occurs within the project area. Occupying 25 and 36
percent of all forest land in Brunswick and Columbus Counties, respectively, the
Cypress--Gum Swamp community is common. Although the project area contains
sawtimber-sized trees over nine inches dbh, 27 and 48 percent of the forests in
Brunswick and Columbus Counties, respectively, are classified as sawtimber-sized
(Johnson 1990).
Based upon a comparison with other Cypress--Gum Swamps in the region, overall
stand quality within the project area ranks average, because (1) stand basal cover of 120
ft2 is somewhat low, (2) individual trees are not especially well-formed or developed,
and (3) stand age of 36 years is moderately young for a Cypress--Gum Swamp
community.
Im acts
The proposed project will replace two existing bridges with new structures at the same
locations while detouring traffic on existing roadways off-site. Therefore, the greatest
environmental concerns are soil erosion, disruption of the streambed and accidental
deposition of debris into the river.
The removal and replacement of the existing bridges would entail filling approximately
1000 square feet of wetland on the approaches of NC 130.
Bottomland vegetation and animals are extremely sensitive to changes in the depth and
duration of flooding. Ruts and soil compaction caused by operating machinery in the
forested bottomland could create small water impoundments restricting water
movement. Impoundments could, in turn, cause existing plants and animals to die or
fail to regenerate adequately. Care will be taken to restrict vehicles and other
machinery from operating within the bottomland during construction to preserve the
natural drainage regime to which the current plants and animals are adapted. During
any road construction project some accelerated soil erosion could occur with erosion
sediments deposited downstream. In sufficient quantities, such deposits clog and
restrict drainage and smother aquatic organisms, especially bottom-dwelling and
bottom-reproducing animals. The NCDOT "Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters" will be implemented, where practicable, to avoid and to minimize
impacts to the stream and bottomland vegetation. Additional environmental
commitment measures which will be implemented and observed during construction
are listed on page 1.
20
Permit Coordination
An individual Section 404 permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers
because the conditions of Section 404 Nationwide Permit #23, Categorical Exclusion,
under 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) are applicable. This permit authorizes any
activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is
"categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included
within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification #2734, administered through the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), will be
required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into
waters for which a federal permit is required.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during
construction to minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems.
NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will also be
implemented.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate
bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacements will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications, and
the implementation of the Environmental Commitments listed in this document.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be minimal. No relocations are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
21
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Since both bridges are to be replaced in their present locations, the project is exempt
from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the advisory council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an
effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
To comply with those requirements, NCDOT provided documentation on the subject
project for submittal to North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. The only two
structures over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect are the two bridges
themselves. In a letter dated July 15,1993 (included in the appendix), SHPO concurred
that Bridge Nos. 72 and 63 are not potentially eligible for the National Register.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer also reviewed the archaeological aspects of the
project and determined that no archaeological resources will be impacted by the
recommended alternative (see appendix).
The project involves no Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-owned parks,
historic sites, recreational facilities or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state
or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located within the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality Control Region.
The ambient air quality for Columbus County has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an
area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation
control measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on
noise levels and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during
construction but this increase will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and no additional reports are required.
22
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section
and the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management
Section revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project
area. The gas pumps located southeast of Bridge No. 72 are supplied by above ground
tanks located to the rear of the store.
Columbus County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 5. The
amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant. There are
no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same or greater magnitude. The alignment of
the project is perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
23

Literature Cited
Barnhill, W. L. 1986. Soil survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina. USDA Soil
Conservation Service. 120 p., maps.
Belanger, R.P., and R.L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown densities
of loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA For. Ser., Southeast For Exp. Sta. Res Note
SE-352.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. Div. of Land Res., Dept. of Natl.
Res. and Community Dev., Raleigh, NC.
Bull, J., and J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. The Audobon Society field guide to North American
birds. Alfred A. Knopf: New York. 775 p.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern/central North
America. Houghton mifflin Company: Boston. 429 p.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept of Interior: Washington, D.C. 103 p.
Dickson, J. G., R. N. Conner, and J. H. Williamson. 1980. Relative abundance of
breeding birds in forest stands in the southeast.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F.H. (Ed.) 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Soc. of
Amer. For., Washington, DC. Pp. 148 p., map.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and
Evaluations for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Fish and Wildlife Service, SE
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 p., appendices.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest mensuration. The Ronald Press Co.,
NY. 410 p.
Johnson, T. G. 1990. Forest statistics for the southern coastal plain of North Carolina,
1990. USDA For. Ser., Southeast For. Exp. Sta. Bull SE-11.152 p.
24

Luukkonen, D. R.; T. J. Smith; D. N. Chester; J. D. Fraser; and D. F. Stauffer. 1989.
Ecology, habitat and management of bald eagles at B. Everett Jordan Lake, North
Carolina. Project Final Report. Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
NCDEM. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality
review 1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env.,
Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991a. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams:
benthic macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality,
1983-1990. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual.
Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1991b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of
the Lumber River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Bur. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America
north of Mexico. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin: NY.
Parker, W. and L. Dixon. 1980. Endangered and threatened wildlife of Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. Fish and Wildlife Serv. and NC Ag.
Ext. Serv., Raleigh, NC. 116 p.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 p.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks
and Recreation, N. C. Dept. of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. 325 p.
Spruill, W. E. 1990. Soil survey of Columbus County, North Carolina. USDA Soil
Conservation Service. 138 p., maps.
United States Dept. of Agric. (USDA). 1989. Hydric soils of North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. 20 p.
Webster, W. D.; J. D. Parnell; and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 p.
Wilson, R. L. 1976. Elementary forest surveying and mapping. Oregon State Univ. Book
Stores, Inc., Corvallis.1 p.
25
B-21 20
BRIDGE N0.72
COLUMBUS COUNTY
MAIN BRIDGE
NORTH APPROACH
SOUTH APPROACH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
B-2120
BRIDGE NO. 63
COLUMBUS COUNTY
K s.R$r

l it"

F

4Ai
E
yip A ?
MEW
NORTH APPROACH
SOUTH APPROACH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 4

1333
r

_ _
Ar

42
S amp,
p\o

/ ??
l
- ? -? ?
? °
?• ? t.
?- A ?
- -~ `. I? .%i? • O
Freeland

Cem
/ -

BRIDGE NO. 63 N•

• \
and Hil
r m ti \ r ?? 1326
, y

A
%-
to
- BRIDGE NO
72
? .
74

/ ; ?/ 1
3
? ,?, _,,,

II
•

1327
`n

°

--?_+? +. \ r LOfi " Ch r 1329 U
- _ Q O G
# i -mot * w .. smit -

'" V
• " ; 100-YEAR FIAOD PLM N .

. ,? Go L? r. w, ?, - 13zs FIGURE 5
-7 _
B-2120

` % A" -? BRIDGE NOS. 72 & 63 G?
- ° - COLUMBUS COUNTY

a

r'
E
N
N r
tea.
\l, t 2 7
Old 0 o,
Cry. "I"d
r
4.7
v
w ?
H r
MUME NO. 63
U - BRWE NO. 7Z
7 CPJJ 1 7
H7/ .. 1 4d (NXfen
V?
rat

i
MyrtlO H
i 1+ j CR
M1O I.S I7M
N.r eriflp, t
Ask
1
im rft LUL
I STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
LOCAL TRAFF I C
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
k??'Kj DIVISIONS OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
COLUMBUS COUNTY
BRIDGE NOS. 72 & 63
ON NC 130 OVER
WACCAMAW RIVER AND OVERFLOW
B-2120
0 mile 2 FIG. 6

N

N

'y
o
c =
. I ,
0
n ?
00
A

d
4
QRiDOE Md. 63
WWOE NO. 72

1 I
? •1
N
6
6
N
G
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
TRUCK TRAFFIC
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
_ DIVISIONS OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
COLUMBUS COUNTY
BRIDGE NOS. 72 & 63
ON NC 130 OVER
WACCAMAW RIVER AND OVERFLOW
B-2120
o ml IS _ 2 FIG. 7

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 15, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridges No. 72 and 63 on NC 130 over
Waccamaw River and overflow, Columbus County,
B-2120, 8.1430801, BRSTP-130(1), ER 93-9097
Dear Mr. Graf:

JUL 2 0 1993
ArcJ Q#,Ujistory
WVVgIditq }lorectPr,^•-
Thank you for your letter of June 22, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the information provided to us regarding structures located in
the area of potential effect. We understand that Bridges No. 72 and 63 are the
only structures over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect. As noted in
your letter, we previously concurred that Bridge No. 72 is not eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the information provided, we
concur with the Federal Highway Administration's determination that Bridge No.
63 does not possess sufficient historical or architectural significance to qualify for
listing in the National Register. Thus, no National Register-listed or eligible
properties are located in the area of potential effect.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 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 919/7,33-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: VL/ J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Z?9
v
BOARD OF EDUCATION
JO ANN M. BARNES
MICHAEL W. KELLIHAN
CRAVEN M.SEALEY
RAYMOND SHAW
PAM LONG WARD
January 11, 1993
COLUMBUS COUNTY SCHOOLS
POST OFFICE BOX 729
WHITEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28472
919.642-5168 / FAX [phone]
V??l BO??O
4. Columbus
County
a?aJSchooIs
S,EgL'
Mr. Thomas McCloskey
Wm. G. Daniel & Associates
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 100
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Mr. McCloskey:
Subject: Bridge Numbers 72 and 63, Columbus County

THOMAS A. NANCE
Interim Superintendent
DAN STRICKLAND
Assistant Superintendent
In response to your letter of December 22, 1993, please be advised that, after
consulting with appropriate staff members, we have determined that work done
on the above referenced bridges will not have any negative impact on the
Columbus County School System.
If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,

Thomas A. Nance
Interim Superintendent
TAN:vjl
(An Equal Opportunity Employer)
A ors STATE 4.nn
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
December 18, 1992
Mr. Tom McCloskey
William G. Daniel & Associates, PA
1150 Southeast Maynard Road
Suite 100
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 72 on SR 130 over Waccamaw
River, Columbus County, B-2120, ER 93-7843
Dear Mr. McCloskey:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a comprehensive historical
architectural inventory of Columbus County has never been conducted, there may be structures of
which we are unaware located within the planning area.
We recommend that an architectural historian survey the area of potential effect and report the
findings to us. Please submit photographs of all structures over fifty years of age, keyed to a map,
along with a location description. Also include a brief statement about the structure's history and
explain which National Register criteria it does or does not meet. If there are no structures over
fifty years of age in the area of potential effect, please notify us in writing.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
will be affected by the proposed construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106, codified at 36 CFR Part 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.
Sincerely,
L
/ David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

U-3, L J4 UN:5!
0813 893 3111
`M?fi OTC ?Y
r ?n
o
fr,TiS O? ft
NXFS SERI)
`J 001
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceania and Atnmospherie Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
March 21, 1994 F/SE013:JEB
Michelle W. Fishburne
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear MS. Fishburne:
This responds to your letter of February 18, 1994, on behalf of
the Federal Highway Administration, regarding replacement of
Bridges Number 63 and 72 (Federal Aide No. BRSTP-130(1)) over the
Waccamaw River and overflow, in Columbus and Brunswick Counties,
North Carolina. A Biological Assessment (BA) was submitted
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA).
We have review the BA and concur the with your determination that
populations of endangered/threatened species under our purview
would not be adversely affected by the proposed action. This
concurrence is based upon the six measures to protect shortnose
sturgeon agreed to at the February 3, 1994 meeting and included
in your February 8, 1994 memorandum copied to our office.
This concludes consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of
the EsA. However, consultation should be reinitiated if new
information reveals impacts of the identified activity that may
affect listed species or their critical habitat, a new species is
listed, the identified activity is subsequently modified, or
critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
proposed activity.
If you have any questions please contact Jeffrey Brown, Fishery
Biologist, at [phone].
sincerely,
drew J. Kemmerer
Regional Director
cc: F/PR2
F/SE0.2
?o- W." L1%

North Carolina Departlinent of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 27, 1993
Tom McCloskey
William G. Daniel and Associates, PA
1150 Southeast Maynard Road, Suite 100
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 72 on NC 130 over
Waccamaw River, Columbus County, B-2120, ER
93-8014
Dear Mr. McCloskey:
Division of Archives 3W History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 5, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the photographs of bridge B-2120, which is over fifty years of
age. We feel that this structure is not eligible for National Register-listing since it
is not a distinctive representative of its type.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 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.
Sincerely,
I , I I 6?1v? - ./ /A
G
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Strcet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807