20081113 Ver 1_Application_20080716

Ik s
Ir

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~lF
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 11, 2008

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402

Q 1 1 3..
Attention: Mr. Richard Spencer V
NCDOT Coordinator

Dear Sir:

Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23, 33 and Section
401 Water Quality Certification, for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 363 over Big Creek and Bridge No. 364 over Friar Swamp
on SR 1947 in Columbus County. State Project No. 8.2430701,
Federal Project No. BRZ-1947(1); Division 6, TIP No. B-3830. Debit
$240.00 from WBS Element 33281.1.1,

Please find enclosed the permit drawings, Preconstruction Notification (PCN), and half-size
plans. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed for this project in March 2005, and
distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies will be made available upon request. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge
Nos. 363 & 364 over Big Creek and Friar Swamp on SR 1947 in Columbus County. The
project involves replacement of the existing Bridge No. 363 91-foot structure with a 115-foot
single span bridge and Bridge No. 364 91-foot structure with a 105-foot single span bridge in
approximately the same location and roadway elevation of the existing structures using top-
down construction. Construction of the new structure will be staged so that traffic can be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. Permanent riparian wetland impacts
resulting from the proposed construction will be 0.13 acre.

Impacts to Waters of the United States

General Description: The project is located within subbasin 03-07-56 of the Lumber River
Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03040206). Big Creek and Friar Swamp have been assigned Stream
Index Number [DWQ Index # 15-2-6] with a Best Usage Classification of "C Sw". Neither
Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-11: predominately undeveloped
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

a ~

watersheds occur within one mile of project study area. Lake Waccamaw is designated as an
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) and is less than one half of a mile downstream of the
project study area for both Big Creek and Friar Swamp Big Creek and Friar Swamp are not
designated as North Carolina Natural or Scenic Rivers, or as a National Wild and Scenic
Rivers. Additionally, these creeks are not listed on the Final 2006 303(d) list of impaired
waters due to sedimentation for the Lumber River Basin, nor do they drain into any Section
303 (d) waters within 1.0 mile of the project study area.

Permanent Impacts: Big Creek, Friar Swamp and adjacent riparian wetlands will be impacted
by the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project will result in a permanent
impact of 0.13 acre from roadway fill in wetlands at Bridge No. 364. In addition, there will
be 0.08 acre of surface water impacted by the proposed construction. (see permit drawings).

Temporarnpacts: Temporary Impacts: Proposed temporary wetland impacts to 0.02 acre,
from Temporary Fill in Wetlands in the Hand Clearing areas for the installation of erosion
control measures, include some or all of the following: Temporary Silt Fence, Special
Sediment Control fence, and Temporary Rock Silt Checks.

Hand Clearing: There will be 0.02 acre of hand clearing in wetlands.

Bridge Demolition: The existing bridges consist of a reinforced concrete deck on timber
joists with concrete-wearing surfaces. The substructures are composed of timber end bents
and interior bents consisting of timber caps on timber piles. The bridges can be removed
without dropping components into Waters of the United States during construction. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed to avoid any
temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.

In-water Work Moratorium

No in-water construction of the project will occur during the spawning season for the
Waccamaw silverside from April 1 - June 30. ,

Federally Protected Species

Plants and animals with Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of January 31, 2008 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists
seven federally protected species for Columbus County (Table 1). The wood stork has been
added to the list since the completion of the CE. The biological conclusion for this species is
"No Effect" due to lack of habitat. The Waccamaw silverside, which received an

"unresolved" biological conclusion. On October 22, 2003 the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) biological evaluation (BE) which concluded that the bridge
replacements may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the Waccamaw silverside. In
addition, the USFWS concurred that there will be no adverse modification to the primary
constituent elements of critical habitat for the Waccamaw silverside as long as the NCDOT

NCDOT TIP B-3830 Page 2 of 6

follows the Special Project Commitments, which were discussed at the on-site meeting on
April 16, 2003. These commitments are as follows:

• NCDOT's High Quality Waters Standards will be enforced throughout project
construction
• Using turbidity curtains
• Not using wetlands as equipment staging areas where practicable
• Minimizing heavy equipment operations within the stream channel
• Not placing live concrete in the water
• Both bridges will be designed to exclude any deck drains
• No in-water construction will occur during the spawning for the Waccamaw
silverside (April-June)

Federally-protected s ecies for Columbus Count
Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name Federal or Biological
Status Survey Information Conclusion
American alligator Alligator T (S/A) N/A N/A
mississi iensis
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No Habitat No Effect

woodpecker
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser E No Habitat No Effect
brevirostrum
Waccamaw Menidia extensa T Yes MANLAA
silverside
Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi E No Habitat No Effect
meadowrue
Wood stork M cteria americana E No Habitat No Effect
Rough-leaved Lysimachia E No Habitat No Effect
loosestrife as erulae olia
-MANLAA - May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect

Avoidance and Minimization

Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States." Due to the presence of surface waters and wetlands within the
project study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is committed to
incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts. Minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project
design these included:

• NCDOT is utilizing longer spans with fewer bents than the existing bridge
• Slope stakes ranging from 1.5:1 to 3:1 in jurisdictional areas
• There will be no deck drains on the proposed bridge

NCDOT TIP B-3830 Page 3 of 6

a ~

• No in-water work will occur from April 1 through June 30, as requested by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, during the spawning season for the Waccamaw
silverside
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized during demolition of the
existing bridge and construction of the new bridge due to the designation of Lake
Waccamaw as an Outstanding Resource Water

Mitigation

There are no available wetland mitigation credits within HU 03040206. NCDOT proposed
debiting the Juniper Bay Mitigation site (JBMS) at a 2:1 ratio for the 0.13 acres of
unavoidable impacts due to B-3830. The JBMS is in the adjacent HU within the Lumber
River Basin and has been in the ground for 2 years, as described below. . This was agreed
upon between Leilani Paugh (NCDOT) and Richard Spencer (US Army Corps of
Engineering) by phone on July 10, 2008.
The JBMS is a Carolina bay located in Robeson County, North Carolina comprising
728.5 acres. The site, located in HU 03040203, was constructed by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation in 2005.
The JBMS previously was used for agricultural production with a drainage ditch

network constructed to drain the site. The hydrologic restoration plan involves systematically
plugging and backfilling the interior ditch network to increase surface and subsurface water
storage capacity and to increase the retention of water onsite. The wetland vegetation
restoration plan is to establish two natural community types: Peatland Atlantic White Cedar
Forest/Bay Forest and Pond Pine Woodland/Bay Forest.
The JBMS has met the hydrologic and vegetative success criteria over the majority of
the site. The monitoring report is posted on the EEP webpage at the following link:
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/Monitoring_report web/2006pdfs/
JUNIPER BAY 2006/Juniper_Bay_Summarythru_Results.pdf

Site River Transfer TIP TIP TIP
Name Basin HUC Mitigation Type from EEP Available Debit Debit Debit
Juniper
Bay Lumber 3040203 B-4077 W-4704 B-3830
Non Riverine
Wetland
Restoration 2 1.01 0.48 0.38 0.13

Project Schedule

The review date for this project is September 2, 2008 and the Let Date is October 21, 2008.

NCDOT TIP B-3830 Page 4 of 6

Regulatory Approvals

Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The
NCDOT requests that a Nationwide Permit 23 authorize these activities. We are also
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for the temporary fill due to the
installation of erosion control measures. (72 CFR; 11092-11198, March 12, 2007). NCDOT
does not request the Corps to evaluate our site using the Rapanos guidance. Instead, we are
satisfied with the delineation as reviewed and approved prior to 6/5/2007, and ask that you
evaluate this permit verification based on that review.

Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701 and 3688 will
apply to this project. NCDOT is providing five copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their approval.

A copy of this application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct-/pe/neu/permit.html

Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact John Merritt at
jsmerritt(Rncdot.gov or (919) 715-5536 if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,

6- ~ , I-AV,

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA

CC: w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)

W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E, Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Jim Rerko, Division 6 Environmental Officer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design

Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington

NCDOT TIP B-3830 Page 5 of 6

Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Anne Deaton, NCDMF
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Derrick Weaver, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer

NCDOT TIP B-3830 Page 6 of 6

a ~

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05

USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 1 1 3
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)

1. Processing

1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification

2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 and 33

3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?

4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?

5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?

II. Applicant Information

1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC

Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:

2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:

Telephone Number: Fax Number:

E-mail Address:

Page 1 of B~9

III. Project Information

Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.

1. Name of project:

2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3830

3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A

4. Location
County: Columbus Nearest Town: Whiteville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):

5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.2940 ON 78.4736 °W

6. Property size (acres): N/A

7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Lake Waccamaw

8. River Basin: Lumbar
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)

9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Rural with forested areas and scattered residential.

Page 2 ofjKI

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of the existing Bridge No. 363 structures with a 115-foot bridge, and bridge 364
with a 105-foot at approximately the same location and roadway elevation of the existing
structures using top-down construction.

11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The bridges are considered to be structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete and the replacement will result in safer traffic operations.

IV. Prior Project History

If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A

V. Future Project Plans

Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A

VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State

It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.

Page 3 ofy

a ~

I . Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Pproach fill, hand clearing,
mechanized clearing

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.

Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
Floodplain Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) (yes/no) (linear feet)
Site 1 Mechanized clearing Herbaceous Yes 3ft. 0.01
Site 2 Mechanized clearing Herbaceous Yes 3ft. 0.011
Site 3 Permanent fill Herbaceous Yes 3ft. 0.13

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.151

3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A

4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.

Average Impact
Stream Impact Perennial or Stream Length Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Width (linear Impact
(indicate on map) Before feet) (acres)
Impact
1 Big Creek Permanent SW Perennial 60ft. N/A 0.018
1 Big Creek Temporary SW Perennial 60ft. N/A 0.015
2 Friar Swamp Permanent SW Perennial 25ft. 21 0.03
2 Friar Swamp Temporary SW Perennial 25ft. 26 0.024
3 Friar Swamp Permanent SW Perennial 25ft. 181 0.033

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 228 0.12

Page 4 of,"'9

i 1

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.

Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/A
Total Open Water Impact (acres)

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.12
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.151
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.0

Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.151
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 228

7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A

8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A

VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)

• Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts

Page 5 of,? q

were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Construction of a 14-foot and
24-foot longer bridge. Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be utilized during
demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge. No in-water work will
occur from April 1 through June 30, as requested by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
during the spawning season for the Waccamaw silverside

VIII. Mitigation

DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.

USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.

If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htlp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.

1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
CHECKING ON THIS

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
(919) 715-0476 to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP

Page 6 ofy q

r

website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.13
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)

1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?

2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?

3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)

It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.

1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify Lumbar Yes ? No

2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.

Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation

Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.

Page 7 ofyq

w y

3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
N/A

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)

Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A

XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)

Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A

XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No

Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No

XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)

Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):

It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on

Page 8 ofiiN

work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

- 7.11-a8

Applicant/ gent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

• Page 9 of,el

J ~

Columbus County
SR 1947
Bridges No. 363 and 364 Over Friar Swamp and Big Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1947(1)
State Project No. 8.2430701
T.I.P. No. B-3830

Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways

Approved

ate 0jT gory J. Thorp PhD Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

3131les- Da a John F. Sullivan III, P. .

- Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration

Columbus County
SR 1947
Bridges No. 363 and 364 Over Friar Swamp and Big Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1947(1)
State Project No. 8.2430701
T.I.P. No. B-3830

Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways

~N.00000 iy March 2005
• S
%
= Document Prepared by
19026
• f' r
~.y N E
••''•••••••••'••J``',•',, Wilbur Smith Associates Inc.
'~f, 1. W

David L. Wilver, P.E.
Project Manager

for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

hn M. Penney, P.E.
Project Development Engineer

r

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

Columbus County
SR 1947
Bridges No. 363 and 364 Over Friar Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1947(1)
State Project No. 8.2430701
T.I.P: No. B-3830

In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Special Conditions,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:

Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase
have been incorporated into the design and were standard commitments. Current
status, changes, or additions to the project commitments as shown in the environmental
document for the project are printed in italic font.
Project Services/Roadside Env! ronmental/Division 6 Construction
Ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
. This commitment will be implemented during construction to the best ability of the
Department in coordination with existing standards and laws.

To avoid and/or minimize non-profit source discharges of toxic substances and harmful
materials, NCDOT intends to enforce the High Quality Waters Standards throughout the
project construction.
This commitment will be implemented during construction of the project.

Where practicable, wetlands will not be used as equipment staging areas.
This commitment will be implemented during the construction to the best ability of
the Department in coordination with existing standards and laws.
Project Services/Division 6 Construction
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Prior to
the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain all
necessary permits.
This commitment will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project.

Project Services, Hydraulics, Structures Design
Both bridges will be designed to exclude any deck drains.
This commitment will be implemented during the design of the project.

B-3830 Green Sheet Page 1 of 2
Categorical Exclusion
March 2005

a i

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

Division
Turbidity curtains will be used during the construction phase of both bridge projects.
This commitment will be implemented during construction of the project.

Heavy equipment operations within the stream channel will be minimized.
This commitment will be implemented during construction of the project.

Live concrete will NOT be placed in the water.
This commitment will be implemented during construction of the project.
No in-water construction of the project will occur during the spawning season for the
Waccamaw silverside between April 1 - June 30.
This commitment will be implemented during construction of the project.

B-3830 Green Sheet Page 2 of 2
Categorical Exclusion
March 2005

Columbus County
SR 1947
Bridges No. 363 and 364 Over Friar Swamp and Big Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1947(1)
State Project No. 8.2430701
T.I.P. No. B-3830

Bridges No. 363 and 364 are included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The locations of these Bridges are shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."

1. PURPOSE AND NEED

NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the Bridges No. 363 and No. 364 have
sufficiency ratings of 11 and nine and one half (9.5), respectively, out of a possible 100 for
a new structure. A review of the bridge reports deficiency criteria shows that both bridges
are structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. Replacement of these inadequate
structures will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Columbus County is located in the southeast section of the state. Its relatively close
proximity to the Atlantic Ocean places the county in the fertile lowlands of the Coastal Plain.
SR 1947, Bella Coola Road is classified as a rural local road.

Bridge No. 363 was constructed in 1964. The existing structure is 91 feet six (6) inches in
length, consisting of three (3) spans with one width at 30 feet eight (8) inches, one at 30

feet, and one at 30 feet ten (10) inches. The clear roadway width is 24 feet, providing two
10-foot travel lanes with two (2) foot shoulders. The superstructure is made of prestressed
concrete channels. The substructure consists of end and interior bents using precast
prestressed concrete (PPC) Cap \ Timber piles at various centers. The posted weight limit
is 23 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 26 tons for truck tractors semi-trailers (TTST). The
bed to crown height is 19.8 feet and the normal depth of flow is 12.5 feet. According to
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance, no flooding has been recorded. A North Carolina Park
Ranger whose office is east of the bridge and has been a local resident for 47 years
reported that during Hurricane Floyd the water was approximately 1-foot over the
approaches. There was no debris accumulation or scour observed. Bridge scour

information for the existing bridge is not available, as it has not been assessed due to
insufficient substructure data. The channel banks appear to be stable with trees and small
bushes. There are wetlands in all four quadrants of the bridge.

1

Bridge No. 364 was also constructed in 1964. The existing structure is 90 feet in length,
consisting of three (3) thirty (30) foot spans. The clear roadway width is 24 feet, providing
two 10-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders. The superstructure is made of prestressed
concrete channels. The substructure consists of end and interior bents using PPC Cap \
Timber piles at various centers. The posted weight limit is 24 tons for SV and 28 tons for
TTST. The bed to crown height is 12.3 feet and the normal depth of flow is 5.9 feet. A
North Carolina Park Ranger whose office is east of the bridge and has been a local

resident for 47 years reported that during Hurricane Floyd the water was approximately
1-foot over the approaches. There was no debris accumulation or scour observed. Bridge
scour information for the existing bridge is not available, as it has not been assessed due to
insufficient substructure data. The channel banks appear to be stable with trees and small
bushes. There are wetlands in all four quadrants of the bridge.

The approach roadway for both bridges includes 20 feet of pavement with 4-foot unstable
shoulders. The bridges' width accommodates a 20-foot travelway with 2-foot shoulders.

The posted speed limit is 45 MPH.

The 2001 average daily traffic volume is 600 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected traffic
volume is expected to increase to 1400 vpd by the design year 2025.

No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from a recent
three year period between January 1997 and January 2000. There are currently two (2)
school buses (one (1) in AM and one (1) in PM) utilizing this bridge daily.

III. ALTERNATIVES

A. Project Description

The project study area for Bridge No. 363 is located on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp, in
Columbus County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Bridge No. 363 is located approximately
one and a third (1.3) miles (mi) southeast of the intersection of SR 1757 and SR 1947.
The project study area for Bridge No. 363 comprises an area approximately 2000 ft in
length and approximately 400 ft in width. The project study area for Bridge No. 364 is
located on SR 1947 over Big Creek, in Columbus County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Bridge No. 364 is located approximately one and a half (1.5) mi southeast of the
intersection of SR 1757 and SR 1947. The project study area for Bridge No. 364
comprises an area approximately 1800 ft in length and approximately 250 ft in width.
The project study areas for both bridges are rural in nature and are dominated by

forested natural areas with smaller areas of agricultural and residential development.

The recommended bridge lengths are based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis in
conjunction with a field reconnaissance of the site. The length of the proposed bridges

2

and the recommended roadway elevations may be adjusted (increased or decreased)
during final design based on the final hydrologic studies and hydraulic design.

Bridge No. 363 - The existing bridge is in a horizontal tangent and is skewed 90
degrees to the roadway. The vertical grade on the bridge falls slightly from north to

south with both roadway approaches on slight downgrades away from each end of the
bridge. The south approach is in a horizontal tangent. The alignment on the north
approach is slightly curved. Both approaches have good sight distances. There are no
utilities attached to the bridge. An overhead power and telephone line run parallel to
the downstream side of the bridge. There may be an underground waterline located on
the downstream side of the bridge based on fire hydrants observed within the
surrounding development. For Bridge No. 363, the proposed replacement structure is a
bridge approximately 115 feet long. The grade of the roadway should approximately

match the elevation of the existing road. The minimum deck grade should be 0.3%.
Downstream alignment will impact overhead power and telephone lines and the
waterline. Upstream relocation is not recommended since it would worsen the
horizontal alignment and would require significant rechannelization of a roadside
tributary.

Bridge No. 364 - The existing bridge is in a horizontal tangent and is skewed 90
degrees to the roadway. The vertical grade on the bridge falls slightly from north to
south with both roadway approaches on slight downgrades away from each end of the

bridge. The south approach is in a horizontal tangent with good sight distance. There
is a sharp curve in the south approach 600 ft from the bridge. The north approach is
located in a sharp curve with very limited sight distance. For Bridge No. 364 the
proposed replacement structure is a bridge approximately 105 feet long. The grade of
the roadway should approximately match the elevation of the existing road. The
minimum deck grade should be 0.3%. Replacement downstream would require
extensive fill in wetlands and rechannelization of a roadside tributary and also impact
overhead power lines. Upstream relocation would worsen the horizontal alignment and
require significant rechannelization of the upstream roadside tributary. Additionally,
upstream relocation would increase the required length of the structure due to the

channel topography.

B. Build Alternative (Figure 2A and 2B)
The alternatives for replacing Bridges No. 363 and 364 are described below.
Bridge No. 363 Alternative 2 (Preferred)

Alternative 2 includes replacement of the existing 91.5-ft structure with a new structure
in approximately the same location as the existing structure, with slight realignment
downstream (southwest) of the existing structure (Figure 2A). The new structure will be
approximately 115 ft in length. The approach work will extend from approximately 640
ft northwest to approximately 520 ft southeast of the existing structure. Approach work

3

includes minor realignment, grade alterations and construction of retaining walls on the
east and west side of SR 1947 south of the bridge and on the east side north of the
bridge. The placement of retaining walls at these locations was discussed during field
reviews with the permitting agencies, and accepted, as a means of avoiding excessive
placement of fill material into the existing waterway channels along SR 1947. The
retaining wall lengths south of the bridge are 485 ft and 420 ft on the east and west
sides respectively; north of the bridge the retaining wall is 180 ft long. Construction of

the new structure will be staged so that traffic can be maintained on the existing
structure during construction. The south bound lane of the existing bridge will be
demolished while maintaining one-lane, two way traffic with two traffic signals on a
minimum of 14 feet of the remaining portion of the existing bridge. Once the new
structure is partially constructed to allow one-lane, two-way traffic with two traffic
signals, the remainder of the existing structure will be removed and the remainder of the
new structure constructed. A temporary traffic control signal will be required at the
northern approach to the bridge, in conjunction with a signal south of Bridge No. 364, to
control the one-lane, two-way traffic during construction. The total project length is

approximately 1275 ft.

Bridge No. 364 Alternative 1 (Preferred)
Alternative 1 includes replacement of the existing 90-ft structure with a new structure
shifted approximately 20 ft downstream (west) of the existing structure (Figure 2B). The
alignment shift improves the horizontal alignment and constructability; it also will
increase the length of the new structure to approximately 105 ft. The approach work
will extend from approximately 430 ft north to approximately 210 ft south of the existing
structure. Approach work will be limited to minor grade alterations and widening with

construction of a 130 foot long retaining wall south of bridge on the west side of SR
1947. The placement of a retaining wall at this location was discussed during field
reviews with the permitting agencies, and accepted, as a means of avoiding excessive
placement of fill material into the existing waterway channel along SR 1947.
Construction of the new structure will be staged so that traffic can be maintained on the
existing structure during construction. The south bound lane of the existing bridge will
be demolished while maintaining one-lane, two way traffic with two traffic signals on a
minimum of 14 feet of the remaining portion of the existing bridge. Once the new
structure is partially constructed to allow one-lane, two-way traffic with two traffic
signals, the remainder of the existing structure will be removed and the remainder of the

new structure constructed. A temporary traffic control signal will be required at the
southern approach to the bridge, in conjunction with a signal north of Bridge 363, to
control the one-lane, two-way traffic during construction. The total project length is
approximately 745 ft.

4

C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study

Bridge No. 363 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 includes replacement of the existing 91.5-foot (ft) structure with a new
structure in approximately the same location as the existing structure (Figure 2A). The
new structure will be approximately 115 ft in length. The approach work will extend
from approximately 640 ft northwest to approximately 520 ft southeast of the existing
structure. Approach work will be limited to minor grade alterations and widening.
Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour located approximately 30 ft

downstream (southwest) of the existing structure during construction. The length of the
detour bridge will be approximately 105 ft. Approach work for the temporary on-site
detour will extend from approximately 210 ft northwest to approximately 200 ft
southeast of the existing structure. The total project length is approximately 1275 ft.
This alternative was not selected due to increased impacts on the natural environment
and additional construction cost for a detour bridge.

Bridge No. 364 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 includes replacement of the existing 90-ft structure with a new structure in
approximately the same location as the existing structure (Figure 213). The new

structure will be approximately 105 ft in length. The approach work will extend from
approximately 220 ft north to approximately 220 ft south of the existing structure.
Approach work will be limited to minor grade alterations and widening. Traffic will be
maintained on a single-lane temporary on-site detour located approximately 20 ft
downstream (south) of the existing structure during construction. The detour bridge will
be approximately 95 ft in length. Approach work for the temporary on-site detour will
extend from approximately 220 ft north to approximately 220 ft south of the existing
structure. The total project length is approximately 545 ft. This alternative was not
selected due to increased impacts on the natural environment and additional

construction cost for a detour bridge.

Bridge No. 364 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 includes replacement of the existing 90-ft structure with a new structure
located approximately 40 ft downstream (west) of the existing structure (Figure 213).
The new structure will be approximately 105 ft in length. The approach work will extend
-from approximately 530 ft north to approximately 470 ft south of the existing structure.
Approach work will be limited to minor grade alterations and widening. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. The total project length is
approximately 1105 ft. This alternative was not selected due to increased impacts on

the natural environment.

5

No Action Alternate The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate removal
of the bridge effectively removing SR 1947 from traffic service. Investigation of the
existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation of the old
bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.

D. Preferred Alternatives

Alternative 2 for Bridge No. 363 is the preferred alternative. It proposes to replace the

existing structure with a new bridge in approximately the same location. Construction of
the new structure will be staged so that single lane, two-way traffic can be maintained
on the existing structure during construction. Staged construction allows the impacts
associated with the temporary detour to be avoided. Based on lower environmental
impacts (vegetation communities, wetland and stream) Alternative 2 was selected as
the preferred alternative.

Alternative 1 for Bridge No. 364 is the preferred alternative. It proposes to replace the
existing structure with a new structure shifted slightly downstream (west) of the existing
structure. Construction of the new structure will be staged so that single lane, two-way
traffic can be maintained on the existing structure during construction. Based on this
alternative generally following the existing alignment and minimizing environmental

(vegetation communities, wetlands and stream) impacts and it was selected as the
preferred alternative.

The NCDOT Division 6 Engineer concurs with the preferred alternatives and the one
lane on-site detours with temporary traffic control signals.
IV. ESTIMATED COST

TABLE 1: Estimated Cost
Bridge No. 363 Bridge No. 364

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
(Preferred) (Preferred)
Structure Removal (Existing) $18,560 $18,560 $18,640 $18,640 $18,640
Structure (Proposed) $265,650 $388,620 $322,575 $351,900 $265,650
Detour and Approaches $159,720 $25,000 $25,000 $101,000 $25,000
Roadway Approaches $224,260 $235,800 $183,310 $209,160 $324,800
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
$161,810 $132,020 $105,475 $129,300 $150,910
Engineering and Contingencies
$120,000 $125,000 $95,000 $115,000 $115,000
Signals - $85,000 $85,000 - -
Retaining Walls - $219,000 $52,000 - -
ROW/Const. Easement/Utilities
$950,000 $1,229,000 $887,000 $925,000 $900,000
Total

6

V. NATURAL RESOURCES

A. Methodology

The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of natural resources in the project
study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) a delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters and preparation of a map depicting the
jurisdictional areas based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data, 2) an assessment
of natural resource features within the project study area including descriptions of
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality;
3)evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction and alternatives; and 4) a

preliminary determination of permit needs.

The project study area for B-3830 is located on SR 1947 over Big Creek, in Columbus
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Bridge No. 363 is located approximately one and
three tenths (1.3) of a mile southeast of the intersection of SR 1757 and SR 1947. The
project study area for Bridge No. 363 comprises an area approximately 2000 ft in length
and approximately 400 ft in width. The project study area for Bridge No. 364 is located
on SR 1947 over an unnamed tributary to Big Creek, in Columbus County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). Bridge No. 364 is located approximately one and one half (1.5) of a
mile southeast of the intersection of SR 1757 and SR 1947. The project study area for
Bridge No. 364 comprises an area approximately 1800 ft in length and approximately
250 ft in width. The project study areas for both bridges are rural in nature and are

dominated by forested natural areas with smaller areas of agricultural and residential
development.

Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Jurisdictional surface waters (i.e., streams) were delineated pursuant to current COE
and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) protocol. All jurisdictional areas
were mapped using TrimbleTm GPS units and the collected data were differentially
corrected and plotted in order to produce working maps and site plans.

Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was obtained from the
Basinwide Assessment Report. Lumber River Basin (DWQ 1998), the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using
current DWQ protocol. The project study area is located within the proposed critical

7

habitat for the Waccamaw silverside (Menidia extensa), therefore fish populations were
not sampled.

Additional resources utilized for this natural systems investigation include the most
recent list (March 7, 2002) of threatened and endangered species by county published
by FWS. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were
also reviewed on June 4, 2001 and periodically updated to determine if there are any

documented cases of listed species occurring within the project study area or within a
3.0 mile (mi) radius of the project study area. When appropriate, plant community
descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by NHP and developed by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Community classifications were modified to better
reflect field observations when community characteristics did not fit an Schafale and
Weakley community type. Vascular plant names generally follow nomenclature found
in Radford et al. (1968). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as
well as expected population distributions, were determined through field observations,
evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Conant and Collins
1998, Webster et aL 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer

and Braswell 1995).

B. Physiography and Soils

The project study area is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level to gently
sloping. Elevations in the project study area range from 45 to 50 ft above mean sea
level (USGS 1986).

The project study area crosses two soil-mapping units (USDA 1990). These mapping
units area the Dorovan muck (Typic Medisaprists) and Pender fine sandy loam
(Abaquic Hapludulfs). The Dorovan muck soil-mapping unit is the most prevalent

mapping unit in both project study areas and is classified as a hydric soil-mapping unit.
Pender fine sandy loam is classified as a nonhydric soil.

C. Water Resources

1. Waters Impacted

The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-07-56 of the Lumber River
Basin (DWQ 1999) and are part of USGS hydrologic unit 03040206 (USGS 1974).
Big Creek originates six tenths (0.6) of a mile north of the project study area at the
confluence of two smaller unnamed streams that drain from Friar Swamp and the
Green Swamp. Big Creek flows in a southerly direction through the project study
area to its confluence with Lake Waccamaw. Big Creek, from its source to its

8

confluence with Lake Waccamaw, has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN)
15-2-6 by the DWQ.
• In addition to Big Creek, three man-made canals (four separate segments
identified as C1, C2, C3, and C4) flow into Big Creek in the vicinity of Bridge No.
363. These canals have not been assigned a separate SIN by the DWQ.

• In addition to Big Creek, two unnamed tributaries to Big Creek (UT1 and UT2),
four canals (five separate segments identified as C4, C5, C6, C7, and C8), and
an excavated boat basin (Boat Basin) flow into Big Creek in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 364. These unnamed tributaries and canals have not been assigned a
separate SIN by the DWQ.

2. Water Resource Characteristic

A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina

based on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments
of streams in the basin. Big Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification
of C Sw (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a). The C designation indicates waters that
support aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact
with water on an infrequent or incidental basis. The Sw designation is a
supplemental classification used for swamp waters characterized by low velocities,
low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, high organic content, and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. The canals have not
been assigned a separate Best Usage Classification and therefore share the Best

Usage Classification of their receiving waters, C Sw.

No High Quality Waters (HOW), WS-I, or WS-II Waters occur within three (3.0)
miles upstream or downstream of the project study area (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a).
Lake Waccamaw is designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) less
than one half (0.5) of a mile downstream of the project study area for both bridges.
Big Creek downstream of both bridges has been federally designated as Critical
Habitat for Waccamaw Silverside. Neither Big Creek nor its tributaries are
designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, or as a national Wild and
Scenic River. Neither Big Creek nor its tributaries are listed are impaired waters on

the 2002 North Carolina subsection 303(d) list of impaired waters.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates permits for
projects involving the construction, alteration, and/or operation of any sewer system,
treatment works or disposal system and certain stormwater runoff which would
result in a discharge into surface waters (DPA 1991). There are no permitted
discharges to Big Creek or its tributaries.

9

The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term
trends in water quality at monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). This program has been replaced by the benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring program associated with the basinwide assessment
for the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ 1998). DWQ assigns bioclassifications to
streams and portions of streams based on species richness and overall biomass,
which are considered reflections of water quality. There are no monitoring stations
located on Big Creek or its tributaries.

Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina
Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the
structure and health of the fish community. Neither Big Creek nor its tributaries
have been sampled to determine a NCIBI score as of the most recent Water Quality
Management Plan (DWQ 1998).

3. Potential Impacts to Water Resources

Big Creek and its tributaries are not designated as an Anadromous Fish Spawning
Area. However, the portion of Big Creek downstream from Bridge No. 363 is
designated as Critical Habitat for the Waccamaw silverside. Due to the presence of
Designated Critical Habitat for a federally endangered species this project (B-3830)

can be classified as a Case 1 bridge replacement by the BMPs for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999). All work must be carefully coordinated
with the responsible agency to protect the special resource water. For this project,
coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will be required.

4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal

Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is
labeled Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best

Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs), as well as
guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek resulting from
demolition.

Bridge No. 363
The superstructure consists of prestressed concrete channels. Although these
components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any
components into Big Creek, the potential exists for temporary fill of up to 80 cubic
yards.

The substructure consists of two interior bents located within the stream channel.
These bents are creosote timbers with concrete caps. Although these components

10

are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any components into Big
Creek, the potential exists for temporary fill up to 15 cubic yards.

Bridge components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any
bridge components into Big Creek. However, due to the presence of reinforced

concrete in the superstructure of the bridge and piles encased in concrete, the
potential exists for up to approximately 95 cubic yards of temporary fill being
excavated from Big Creek as a result of demolition activities.

Bridge No. 364
The superstructure consists of prestressed concrete channels. Although these
components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any
components into UT2 Big Creek, the potential exists for temporary fill of up to 80

cubic yards.

The substructure consists of two interior bents located within the stream channel.
These bents are creosote timbers with concrete caps. Although these components
are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any components into
UT2 Big Creek, the potential exists for temporary fill up to 15 cubic yards.

Bridge components are slated for removal in a manner that will avoid dropping any
bridge components into UT2 Big Creek. However, due to the presence of reinforced

concrete in the superstructure of the bridge and piles encased in concrete, the
potential exists for up to approximately 95 cubic yards of temporary fill being
excavated from UT2 Big Creek as a result of demolition activities.

Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result
from construction-related activities. BMPs can minimize impacts during
construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas. Additional
measures which can be taken to minimize water quality impacts include avoiding
the placement of live concrete directly into the stream channel and preventing heavy

equipment operations from being conducted in the stream channel. If in-stream
work is necessary, the use of a turbidity curtain is recommended to minimize
impacts to water resources downstream of the project study area.

Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or
increased shade due to the construction of the bridges, and changes in stormwater
flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to the stream
channels, can be anticipated as a result of this project. However, due to the limited

11

w ~

amount of overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be
minimal in nature. No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected
to result from the alternatives being considered.

D. Biotic Resources .

1. Existing Vegetation Patterns

Terrestrial distribution and composition of vegetation communities throughout the
project study areas reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils,
hydrology, and past and present land use practices. When appropriate, the

vegetation community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to
reflect local variations within the project study areas. Two natural communities were
identified within the project study areas for B-3830A and B-38308: Mesic Pine
Flatwoods and Cypress-Gum Swamp (blackwater subtype). In addition to these
natural communities, there are also areas of maintained/disturbed land.

Mesic Pine Flatwoods - This community type is limited to the forested upland areas
in the project study areas, which occur on the sand rim of Lake Waccamaw. Under
pristine conditions this community contains a nearly closed canopy of loblolly pine

(Pinus taeda) and occupies large areas. Two small isolated stands occur in the
project study areas that have a canopy dominated by loblolly pine, with water oak
(Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa),
and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) also present in the canopy. The
understory includes individuals of canopy species, wild olive (Osmanthus
americana), and red bay (Persea palustris). Shrubs observed in this community
included wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.), and sweet pepper bush (Clethra alnifolia). Herbaceous vegetation
included St. Peter's-wort (Hypericum stans), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and

sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis).

Cypress-Gum Swamp (blackwater subtype) - This community type occurs along the
banks of Big Creek and its tributaries and is contiguous with larger areas of this
community type outside of the project study areas. The canopy for this community
is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) but also includes water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweet gum in small numbers. A
well developed understory is present in this community that includes titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and laurel oak. Herbaceous
vegetation was observed infrequently in this community and includes cat brier

(Smilax laurifolia), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), royal fern
(Osmunda regalis), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).

12

Maintained/Disturbed Land - The maintained/disturbed land within the project study
areas includes roadside shoulders, residential yards, fallow fields, and other areas
where human related activities dominate. The fallow fields included in this
community appear to be maintained frequently enough to prevent woody vegetation
from becoming established. Frequently maintained portions of this community

typically include fescue (Festuca sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon),
centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides), and bahia grass (Paspalum notatum).
Areas that are maintained less frequently have a greater number of perennial herbs
and shrubs such as ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), black berry (Rubus argutus),
winged sumac, silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense). Also, included in this community are scattered individual trees including
red maple, tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana).

2. Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities

Impacts to vegetation communities are estimated based on the area of each

community present within the proposed construction. Potential temporary impacts
include those areas located within the clearing limits but outside of the construction
limits, which may be utilized as staging areas, equipment access, or other
construction related activities. Proposed clearing limits are not available for this
project at this time. Vegetation communities present within the project study area
for Bridge No. 363 are presented in Table 2A and vegetation communities present
within the project study area for Bridge No. 364 are presented in Table 2B.

Table 2A. Summary of Vegetation Communities for Bridge No. 363.

Potential Im acts in Acres
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred
VEGETATION Project Potential Potential
COMMUNITY Study Area Impacts Temporary Impacts Temporary
Impacts Impacts
Mesic Pine 1.62 0.17 0 0.07 0
Flatwoods
Cypress-Gum 5.00 0.32 0 0.25 0
Swam
Maintained/Disturb 7.80 0.42 0 0.50 0
ed Land
Totala: 14.42 0.91 0 0.82 0
Note: a Totals for vegetation communities do not include the open water area attributed to
Big Creek, the three canals, or impervious road surface.
Both alternatives presented for Bridge No. 363 utilize the existing alignment in its
entirety and confine impacts to the areas located adjacent to the existing roadway.
Bridge No. 363 Alternative 1 calls for an on-site detour located on the downstream

13

side of the existing structure. Alternative 2 calls for "staged construction" that will
allow traffic to be maintained on the existing structure during construction of a new
structure at the existing location. Staged construction allows the impacts associated
with the temporary detour to be avoided. In order to minimize impacts to Vegetation
Communities, Alternative.2 would be preferable if staged construction is feasible.

Table 2B. Summary of Vegetation Communities for Bridge No. 364.

Potential Impacts in Acres
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
VEGETATION Project Preferred
COMMUNITY Study Potential Potential Potential
Area Impacts Temporary Impact Temporary Impacts Temporary
Impacts s Impacts Impacts
Mesic Pine 2.93 0.02 0 0.12 0 0.23 0
Flatwoods
Cypress-Gum 1.20 0.31 0 0.31 0 0.41 0
Swam
Maintained/ 2.81 0.33 0 0.34 0 0.62 0
Disturbed Land
Totala: 6.94 0.66 0 0.77 0 1.26 0
Note: a Totals for vegetation communities do not include the open water area attributed to
Big Creek, unnamed tributaries, canals, or impervious road surface.
Both Bridge No. 364 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 generally follow the existing
alignment and therefore minimize impacts to vegetative communities. Bridge No.
364 Alternative 3 presents the greatest departure from the existing alignment and
therefore has the highest potential impacts to vegetative communities. Either
Bridge No. 364 Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 is acceptable to show minimization to
vegetative communities.

3. Wildlife

The project study areas were visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife. Little evidence of wildlife was observed during the field effort. The stream
corridor along Big Creek and its tributaries provides cover and food linking areas of

more optimal habitats. Resident wildlife species are expected to be those adapted
to ecotones between the maintained roadsides and adjacent natural communities.

a. Terrestrial

A number of bird species were observed within or adjacent to the project study
areas. Bird species observed include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea),

14

Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), northern parula (Parula americana),
and Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus).

Mammals observed within the project study areas were hispid cotton rat

(Sigmodon hispidus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Other species
expected to be found in or adjacent to the project study area include raccoon
(Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana), and eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).

Terrestrial reptiles observed within the project study areas were rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta) and broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps). Other species

expected to occur within or adjacent to the project study area include eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).

Terrestrial amphibians observed within the project study areas were limited to
southern toad (Bufo terrestris). Other species expected to occur within the
project study area include Atlantic coast slimy salamander (Plethodon
chlorobryonis), squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea),
spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus).

b. Aquatic

The aquatic habitat located within the project study area for Bridge No. 363
includes Big Creek, C1, C2, C3, and C4. The aquatic habitat within the project
study area for Bridge No. 364 includes Big Creek, UT1, UT2, C4, C5, C6, C7,
C8, and a portion of the boat basin. The water depth greatly limited the amount
of benthic sampling that could be conducted. Samples were collected from the
edges of the deeper channels along mud banks and sandbars.

Benthic invertebrate organisms collected within Big Creek were identified to at

least Order and Family if possible and include mayflies (Ephemeroptera), flies
(Diptera: Chironomidae, Culicidae, Exuviae), water bugs (Hemiptera: Corixidae),
dragonflies (Odonata: Libellulidae), beetles (Coleoptera: Haliplidae), snails
(Gastropoda), fingernail clams (Sphaeridae), scuds (Amphipoda), and crayfish
(Decapoda) (McCafferty 1998)..

The designation of Big Creek in the project study area for B-3830A and B-3830B
as critical habitat for the Waccamaw silverside did not allow for electro-s hocking
to be used to sample the resident fish populations. The following species have

been documented from Big Creek in the project study areas: redfin pickerel

15

(Esox americanus), chain pickerel (E. niger), eastern mudminnow (Umbra
pygmaea), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), banded
sunfish (E. obesus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), and bluegill (L. macrochirus)
(Shute et al. 2000). No sampling has been conducted in the roadside canals;
however, since habitats are similar, species composition would also be
expected to be similar.

Four aquatic reptiles were observed within the project study areas including
Florida cooter (Pseudemys floridana), redbelly turtle (Pseudemys rubriventris),
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), and brown water snake (Nerodia
taxispilota). Other species expected to occur within the project study area are
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta).

One aquatic amphibian was observed within the project study areas, two-toed
amphiuma (Amphiuma means). Other species expected to occur within the

project study area include such species as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana),
Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).

4. Potential Impacts to Wildlife

Due to the limited infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known animal
populations. Wildlife movement corridors are not expected to be significantly
altered by the proposed project. Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat
will be avoided by bridging Big Creek (Bridge No. 363) and UT2 (Bridge No. 364) to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction are expected to be
reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute minimum and use of a turbidity
curtain during construction, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure

below the water. BMP-BDRs will be followed to minimize impacts due to anticipated
bridge demolition. BMPs for the protection of surface should be strictly enforced to
reduce impacts.

E. Special Topics

1. Waters of the United States

Surface waters within the embankments of Big Creek, its unnamed tributaries (UT1
and UT2), C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, and the Boat Basin are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of
the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters in Big Creek, UT1, and UT2 within

the project study areas exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial,

16

unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded (R2UBH) waters (Cowardin et al.
1979). The waters in the unnamed canals (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, and C8)
and the Boat Basin within the project study areas exhibit characteristics of
palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, excavated (PUBHx) waters
(Cowardin et al. 1979).

Big Creek is a perennial stream with slow flow over substrate consisting of silt and
sand. The main channel is approximately 75 ft wide with an average depth of 10 ft.
UT1 is a perennial stream with slow flow over substrate consisting of sand and silt.
The channel is approximately 30 ft wide and an average of greater than 6 ft deep.
UT2 is a perennial stream with slow flow over substrate consisting of sand and silt.
The channel is approximately 40 ft wide and an average of greater than 6 ft deep.
A geomorphic characterization of the stream reaches within the project study area
indicates that the delineated portions of Big Creek, UT1, and UT2 are "E' stream
types (Rosgen 1996). These stream types occur in broad valleys and have fluvial

materials with floodplains. "E" channels tend to be highly sinuous with stable, well-
vegetated banks. The "E" designation indicates that the stream is slightly
entrenched with a very low width/depth ratio (Rosgen 1996).

C1 is an excavated drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This canal has a
uniform width of 40 ft and a uniform depth of seven (7) ft and lacks sinuosity.
Permanently flooded borrow pits located within the canal are included as part of C1.

C2 is an excavated roadside drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This

canal has a uniform width of 35 ft and a uniform depth of four (4) ft and lacks
sinuosity.

C3 is an excavated roadside drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This
canal has a uniform width of 35 ft and a uniform depth of six (6) ft and lacks
sinuosity. Permanently flooded borrow pits located within the canal are included as
part of C3.

C4 is an excavated roadside drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This
canal has a uniform width of 35 ft and a uniform depth of six (6) ft and lacks
sinuosity. Permanently flooded borrow pits located within the canal are included as

part of C3.

C5 is an excavated roadside drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This
canal has a uniform width of 35 ft and a uniform depth of six (6) ft and lacks
sinuosity.

17

C6 is an excavated roadside drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This
canal has a uniform width of 35 ft and a uniform depth of six (6) ft and lacks
sinuosity.

C7 is an excavated roadside drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This
canal has a uniform width of 35 ft and a uniform depth of six (6) ft and lacks
sinuosity. C7 connects C6 to Big Creek.

C8 is an excavated roadside drainage canal that is functioning as a stream. This
canal has a uniform width of 40 ft and a uniform depth of six ft and lacks sinuosity.

Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches the surface for a portion
(12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on this three-parameter
approach, eleven (11) jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project study
area. These wetland areas are all part of the Cypress-Gum Swamp Community and
are inter-connected by the surface waters present in the project study areas.

Vegetation within the Cypress-Gum Swamp (including wetlands identified as W1,
W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, W9, W10, and W11) is hydrophytic in nature and
includes bald cypress, water tupelo, titi, and royal fern. Soils exhibit hydric
characteristics (Munsell color 10YR 2/1). Hydrological indicators observed include
the presence of saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface, inundation in
depressions, and water stained leaves. The Cypress-Gum Swamp exhibits
characteristics of a palustrine, deciduous, semipermanently flooded (PF06F)
wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979).

2. Potential Impacts to Waters of the United States

Permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas are estimated based on the amount of
each jurisdictional area within the proposed construction limits. [Figure 2 (Bridge No.
363) and Figure 3 (Bridge No. 364)]). Since staging areas and access roads will not
be placed in jurisdictional areas, no temporary impacts will occur. Temporary
impacts to surface waters are anticipated and will be off-set by on-site mitigation
opportunities.

Stage construction of the bridges is proposed as a means of minimizing

environmental impacts. This will be accomplished by partially removing a section of
the existing bridges to provide a one lane bridge to be used for maintaining traffic
during construction. The proposed replacement bridges will also be stage
constructed to accommodate one lane of traffic. This will allow shifting of traffic to

18

the new bridge sections in order to remove remaining portions of the existing
bridges and complete construction of the proposed bridges. The grade of proposed
bridge will have to match closely that of the existing bridge to allow for stage
construction. As a result, new bridge bents will be constructed in the existing
channel to reduce the required bridge depth and eliminate excessive fill into the

stream. These bents will be pulled back as close to the existing banks as possible
to provide the maximum allowable span and increase the bridge opening above that
which currently exists. This approach was discussed during field reviews with the
permitting agencies and accepted as the best option to minimizing overall impact to
the stream and roadway channels. A summary of potential jurisdictional impacts
for both bridges is presented in Table 3 and a more detailed description of potential
jurisdictional impacts is presented in the Natural Systems Report.

Table 3. Summary of Potential Jurisdictional Impacts.

Brid a No. 363 Bridge No. 364
Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Preferred Preferred
Permanent Wetlands
Acres 0.26 0.22 0.17 0.32 0.43
Temporary Wetlands
Acres 0 0 0 0 0
Permanent Surface
Waters Acres 0 0 0.03 0 0.05
Temporary Surface
Waters Acres 0.17 0.23 0.08 0.17, 0.38
Permanent Surface
Waters Linear Feet 0 0 30 0 40
Temporary Surface
Waters Linear Feet 543 655 280 470 580
Bridge No. 363
Both alternatives (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) presented utilize the existing
alignment in its entirety and confine impacts to the areas located adjacent to the
existing roadway. Both alternatives avoid impacts to W2, W4, C1, and C4.
Alternative 2 calls for an on-site detour located on the downstream side of the
existing structure. Alternative 2 calls for "staged construction" that will allow traffic
to be maintained on the existing structure during construction of a new structure at
the existing location. Staged construction allows the impacts associated with the
temporary detour to be avoided. Alternative 2 would be preferable, if staged
construction is feasible, in order to minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas. Impacts
to surface waters (Big Creek, C2, and C3) are anticipated to be temporary in nature
since fill placed along one bank will be offset by material excavated from the
opposite bank. Project construction will not result in alterations to the dimension,
pattern, or profile of surface waters in the project study area. Potential wetland

19

impacts may be offset by utilizing on-site wetland mitigation opportunities in the
northwest and southeast quadrants of the project study area.

Bridge No. 364
Alternative 1 has the lowest amount of impacts to jurisdictional areas and utilizes
much of the existing alignment. Alternative 1 calls for a slight realignment south of
the existing structure in order to utilize the existing structure as an on-site detour.

Alternative 2 utilizes the existing alignment in its entirety and confines impacts to the
areas located adjacent to the existing roadway, increased impacts associated with
this alternative are the result of a temporary on-site detour. Alternative 3 presents
the greatest departure from the existing alignment and therefore has the highest
number of impacts to jurisdictional areas. Alternative 1 is preferable since it has the
lowest amount of impacts to jurisdictional areas. Permanent impacts to surface
waters for Alternatives 1 and 3 are the result of the existing culvert at UT1 being
extended. Other impacts to surface waters are anticipated to be temporary in
nature since fill placed along one bank will be offset by material excavated from the

opposite bank. Project construction will not result in alterations to the dimension,
pattern, or profile of surface waters in the project study area. Potential wetland
impacts may be offset by utilizing on-site wetland mitigation opportunities in the
southwest and southeast quadrants of the project study area.

a. Permits

This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (67
FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) has been issued by the COE for projects
expected to have minimal. impacts. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water

Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit requires written
notice to DWQ. In accordance with Draft Internal Policy. Cumulative Impacts
and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Programs, Version
1.3 (NC Division of Water Quality, May 3, 2002), bridge replacements normally
have low potential for cumulative impacts since little (if any) new impervious
surface is added and the projects are usually in already developed locales.

4. Mitigation Evaluation

Avoidance - Due to the presence of wetlands and surface waters within the project
study area, avoidance of all impacts may not possible. Wetland and stream impacts
are previously discussed in Section V.C.4.

Minimization - The alternatives presented were developed in part to demonstrate
minimization of wetland and stream impacts. Use of a channel spanning structure

20

would help minimize permanent impacts to jurisdictional streams as part of either
alternative. Impacts to the stream will be minimized during demolition by removing
bridge components in a manner which will avoid dropping any components into the
creek channel. Bridge demolition impacts have been previously discussed in
Section 2.2.

• For Bridge No. 363 Alternative 2 best demonstrates minimization of
jurisdictional impacts by utilizing "staged construction" in lieu of an on-site
detour.
• For Bridge No. 364 Alternative 1 best demonstrates minimization of
jurisdictional impacts by utilizing the existing alignment in its entirety.

Mitigation - Mitigation may be required for wetland impacts greater than one tenth
(0.10) of an acre and stream impacts greater than 150 ft. Utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize secondary impacts, including avoiding in-

stream work and use of a channel spanning structure. Temporary impacts
associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed
areas with native species and removal of any temporary fill material within the
floodplain upon project completion. Final mitigation requirements rest with the COE.

Bridge No. 363
On-site wetland mitigation opportunities exist in the northwest and southeast
quadrants of the project study area. Restoration of converted wetlands in these
areas could be utilized as mitigation for unavoidable construction related impacts to

jurisdictional wetlands. On-site stream/surface water mitigation is available for
unavoidable impacts to the man-made canals located adjacent to the existing
roadway. Fill will be required along one bank of these canals and a similar amount
of fill is proposed to be excavated from the opposite bank of the canal thus resulting
in no changes to the dimension, pattern, or profile of these canals.

Bridae No. 364
On-site wetland mitigation opportunities exist in the southwest and southeast
quadrants of the project study area. Restoration of converted wetlands in these
areas could be utilized as mitigation for unavoidable construction related impacts to

jurisdictional wetlands. On-site stream/surface water mitigation is available for
unavoidable impacts to the man-made canals located adjacent to the existing
roadway. Fill will be required along one bank of these canals and a similar amount
of fill is proposed to be excavated from the opposite bank of the canal thus resulting
in no changes to the dimension, pattern, or profile of these canals.

21

F. Protected Species

1. Federal Protected Species

Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or
officially proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal
protected species are listed for Columbus County (FWS list dated January 29,

2003).

Table 4. Federally Protected Species listed for Columbus County, North Carolina.
Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Biological
Conclusion
Shortnose sturgeon E No Effect
Acipenser brevirostrum
American alligator T(S/A) None Required
Alligator mississippiensis
Waccamaw silverside T May Effect but
Menidia extensa not likely to
adversely
Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker E No Effect
Picoides borealis
Rough-leaved loosestrife Eb No Effect
L ysimachia
asperu/aefolia
Cooley's meadowrue E No Effect
Thalictrum coo/eyi
Note: a Officially proposed for delisting.
E- Endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
T- Threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range."

Shortnose sturgeon - The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous, bottom-feeding
fish that spends most of the year in estuarine environments and moves into fresh
water only when spawning (NMFS 1998). Sturgeons are unmistakable in
appearance; size, snout characteristics, and the absence of scutes between the
anal fin and lateral row of scutes distinguish shortnose sturgeon from Atlantic
sturgeon (A. oxyrhynchus) which occurs within the same range (NMFS 1998). Adult
shortnose sturgeon range in size from approximately one and four tenths (1.4) to
three and six tenths (3.6) of a foot and have a short snout and wide mouth (NMFS

1998). This species occurs in Atlantic seaboard rivers from the St. Johns- River,
Florida, to eastern Canada.

22

~ u

Shortnose sturgeon occupy different habitats and occur at different depths at
different times of the year (NMFS 1998). In the fall and winter shortnose sturgeon
are typically found in estuaries and lower sections of large rivers at depths of 33 to
100 ft; some adults reportedly move into the Atlantic as well. In the summer, adults

are found in waters six (6) to 33 ft in depth. Shortnose sturgeon migrate upstream
to spawn near the Fall Line at sites having swift water flow over gravel and rubble.
Juveniles reportedly remain in deep portions of the lower reaches of rivers in areas
just above the salt wedge.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of shortnose sturgeon in Lake
Waccamaw or Big Creek. The dam located on the Waccamaw River
downstream of the project' study area functions to exclude migratory aquatic

species from Lake Waccamaw and its tributaries, including the project study
area. Therefore, potentially suitable habitat for this species does not occur in
the project study area and construction of the proposed project will not affect
this species.

American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the
similarity in appearance to other Federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no
other crocodilians within North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a
variety of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests,
marshes, large streams and canals, and ponds and lakes.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: None Required
Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the project study areas and
several individuals were observed during the field investigation. Construction
activities may temporarily displace American alligators in the vicinity; however;
no long-term impact to American alligator is anticipated as a result of this
project. A biological conclusion is not required since this species is listed as
T(S/A) by FWS.

Waccamaw Silverside - The Waccamaw silverside is a small, two (2) inch long,
very slender, semitransparent fish with a silvery stripe on the side and a dusky back
(FWS 1993). Its body is laterally compressed, the eyes are large, and the jaw is

sharply angled upwards (FWS 1993). Adults resemble minnows (Family
Cyprinidae), but Cyprinidae have only one dorsal fin, and silversides have two (FWS
1993). This species is mostly pelagic and are almost never found outside of the
confines of Lake Waccamaw proper. Specimens have occasionally been collected
just below the dam in the Waccamaw River but never more than a few dozen
meters below the dam (Shute et al. 2000). The fish spawns from April through
June, but reaches its peak between 68 and 72 Fahrenheit; both sexes mature after

23

s

their first winter, and most individuals die after their first spawning season. Fully
developed larvae form small isolated schools by early May. No Parental Care of the
young has been noted. The Waccamaw silverside feeds on zooplankton. This
species is endemic to Lake Waccamaw, where it serves as an important prey item
for larger fishes (FWS 1993).

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Effect, but not likely to adversely Effect
For Bridge No. 363 the portion of Big Creek that crossed by the bridge provides
poor habitat for the Waccamaw Silverside. Likewise, the portion of the unnamed

tributary that is crossed by Bridge No. 364 also provides poor habitat for the
Waccamaw Silverside. For both bridge locations the majority of the constituent
elements, including high quality water, clear water with a sandy substrate, are
present. However, open and neutral waters are not present within this portion of
the project area. It is possible that some individuals of the silverside may be
found in the project area during periods of high water. Impacts to water quality,
such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from construction related
activities and may affect the silverside downstream. If all environmental
commitments mentioned previously are followed downstream impacts to the
Waccamaw Silverside should be minimized.

Red-cockaded woodpecker - This small woodpecker, seven (7) to eight and one
half (8.5) inches long, has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-
and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye,
but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (FWS 1985). Primary habitat
consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-
leaf, slash (P. elliotii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (FWS 1985). Primary nest sites
for RCWs include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no
mid-story development. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are
referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or

pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. Pine flatwoods or pine-
dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as
ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick
understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees. The woodpecker drills holes
into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup
around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees (FWS 1985).

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of RCW within three (3.0) mi of
the project study areas. Two small stands located in the project study area for

Bridge No. 363 are composed of a canopy dominated by pine species greater
than 30 years old. No individual trees greater than 60 years old were
documented within these stands. These stands are located on the sand-rim
adjacent to Lake Waccamaw and are bordered by Lake Waccamaw to the south

24

and Cypress-Gum Forest to the north thus isolating these stands from other
pine stands. No evidence of cavity trees or foraging was observed during the
field survey. These two small pine stands do not provide potential suitable
nesting habitat for this species, are not considered as available foraging habitat
due to isolation by unsuitable habitat, and therefore construction of the proposed

project will not affect this species. No potentially suitable habitat is located in
the project study area for Bridge No. 364.

Rough-leaved Loosestrife - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous
perennial that often reaches the height of two (2) ft; its leaves are sessile and entire,
in whorls of three (3) to four (4). Five-petaled yellow flowers, approximately one half
(0.5) inch across, are produced on a loose terminal raceme from late May to June;
seeds are formed by August, but the small, rounded capsules do not dehisce until
October. Preferred habitat of the rough-leaved loosestrife consists of the ecotone

between longleaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where lack of canopy
vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer (FWS 1995). The loosestrife
is endemic to Coastal Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas (FWS 1995). This
species is fire maintained; suppression of naturally occurring fires has contributed to
the loss of habitat in our state. Drainage of habitat may also have adverse effects
on the plant (FWS 1995).

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species within three (3.0)
mi of the project study areas. Potentially suitable habitat for this species in the
form of pocosins or savanna ecotones does not occur in the project study areas.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project will not affect rough-leaved
loosestrife.

Cooley's Meadowrue - Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous, perennial herb with
a smooth stem; the three (3) ft high plant is normally erect in full sun but lax in the
shade. Leaves are ternately divided; the leaflets, less than one (1) inch long, are
narrow, with untoothed margins. The small, petal-less, unisexual flowers appear on

an open panicle in June and the fruits, small ellipsoidal achenes, mature in August
and September. Moist bogs and savannas are the preferred habitat of Cooley's
meadowrue. This species is endemic to the southeastern Coastal Plain of North
Carolina and one location in Florida. Some form of disturbance is usually needed to
sustain the open quality of the meadowrue's habitat. Consequently, Cooley's
meadowrue is sometimes found along utility corridors, roadside margins, or other
maintained areas. Cooley's meadowrue is threatened by fire suppression and land
disturbing practices such as silviculture or agriculture (FWS 1994).

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
NHP records do not document any occurrences of this species within three (3.0)
mi of the project study areas. Potentially suitable habitat for this species in the

25

a

form of wet pine savannas does not occur in the project study areas. Therefore,
construction of the proposed project will not affect Cooley's meadowrue.

2. Federal Species of Concern

The January 29, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable
habitat (Amoroso and Finnegan 2002, LeGrand et al. 2001) within the project study
areas has been evaluated for the following FSC species listed for Columbus County
(Table 5).

Table 5. Federal Species of Concern (FSC).
Common Name Scientific Name Potential State
Habitat Statusa
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Y SC
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Y SR
Rafines ue's big-eared bat Co norhinus rafines uii Y T
Carolina pygmy sunfish Elassoma boehlkei Y T

Waccamaw darter Etheostoma perlongum Y T
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamensis Y SC
"Broadtail" madtom Noturus s p. 1 Y SC
Mimic lass lizard O hisaurus mimicus Y SC
Waccamaw lance pearlymussel Elliptio sp. 5 Y n/a

Waccamaw spike Elliptio waccamawensis Y T
Waccamaw fatmucket Lampsilis fullerkati Y T
Pee Dee lotic crayfish Procambarus le idodac lus Y SC
Savannah lilli ut Toxolasma ullus Y E
Cape Fear threetooth Triodo sis soelneri Y T
Savanna indigo-bush Amor ha eor iana var. confusa N T
Cha man's three-awn Anstida sim liciflora N SR-T
Venus flytrap Dionaea musci ula N C-SC
Har er's fimb Fimbrist lis er usilla N T
Lon Beach seedbox Ludwi is brevi es N
Raven's seedbox Ludwi is ravenii N SR-T
Carolina bo mint Macbridea caroliniana Y T
Pineland plantain Plants o s arsiflora N E
Swam forest beaksed a Rh nchos ora decurrens Y C
S rin -flowerin goldenrod Solids o verna Y T
Wireleaf dro seed S orobolus teretifolius sensu stricto N T
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia labra N C
E-Endangered: 'Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy" (GS 198 106. 202.12)

26

(Endangered species may not be removed from the wild except when a permit is obtained for
research, propagation, or rescue which will enhance the survival of the species.
T-Threatened: "Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (GS 19B 106:
202.12) (Regulations are the same as for Endangered species).
SC- Special Concern: "Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but
which may be collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act]" (GS 19B 106. 202.12) (Special Concern species which are
not also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected from the wild and sold under
specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern species which are also listed
as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or sold under specific regulations
C -Candidate: "Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes
also by direct exploitation or disease). These species are also either rare throughout their
ranges (fewer than 100 populations total) or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a
different part of the country or world. Also included are species which may have 20-50
populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide. These are species
which have the preponderance of their distribution in North Carolina and whose fate depends
largely on their conservation here. Also included are many species known to have once
occurred in North Carolina but with no known extant occurrences in the state (historical or
extirpated species); if these species are relocated in the state, they are likely to be listed as
Endangered or Threatened. If present land use trends continue, candidate species are likely to
merit listing as Endangered or Threatened.
SR- Significantly Rare. "Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and
sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). These species are generally more common
somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges,
mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina. Also included are some species with
20-100 populations in North Carolina, if they also have only 50-100 populations rangewide and
are declining.
W- Watch List. `Any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the sate
but nor warranting active monitoring at this time (see the Watch List section in the Supplement
for a more complete discussion).
P - Proposed: "Any species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing
process.

Many rare and endemic aquatic species, federally listed as FSC, are known to occur
in Lake Waccamaw and its associated stream systems. Carolina pygmy sunfish
and Waccamaw killifish have been documented in Big Creek approximately 0.3 mi
downstream of the project study areas (Shute et al. 2000). In addition to these

occurrences in Big Creek, Waccamaw killifish, Savannah lilliput, Waccamaw spike,
and Waccamaw fatmucket have been documented from the confines of Lake
Waccamaw within three 3.0 mi of the project study areas.

27

No direct impacts to FSC species are anticipated since the proposed project calls
for the use of a channel spanning structure at both bridges. Potential impacts to
aquatic FSC species will be minimized by strictly adhering to BMP's during the
construction phase of the project.

3. State Protected Species

Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), receive limited protection under the
North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).

Those state listed species that occur within.three (3) mi of the project study areas
and carry Federal designations have been covered above. Additional state listed
species without Federal designations are covered here. The southeastern bat
(Myotis austroriparius) (SC) has been documented approximately one half (0.5) of
a mile northeast of the project study areas. The yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis
cariosa) (T/PE) has been documented from Lake Waccamaw and is found
throughout most of the lake. The Waccamaw snail (Amnicola sp. 1) (SC) has been
documented from most of Lake Waccamaw and adjacent Big Creek. The
Waccamaw siltsnail (Cinncinatia sp. 1) (SC) has been documented from most of

Lake Waccamaw and adjacent Big Creek. The pod lance (Elliptio folficulata) (SC)
has been documented from Lake Waccamaw. The Waccamaw darter (Etheostoma
perlongum) (T) has been documented from Lake Waccamaw. The Venus hair fern
(Adiantum capillus) (E) has been documented two and one tenth (2.1) mi northwest
of the project study areas.

No direct impacts to state listed species are anticipated since the proposed project
calls for the use of a channel spanning structure at both B-3830A and B-38308.
Potential impacts to aquatic state listed species will be minimized by strictly
adhering to BMP's during the construction phase of the project.

VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES

A. Compliance Guidelines

This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal Agencies to take into account the effect of

their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects) on properties listed
in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and to afford the

28

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.

B. Historic Architecture

On April 12, 2002 representatives of the NCDOT and HPO reviewed project areas for
Bridges No. 363 and 364. Although there are properties within the project area that are
over fifty (50) years old none are considered eligible for the NRHP and no further
evaluation is necessary. The HPO concurred with this finding on April 16, 2002. A
concurrence form was signed which documents these findings and is found in the
appendix.

C. Archaeology

Based on the May 12, 2002 memorandum from HPO, see attached denoting "We have
conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources
which would be affected by the project." Based on this finding and a review by NCDOT
Archaeological Staff it was determined that the proposed project will not impact any
archaeological sites that are eligible for NRHP.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacements of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.

The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of
significant environmental consequences.

The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.

The project does not 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 limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.

No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.

29

No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during
construction of this project.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or the representatives to
consider potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils be all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important farmlands
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Farmland Protection Policy does not
apply.

This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.

This project is located in Columbus County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is

not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.

The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air
quality will not be significant.

Any noise level increased during construction 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 for highway traffic noise (23 CFR

Part 722) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.

As Examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
hazardous waste sites in the project area.

On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.

VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Efforts were taken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in
the project development with a scoping letter. Additionally, 70 newsletters detailing the
alternatives considered were mailed to. citizens in the vicinity of the project and to local
officials. An open house was held on December 12, 2002 to present information to the

30

public regarding this project. The open house was attended by eight (8) citizens. Most
comments concerned the ability to maintain traffic on this one-way road during
construction.

IX. AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments were received from US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Coast Guard, North
Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, State Historic Preservation Office,
the Columbus County Commissioners, the Columbus County Fire Marshal, and the
Columbus County Emergency Services.

X. REFERENCES

Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and

Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 85 pp.
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. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1998. Yadkin-Pee Dee River

Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. A-III-26.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. Water Quality Stream
Classifications Downloaded from
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alphaold/yad.txt on February 18, 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES
Permits. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/download.xls on February
18, 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002c. Biological
Assessment Unit. http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/benthosdata.pdf on 18
February 2002.

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Planning and Assessment (DPA). 1991. North Carolina Environmental Permit
Directory. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.

31

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 91 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and

Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury,
MA. 448pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management
Practices For Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1225. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The

Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.

Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Survey of Stanly County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald
Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 28 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 April 2001. Updated County Species List.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1981. Frog Pond, NC 7.5-minute series topographic
quadrangle map, photorevised 1983.

32

Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

33

I

I

I

I

I

I

~ Figures
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Ij

1 f Z 1
214
~ ~ ~ 214

Green i '
y Swamp

eaai
~Vri

Lake
Waccamaw `
.m p
Swp
i'

BRIDGE NO. 363

BRIDGE NO. 364
Lake
Waccamaw

COLUMBUS COUNTY

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
z
° PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
OF TMN,.° 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
c7
B-3830
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGES
NO. 363 AND 364
COLUMBUS COUNTY
VICINITY AMP
MARCH 2005 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1

e

~:Ei 8A~ } J~r .k r ; H

` / • 7 ~ ~ ~ is i.F2. ITA '!4 ~'1

R9rs PAY s. - ~-J~ n f.
^4 t
N -

• ~4
F
ti>
11,101111 11111 1111,11 11
" I
WAI
p. .truer 3
't R
e 1.RSk~~n 'f~ t.•~E F~~'~'~ i~~:,~Y Hl'~"F'r~rs~ {~y~''4~,'~~ cts v ~ , 3,'if'. ai ~ - z+
td
~ I't,.sit 1 I I v~.,.- .a,T7 , Y F~ 'ti~xajc=•: ~ ' `x'' 3«T4 :.yyg..\ ~ s ~ ~ ` ~~r
:~~'4.,~ t>f~~ «t. C S''~~r~ ~xt •E~' ~;r°!; ,~~7:. •.,~~K~..~• ~ ,R ~f.. E : rF ~ ~I
s. '>..>K ,!«cfi..~ 1'f ~'f. 1 ,titQ ".Y•r 4 y
f i~~~, 'y1~~ f~- tt b- ;r t S 'I 4~ R.'11~•.Y 'L
! •i4 it~:it.' •ti 6~( i2..~ y'. 1.'r ~t( ' 1~Y~b Iw {
v
'vy 1••~'~~'
K ,
e.
V fl
999 a~ • 'M ~s. ~ ~ i . 't, jrR xy ~ _ .1. i y. s " ~r~. .~w{r•• Y ~ 4"~~ d q. ~ { k
f
•

3
IO
4 1

tt+o

6

x
+
vim
`a
w«
a
tt ^ w . i . ~ Ft. ~ ~ i _
At"
- el
"
w Ott ~r ~ ~
i
z
u
y ~
IA, IM:
III II I~ y ~ I y
r
s r 1 F. .t ( •
w

:R
~1 > w

f , ~+E

yy ~ [ [ E. r. ~L ynt :

- ;«Y

i
i

t t ~R
y~y~y h
Vt a

L ~

? ,t. rf t r ~ is
_ -3830
Replacement of Bridge
s
41`& Bridge No. 363
BR 1947 over
n~,~~ Y kr> Yf i Friar Swamp
Columbus County
r ,~bt

i
a
a
FIGURE

~ w

- .«r":AhsunahG~.Mw - ~ ICI
~ ~ ~ ` ~ . A~ ~.~s~~ III

f'

~S f rt x

rc,

Y a Y ,dc

.,e. .teams...>... 44 `+T s Al 1,

_w

Replacement of Bridge
Bridge No. 364
rrra~as" SR 1947 over
" Big Creek
Columbus County

A

.J~' ,may ` ~ f• (
i, Yi
IGURE 3B

s

® NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

FIRM

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
ZONE A
C° ZONE X

COLUMBUS COUNTY,
AROL
NORTH CAROLINA
MMNCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 175 OF 350

ZONE X

COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER:
370305 0175 B
- - -
EFFECfIYE DATE:
JUNE 3, 1991

Emergency Management Agency
/ _
Fedewl Em

k

q
Pp
q
p
B-
3830
:N:.
e nt of Bridge •O
p • ; E •
Re lac me

364 i
No. an
6 and No.
R 194
S 7 over Friar
Swamp and Big Creek . Columbus
County
.
NOR
TH
0
O
1.
F.
1
i
r
1
y
y.'
{IQ
- tIf44
2
O
m
O
r
;p -
P
l
1
Q
F
O
Q
S
r
N -
0 P
f TR
FIGURE

4w

12' 5' 11' 11' S' 12'

08 .02-.06 .02-.06 .08
2.f 4:1 41
EXISTING EXISTING
NT GRADE GROUND
GROUND POI
2.y
TYPICAL ROADWAY APPROACH SECTON

~i
ALT.1 7' 11' IF, 7'
.0 01. -d w
ALT. 2 7' 11' 11'

TRAFFIC DATA
- GRADE
POINT
ADT 2001 600
.02 .02 NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTMBNC OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF MOHWAYS
PROffiCT DBVBLOPMBNT AND
ADT 2025 1400 OF BNVIRONNWrAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DUAL 2% COLUMBUS COUNTY
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION BRIDGE NO 363 ON SR 1947
TTST 1% OVER FRIAR SWAMP
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: LOCAL (RURAL) B-3830
MARCH 2005 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE SA

r

f

12' 5' 11' ll' 5' 12'

Z I _.08 .02-.06 .02-.06 .08_
4:1 4..1
EXISTING EXISTING
GROUND 2 GRADE
POINT. 2 f GROUND
TYPICAL ROADWAY APPROACH SECTON

CL
ALT.1 5.5' 11' 11' 5.5'
ALT. 2 7' 11' 11' i 7'
ALT.3 5. 11' I1' 5.

TRAFFIC DATA
- GRADE
POINT
ADT 2001 600
02 .02 NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTMRNT OF TRANSPORTATION AAL
DIVISION OP MOHIIATS
PROJECT DBVBLOPMBNT AND
ADT 2025 1400 a BNVDIONMBNTAL ANALTSIS BRANCH
DUAL 2% COLUMBUS COUNTY
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION BRIDGE NO. 364 ON SR 1947
TTST 1% OVER BIG CREEK
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION.• LOCAL (RURAL) B-3830
I MARCH 2005 NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 5B

i

i

i

i

i

i

~ Appendix

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

ENT We Th
United States Department of the Interior
. a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
a Post Office Box 33726
_ MARCH 3 ~s~ Raleigh. North Carolina +37636.3726
October 22, 2003

Brett Feulner
I North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and.Environmental Analysis.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548.

Dear Mr. Feulner:.

This letter is in response to your letter and biological evaluation (BE) of October 13, 2003 which
' provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) that the proposed replacement of Bridge No.
363 over Big Creek and Bridge No.' .364 over an Unnamed Tributary to Big Creek, Columbus

County (TIP No. B-3830) may affect; but is not likely to-adversely affect the Waccamaw
silverside (Menidia eztensa). In addition, NCDOT concludes that there will be no adverse
modification to the primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the Waccamaw silverside.
The following comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).

The submitted BE includes the following Special Project Commitments, which were discussed at
an on-site meeting on April 16, 2003.

• NCDOT's High Quality Waters Standards will be enforced throughout project
construction
Using turbidity curtains
• Not using wetlands as equipment staging areas where practicable
• Minimizing heavy equipment operations within the stream channel
• Not placing live concrete in the water
I • Both bridges will be designed to exclude any deck 'drains
• No in-water construction will occur during the spawning season for the Waccamaw
I silverside (April-June)

With the inclusion of these Special Project Commitments, the Service is able to concur that the
projects may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the Waccamaw silverside. In addition,
from the information you provided and other available information, and due to the temporary
nature of most of the impacts, the Service has determined that the projects will not cause an
adverse modification of critical habitat.

I

We believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
---manner not previously considered in this review;.(2) this action-is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).

Sincerely,

~ 7
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC

Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

E"T OF T"Fy. United States Department of the Interior
p T
D FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
_ Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726

July 15, 2002

Mr. Mike Penny
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Dear Mr. Penny:

This responds to your letter of October 3, 2001, requesting comments on nine bridge replacement
projects. Five of these projects are within the area covered by this office. Our biologist working
on projects of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) at that time, Tom
McCartney, requested survey data on federally protected species from the consultant, Wilbur
Smith Associates. The requested information was supplied to the Service in late March 2002 at

Mr. McCartney's retirement. In the transition to a new NCDOT biologist, the new material was
filed under the assumption that comments had been provided. The US Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) regrets the delay in providing these comments and appreciates your efforts to bring this
oversight to our attention. This report provides scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife, Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section
7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report
also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for this project.

The bridges scheduled for replacement are:

1. B-3680, Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 151501 over CSX Railroad;
2. P=383U Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp;
3. B-4093, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 over Gum Log Creek
4. B-4205, Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 over Doomas Creek, and;
5. B-4273, Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 on US 401 over the Lumber River

General Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands

For each project, we recommend the following. conservation measures to avoid or minimize
adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:

1. Wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical as
outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Areas

exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region
should be avoided. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur
outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.

2. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along or adjacent to existing, roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. At the completion of
construction, the entire detour area, including any previous detours from past construction
activities, should be entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with
appropriate, endemic vegetation, including trees if necessary;

3. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities

to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset;

4. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning, and sensitive pre-adult
life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 15;

5. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and,

6. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.

Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species

Federal Species of Concern (FSQ are those plant and animal species for which the Service
remains concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the
conservation status of these taxa. Although FSCs receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every
reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
should be contacted for information on species under state protection.

Federally Protected Species

The Natural Resources Technical Reports (NRTR) make determinations that a project will not
affect a particular species, primarily plants, based on surveys in the recent past. If actual
construction is several years away, the Service believes such determinations are premature and

2

that additional surveys will be required. It would be more appropriate to note that suitable
habitat or the actual species was not found during preliminary surveys and such evidence
provides early indications that the project is not likely to adversely affect the species.

Effect determinations for plants based on surveys within the project area may require work at a
particular time of year for accurate identification. The biological conclusions of the NCDOT for
plants should include the time of year that a survey was conducted, the person hours of
surveying, and the approximate size of the area surveyed. Surveys should be done within two or
three years of actual construction for those species inhabiting stable and/or climax communities.
Plant species that utilize disturbed communities, e.g., Michaux sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), should be done within two years of actual
construction if vegetation disturbing activities, e.g., regular mowing or timber harvesting, occur
at the project site.

If surveys for a federally protected species should determine that a given project would adversely
affect the species, a biological assessment (BA) may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2)
requirement and in determining whether formal consultation with the Service is necessary.
Please notify this office with the results of the surveys for the listed species that may occur in the
project area. Please include survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the action,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

Project Specific Comments

B-3680 (Moore County, Bridge No. 2 on US 15/501 over CSX Railroad)

The NRTR presents three design alternatives for the bridge replacement that vary in
environmental impacts. Based on Table 2 (p. 8), the Service recommends Alternative 1 since it
is the only alternative that would avoid all impacts to Piedmont alluvial forest and has the least
amount of impacts on mixed mesic hardwood forest. Table 3 shows that impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands for the Alternatives 1-3 are 1. 10, 1.44, and 2.85 acres, respectively. However, these
tabular data do not seem to correspond to the photographic presentation of the alternatives.
These figures indicate that Alternative 2 would avoid most wetlands in the project area while
Alternative 1 would cross a wetland just east of US 1. The Service recommends future design
work seek to further minimize impacts to wetlands, especially forested wetlands which.provide
valuable wildlife habitat.

The NRTR accurately notes the four federally protected species for Moore County. The report
states that habitat for the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), red-cockaded woodpecker
(RCW) (Picoides borealis), and American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) do not exist in the
project area. Surveys for Michaux sumac (Rhus michauxii) did not find the plant. Data on
known locations of these species available to the Service indicate that they have not been found
in the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, current data suggests that the project will not
impact species protected by the ESA.

3

B-3830 (Columbus County, Bridge No. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp)

The NRTR for these two bridge replacements has not been released and design alternatives are
still under consideration. The major issues for this project include impacts to wetlands, state-
designed Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) that flow into Lake Waccamaw, and the Federally
threatened Waccamaw silverside (WS) (Menidia extensa), a small (1.2 to 2.6 inches) fish
endemic to the lake where it occurs in schools near the surface in open water. Furthermore,
critical habitat has been designated for the WS that includes all of the lake up to the mean high
water level that generally includes the lower reaches of stream flowing into the lake up to SR
1947. If a temporary detour bridge is required, this structure should be on the side of the existing
structure away (north) from the lake. Such placement would avoid issues of adverse
modification to critical habitat. Impacts can also be minimized by not installing "weep holes" or
other structures on the bridge that would allow run-off or degrade water quality in the creek or
lake. Overall, water run-off from structures should be minimized or avoided if at all possible.
The NCDOT should use BMPs and effective sediment and erosion control measures to minimize
debris and sediment entering the creek and lake. Finally, potential impacts would be minimized
if construction is performed outside the WS spawning period of March through July.

The wetlands in the project enhance the water quality of Lake Waccamaw and provide high
quality fish and wildlife habitat. Every effort should be made to minimize temporary impacts
and avoid the permanent loss of such areas.

In addition to the WS, the other federally protected species in Columbus County include the
RCW, shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) (under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia). The NCDOT should determine project impacts on these
species through either a thorough comparison of habitat requirements with conditions at the site
or actual field surveys.

The Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehkei), a FSC, has been reported near the project site.
These small fish occur in heavy vegetated shallows of ponds, sloughs, and creeks. This FSC
would benefit from all measures to preserve water quality and prevent the loss of vegetated
wetlands.

B-4093 (Cumberland County, Bridge No. 81 on SR 1728 [Middle Road] over Gum Log
Canal)

The NRTR states that two alternatives are under consideration for the project. Alternative 1.
would construct the new bridge at the same location and use a temporary detour bridge.
Alternative 2 would construct a new bridge approximately 20 feet upstream of the existing
structure. Both alternatives would have the same permanent impacts, 0.02 acre, on jurisdictional
wetlands. If Alternative 2 is implemented, the NCDOT should discuss the removal of the

existing structure and the restoration of the waterway and associated wetlands at that site.

4

` r

The Service does not concur with the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a Federally threatened perennial
plant. This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. The
NRTR states that the species is characteristic of moist hardwood slopes and along stream
bottoms "usually" in association with white pine. The Biological Conclusion (p. 14) is based on
the absence of hardwood forests "dominated" by white pine. We do not believe that this plant
requires woodlands with, or dominated by, white pine, but that white pine is often present in the
forests containing the plant. The Service recommends that future conclusions be based on field
surveys.

In general, the Service can accept the preliminary determination that the project would have no
effect on the RCW, Saint Francis satyr (Neonympha mitchelhi francisci), pondbeny (Lindera
melissifolia), rough-leaved loosestrife, Michaux's sumac, and American chaffseed. Records

available to the Service indicate that none of the listed species of Cumberland County have been
reported to occur near the project site.

Table 5 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa). The Service recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control
be used during all construction to minimize any impacts to these mussel species.

B-4205 (Montgomery County, Bridge No. 133 on SR 1310 [Lovejoy Road] over Dumas
[Doomas] Creek)

Some documents for the project state that the bridge crosses Doomas Creek while other
documents give the name as Dumas Creek. We will use the latter in our comments and future
planning document should indicate the correct name.

The NRTR considers three alternatives, a new structure immediately downstream (Alternative 1),
a new structure immediately upstream (Alternative 2), and replacement at the existing location
with offsite detours on existing roads (Alternative 3). Table, 2 (p. 12) presents impacts to
jurisdictional water and wetlands. While there are only minor differences in impacts to wetlands,
Alternative 1 has much greater permanent impacts to Dumas Creek (232 feet) versus the 32 feet
for both Alternatives 2 and 3. The Service does not support Alternative 1 and would recommend
Alternative 3.

The NRTR presents a biological conclusion for three federally listed animals and two plants. All
conclusions are that the project would have no effects on these species. The conclusions for the
three animals, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), eastern cougar (Fells concolor
couguar), and RCW were based on the absence of suitable habitat or, in the case of the cougar,
the absence of recent evidence that the species exists in the area. The conclusions for the two
plants, Schweintz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and'smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata) were based on field surveys which appear adequate. Occurrence data presently
available to the Service indicate that the species most likely to occur near the project are

5

A ~

Schweintz's sunflower and Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), a FSC. The NCDOT
should carefully monitor the project area prior to construction to ensure that Schweintz's
sunflower does not colonize the area.

Table 4 of the NRTR shows that two mussels designated as FSC have potential habitat within the
project area. These are the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), Brook floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), and Carolina creekshell. The Service
recommends that effective erosion and sedimentation control be used during all construction to
minimize any impacts to these mussels species.

B-4273 (Scotland/Hoke Counties, Bridge No. 47 On US 401 over the Lumber River)

The NRTR considers two alternatives: replacement at a new location, approximately 70 feet
upstream of the existing structure (Alternative 1) and replacement at the same location
(Alternative 2). Table 1 indicates that Alternative 2 would have less impacts on important plant
communities such as cypress-gum swamp and coastal plains bottomland hardwoods. Table 2

shows that Alternative 2 would have less impacts (2.46 acres) on jurisdictional wetlands than
Alternative 1 (4.45 acres). Based on these data, the Service considers Alternative 2 to be the
least damaging to fish and wildlife habitat in the project area.

Table 3 accurately reflects the federally protected species known to occur in Scotland and Hoke
Counties. The determinations that the project would have no effect on four species (RCW, Saint
Francis' satyr, rough-leaved loosestrife, and American chaffseed) based on an absence of suitable
habitat appear accurate. The systematic surveys for two plants with potential habitat, Canby's
dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) and Michaux's sumac, did not find these species and present
sufficient evidence that the species do not occur in the project area in June 2001. Occurrence
data available to the Service indicate that no Federally protected species have been reported in
the project area.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us of the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of these bridge replacements. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, Ext. 27.

Sincerely,

Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Super-visor

6

cc: Ted Bisterfeld, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC

7

U.S. Department Commander 431 Crawford Street
of Transportation United States Coast Guard (Aowb) Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Fifth Coast Guard District Staff Symbol: Aowb
United States Phone: [phone]
Coast Guard FAX: [phone]
16590
May 22, 2002

Mr. Michael Penney
Project Development Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1549 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1549

Dear Mr. Penney:

This is in response your letter dated May 14, 2002, regarding the replacement of Bridge No. 363
and No. 364 across Friar Swamp in Columbus County, North Carolina.

Since Friar Swamp is tidal, it is considered legally navigable for Bridge Administration
purposes. It also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 115.70 at each bridge site. Advance approval waterways are those
that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than small boats. The Commandant
of the Coast Guard has given his advance approval to the construction of bridges across such
waterways, so an individual bridge permit will not be required for the two bridge replacements
across Friar Swamp.

The fact that a Coast Guard permit is not required does not relieve you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State or local agency who may have
jurisdiction over any aspect of the project.

If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Linda Gilliam-
Bonenberger, Bridge Management Specialist, at [phone].

Sincerely,

ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District

4

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History ~G G E `/~^O
Nlay 14, 2002' 4
MEMORANDUM
MAY z ~ 2e02 x
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager to .o
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch yGj~0 ~YYS
Division of Highwavs ~OticTD O g~S
Department of Transportation ~FNrAL
17
FROM: David Brook 01-- ,
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 363 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp, B-3830, Columbus County, ER 02-7904

Thank you for your letter of September 26, 2001, concerning the above project.

We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which
would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisor- 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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earlell, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.

DB:kgc

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
_ - i ••'I Service Center, Raleigh 2 7699-46 1 7 [phone] •733-8653

Federal Aid # BRZ-1947(1) TIP # B-3830 County: Columbus

CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Project Description: Replace Bridge Nos. 363 and 364 on SR 1947 over Friar Swamp
On 04/12/2002, representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at

? Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other .
All parties present agreed

? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.

There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
Proper h eS I-H is considered not eligible for the National
Registe and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.

( All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)

Signed:

Representative, NCDOT Date - .

FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other .Federal Agency Date

epr~t esentative, HPO Date

State H' 0 1
hW"
Dat
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

oa~wEp _
lot,

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety

Division of Emergency Management

Michael F. Easley, Governor Bryan E. Beatty, Secretary

October 19, 2001

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
1549 Mail Service Center rT 7 2 _I
Raliegh, NC 27699-1549

Subject: RE: Bridge Replacement Projects

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Thank you for your letters dated September 26, 2001 regarding the review of nine bridge replacement
projects. The North Carolina Division of Emergency Management has reviewed the proposed projects
and would like to provide comments to the Department of Transportation.

My staff has reviewed the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for your project areas. The majority of
these projects are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, also know as the 100-year floodplain. Please
ensure that the proposed projects do not cause an increase in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in these
areas and that they comply with Nation Flood Insurance Program guidelines.
Projects Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4009, Bridge No. 33 in Anson County - Zone A
• B-3830, Bridge No. 363 in Columbus County - Zone A
• B-4205, Bride No. 133 in Montgomery County - Zone A
• B-4273, Bridge No. 37 in Scotland County - Zone A
• B-3908, Bridge No. 246 in Stanly County - Zone A
• B-3909, Bridge No. 99 in Stanly County - Zone A
• B-4276, Bridge No. 33 in Stanly County - Zone A5

Projects Not Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4093, Bridge No. 81 in Cumberland County - Zone B (500-year floodplain)
• B-3680, Bridge No. 2 in Moore County -Zone X (500-year floodplain)

The Division of Emergency Management does not oversee the routing of Emergency Response Units on
a day-to-day basis. However, utilizing off-site detour routes has the potential to increase response times
of these units, especially if alternate routes are not available. Your agency should contact local
emergency management officials or the local representatives responsible for roadways. NCEM would

1830-B Tillery Place.* Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

also like to advise that you pay close attention to roadways that have been identified as evacuation routes
and the potential impacts your projects may have on evacuation travel.

-If you have any-further questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Steve
Garrett at [phone], extension 349.

Sincerely,

Gavin Smith, Ph.D.
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management

205 West Cabarrus Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

1 f •'T af.~"~'..i~1'~T~a>?:! ~ ''~2 ~3~.~Y,j 1,.~:~ i r ~ ~
~if~:It ~'~i i~-~ ~ ~~~ti' ~t~•i~et ~"1~. - ~ s r X y x~~g1~T--`~ P ~ n~ ~i ~•d.,
Y t k~
ii y ll` T~ 1

F ~ 11(~~
t I 1 T {4. LL
j i t ~ I..F. { ~ 1 ~ LY , ryT: s #,~rt ~y p'7, ~ y I i• .,v M 4 ~ t •r STy ~t~ 'y,~ i ` p
~€+Al
r~

~`~'f~.! ECM ~ ~ .f.t s ~ ~ ,ter' ~ tCD.~c &
ttFtkil# 4Ft'# f.:~4.,>r, r M U:r Lu 0MA
4 ~ • 4. 1 1 I
~ t.1 jy lt•~ 1 t k ~ J~° ~ ifi ~ ~ ~ ~~j51{ i ~ ti > ~ry,t"`.'t'!'' L fl N .G G ?1')

~ ~ [ t f# iJ~'i~1 t~~ F'- 1 '1 , •"i• r + • ,k~~ ri.YZ„ + t O.

IT
{ I {d )i'~• t

kv"

T c's w Q r..
'j 1 ~ t~1 aarar s ~ d ,Y T ~ c LL!

~ -s y
r

~ r` M ~ _ ~'~'1 L4`µ kn1 >t ~t~. ~~St~7.f ~~T ~ ~ ~
~ ,•':J t"3^+R V F Yx~ 1;i7~ rt r`~7,r. ~tsa1~ ~ 2s - •

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
j

FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

COLUMBUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)

PANEL 175 OF 350

t:

I
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER: ;
370305 0175 B
F.C A 1
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JUNE 3, 1991
e e
I
a Federal Emergency Management Agency
1 r

1 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
111 WASHINGTON STREET • WHrMVllL8r NORTH CAROLINA 28472 - PHONE [phone] - FAX [phone]
E-MATL Columbus Ointrxur.net
i November 7, 2001
COMMISSIONERS
Amon E. McKenzie
'zone 1 Mr. Elmo Vance, Project UeveltiprAnc 1?.aguteer
CB :Willson Project Development and Envtronrnental Ara' yBranch
Zone 2 North Carolina Department of Transportation
Research and Development ;
Sarr#de Jacobo 1549 Mail Service Center
Tone 3 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1549
Bill Memory
zone 4 1N RE: BFli~ e. 1111 1't='~6 1-`!s
o
.
Lynwood Norris K; ~"tM4"3~~,,t
Zone s Dm Mr. Vance:
Spr"ell R Britt In regards' to yo ' g Bridge Number 363 on SR 1947 over Friar
:zarte 6 Swamp, Columbus Countyn t ' said bridge. Fire Marshal John Saylor and
'-David L Dutton, Jr. Special Projects Cootdia ' "gait a~errrative ' for homeowners and emergency vehicles. Due
Zor* 7 to this bridge being local = is no suitable ingress and egress to the homes
other than this bridge. x, f :can ected area but these roads are not suitable to
~I~~N~M~~MN~N~{NN _w 11•I' .
withstand emergency ve a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the
James E. Hill, Jr. concerns on this smatter. T alas to repair the bridge while allowing access
County Attorney along SR 1947 to homeo 1=
The only alternate are as follows:
Ids,L-Smith 1. Rehabilitate'4 'ry
Clerk to Boast/ 2. Replace tire,•struc r~rliy detour onsite.
Asst to Administrator
We feel these ahematives are tteeessary to ptv #~e bomoowners with adequate access to their homes and to provide
the necessary protection and'es provided :by. the''I`owii of Lake Waeeamaw.
Thank you for your *mWiate-attetitioato this matter and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact
the Administration Office of Columbus, Cou* at telooone: [phone]. If the Fire Marshal's Office can be of any
further assistance in this matte r,:please dotrot ltesitaie to.call at telephone: [phone].
Sincerely,
•1 '
SPRUELL R- BRITT, Chairman
COLUMBUS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SRB/jbh
Enclosure '

i

,.1 . 1 iii 1t

t ~

Columbus County
Fire MarshallFire Inspector

November 1, 2001

To. Darren Currie .
Parks and Recreation
From: John Saylo
County Fire Marsh ' .

Subject: Bridge Inspection

As a result of our visit to ttie bt1dge'a%.t0b. Fake 6n;1041-2001,1 am providing the
following response. As .1 upiieis, W. infom*ion, the NC DOT wants to make some
improvements to this bridge.' In ft coming: 9iim.°. .
After our visit to this location,-1.. can;see no beRtefidal course of action.-'during the time this
bridge is under whatever rbll: airs/c~enawations: that'Will.be done. I have listed below the
replies to what we discuwWftirn.the:~DOT;letter,
1. There is NOT an attsiriatiVe-'detoor available to the residents of this area. The
road through the tr" area' s. unsat(sfactotifor vehicle transportation. It is
unacceptable for errt!eirgepcy. vehicles ta'use:due. to the condition and length of
time to travel into the area. -
2. DOT would have to constrict. a to porary
. bridge through this area In osier to
provide traffic flow- foi• resideets:ancf ernergeney traffic. This b fte'would have
to be able to suppo tEie weighf'of'a;loaded lire truck or in excess of 30,000
pounds.
I am not sure there is any.foasible.."y;to4o'this project without totally cutting off the .
residents in the area. I suggest that tW.DOT1lcok1M altematives or not consider the
project.
If you have any questions oc-com6ientt,'pleasefeel.-fre9 to give me a call.

i

608 NortM Thompson Send ( WhiteviUe, North Carolina 28472
Telephone: [phone] fas 970.640-1241

9-1-11 Columbus Central

Addressing
Emergency Management

October 11, 2001

William D. Gilmore

NC Dept of Transportation
Research & Development
1549 Mail Service Center m
Raleigh, NC 27699-1549

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Subject: Your letter dated September 26, 2001, Columbus County B 3830,
Bridge No. 363 on SR 1947

If the bridge in question, Bridge #363 on SR 1947, Bella Coola Road is closed, the
residents on that road will have no way in or out except by boat on sake
Waccamaw. Bella Coola Road is a dead end road with no detour routes available.

Sincerely,

John H. Moore, Jr.
Director

JHM/skw

Emergency Services 9-1-IlColumbus Central Addressing
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: (910) 640-1428 Telephone: (910) 6.10-1518 or

{ • P
P
See Stnet 1-A For Index of Sheets RAn RAn rwFCr Ra18 WR Na '~T IOIAL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~ 8-3830 I
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS rtAle lRWNa F-- Renamm
_ 33181.1.1 BRZ-1917(1) P.E.
D NPD 1113 _ -33181_1.1--_ ---BRI-1947(11 -ROW/UTIUIIES-
CC 0
COLUMBUS COUNTY
-
Friar
M BEGIN S~Bwamp
PROJECT 79 0i0
- - - - - - - -

BRIDGE 1•. 9~ - -
No. 363
y y
M Z
BRIDGE LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 363 AND NO. 364 OVER FRIAR SWAMP
M~ NO. J64 Swamp AND BIG CREEK ON SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)
¦LJ -Mainline Canal
Lake Waccamaw END a-
-
- - - TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURES.
• PROJECT
~1P
o,
a
O
VICINITY MAP
SITE 3
/y BEGIN BRIDGE
"''1111 POC STA 38+56.79-L- 1AR SwF END BRIDGE
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-3830 POC STA 39+77.33-L-
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION -1- SR 1947 BELLA COOLA RD
C~ POT STA 15+50.00-L- FR AR swwP vUU11 w END TIP PROJECT B-3B30
END BRIDGE -sR 94' c~
POC STA 21+63.54-LEUa~pOURO~ -RU"u~E END CONSTRUCTION
POT STA 42+20.00-L-
PD
1
00
i
19`n BELLA C
.WRIWE
JSJ
BEGIN C NSTRUCTIOP~ ~~Vl
TO Nc ?14 END CONSTRUCTION POT STA 33+75.00-L-
s 74Tt POT STA 27+00.00-L- SF
'BELL- CDOU l1 ` K
BBB 'I' 1` \ I ; I \ \'zi~ 4lf
S TE 2
SR 041
SITE 11
BEGIN BRIDGE
POC STA 19+68.46-L-
~ WETLAND/ STREAM
IMPACTS
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NOT USE FOR CONRAUCTION
r' • NCDOT CONTACT: DOUG TAYLOR, P.E. CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD ll.
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Prepared In Me Office of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILB UR SMITH ASSOCIATES STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
50 0 50 100 ADT 2007 = B00 LENGTH ROADWAY 411 Fayetteville St, Suite 1303, Raleigh NC, 17601 •0•r
ADT 2027 = 1470 TIP PROJECT S-3830= 0.320 MILES 1006 STANDARD SPECffICAnONS Mc'~0~
- -.dodo PLANS DHV = 14%
D = 65% LENGTH STRUCTURE P.E.
9
50 0 50 100 T = 3 % 4 TIP PROJECT B-3830 = 0.058 MILES RIGHT OF WAY DATE: DAVID L.WILVER,P.E. SIGNA-- 4
V = 50 MPH A,1ga6r 7,2007 PROJECT ENGD&M ROADWAY DESIGN •
O PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) • (TT$T 1% + DUAL 2°/a) TOTAL LENGTH OF ENGINEER Or TA0
TIP PROJECT B-3830 = 0.378 MILES
0 5 10 LETTING DATE: R.D. oDELL, P.E. Pe i D(aWtrlg
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER S(I L t of
August 19,1008 +f
C 1
s~ PROFILE (VERTICAL) FUNC.CLASS.=RURAL LOCAL P.F- PE
o SICMTi/RE' STATE HIGHWAY DESIGN ENGINEER

~O O mm~
E- ra

If W 7`~t~ 7°f~~ ~ ~f~, It il~~..#~ ~t' t'~~ ~ Z .~i ~ y2Z~
06 C6
02
t 4,
44zv tit 14,
, .1 V
14 11
f 41
4 114
060
44 4
41 tit j

8 4

r#ft _ D QCL a i
f
t' t4 t

4 IL)
f. 1
it- LU
A- I # -tea aC1 p Q?~

4

r

PROPERTY OWNERS

NAMES AND ADDRESSES

PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES

S JAMES M. LITTLE 303 W. WHITAKER MILL RD
RALEIGH, NC 27608
7 W. E. PRESCOTT JR, & JACK B. 303 W. WHITAKER MILL RD
PRESCOTT & SUSAN P. LITTLE RALEIGH, NC 27608
6 STATE PROPERTY OFFICE 116 WEST JONES ST
OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH, NC 27603

N C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
COLUMBUS COUNTY

PROJECTAM1.1.1 (B-SM)
BRIDGE NO 363 AND 364 OVER
FRIAR SWAMP AND BIG CREEK
ON SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)
~HEET S OF 13 10/17/07

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 20+00/23+00 -L- BRIDGE 0.010 0.018 0.015 0 0
2 36+00/37+00 -L- 72" PIPE 0.011 0.030 0.024 21 26
RT
3 37+00/38+75 -L- BRIDGE 0.126 0.033 181
RT

OTALS: 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.04 202 26 0
a

The proposed Bridge #363 consists of a four-span cored slab superstructure atop pile bents. Two of the three bents are
in the waterway creating permanent impacts. Each bent consists of 7-18" diameter pipe piles. Each pile has an impact
area of 1.77 square feet. For the two bents in the water, the total impact is 24.8 sq. ft. NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
The proposed Bridge #364 will have a three-span cored slab superstructure atop pile bents. Roth bents impact the
waterway. Each bent consists of 9-HP12X53 steel piles. Each pile has an impact area off l.0 sq. ft. The two bents in COLUMBUS COUNTY
the water have a total impact of 18.0 sq. ft.
PROJECT: 33281.1.1 (B-3830)
ATN Revised 3131/05 SHEET

- . .
- a- DENOTES T E M P O R A DL sTA 20+66 _ SKETCH SHOWING BRIDGE /PAVEMENT RELATIONSHIP PROJECT REFERENCE NO, SHEET NO.
IMPACTS IN SURFA WAT . 2'@So~S . B3e30

GP= ? RAV SHEET NO.
499 9
DENOTES TEMPORAR ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
tip, a W ENGINEER ENGINEER
P fI
r M ~AV
~ I
~E N
I I WETLAND p B„ ~
B77
I I I
r 'p
f
R
I 4F
DENOTES MECHANI D a
M L, E CLEARING GREE PRELIMINRY PLANS
D TOTES If~PACTS IN B,7 DO NUT USE FO C°NSRU=ON
,
SELECT MATERIAL BEHIND WALL I Rn
I I I ~ W
~CLL~LD SURFACE WATER SEE WALL DETAIL I I I yfR~'Yl\ 11y
+50110 • RLRGATEDESIGN GRMP.PA
. 4031 I WI!owS^utll wyn xcmx _
+50DO CL 'B' RIP RAP STATE OF NORTH CA NOTES
I
+ I N 1. FOR CROSS SECTIONS OF: SEE SHEETS:
' EXISTING BRIDGE 4- X-1 THRU X-10
TO BE REMOVED " D. FOR STRUCTURE PUNS: S- THRU S-
SR ryg R r ~ HOULDER BERM GUTTER r
_ dEUA+0653 END OF BRIDGE
G'rotA RI04DJ ...-F~_. R RAU 350 i
S 5 ' 4' SIP SS M%9NBs7- - - - -T - ' PUE 4958 . 0 STA 21+''86.5 LT
C Q(~" _ PUE L'I Rar ' 'r RIP RAP CL 4B' RIP RAP
_
D 15' RCP PUE... _
mRrv_~•PV[ wEUD n--~-~F lGE -r----PUE ~ y SAO +00,00
i K
Y I I Ew PyE PUE _ /i ROD o xw • N _ - - - PUE PIf=. 2p3 3023
I II IN CONIC I, +~,DO r r 'PL4c~ 350
I i RETAIN 29.9 ~~-F
. ~ PUFF
6• r ` .P _
tr +
WILSON dAllll +00 J i - UE • T- ~IDP - NW
DI _ 6 PY 5 5703'483"E _ 4- DIP 55FM
-
40.00
I _ ~I STEPHEN M.B AAIIN ' i i * +~7Dt10 ! PUE - - -Y -C WM -$GI-0 19Z6'65T
S rQ, ! UT YDITCH
P• MITH ,JAMES F. - - _ - - - F
STA 16+20 TO 8 ' PVt w r--~. _
_
STA 19+65 -L- F ^ . +58DO +p0 +00!X1 35 +00.00
6'~vc-WiT
w i c r SEE DETAIL 1 P E IF 6610 ' 55.00 30170 2979
75.00 V 42.96 pp E" - ~DO _ U 0
+SOA7 PUE
II mR, A r ~o " e SSDO 73.00 ' 30.00 N'-M ~P PUE PU PUE - PU
STA 19+65 TO 9 l.~ RETAINING WALL 2
NN - % ryN r n¢ p Im 20+50 -L- RT ay \ ~ p + +778 SELECT MATERIAL BEHIND WALL CL 'B' AIP RAP +00.00
57
DETAIL
r i - OE +A 40 CY ~i^r
E
°
GR JAMES M
' SUSAN P. LITTLE I 1 ST DOE DETAIL 2J2 55~ SEE WALL 547
Z
2 1 i \V°~ SITE amt
lubr
I I I ~ W. E. PAESCOTT, JR., & JACK B. PRESCOTT,
ID 75Fp L 3 258jp CURVE DATA R -L- 'r0\~ \ DETAIL 1 B SUSAN P. u1TLE
I
A y \ LATERAL 'V' DITCH
EEN SWAVP Nai }o Scale!
PI Sta 20+E0.J~ GR
I \
d 4 = 7'03'46.5*(LT) STDET TOITCH
JURISDICTIONAL STREAM Naturm 1-Imxot to Samar
D = 3'00'00.0' +
I I I'/f}. slope
y D
I I L• L = 235.43' room
/ 1 ~2. C0R• MIn. 0=I.2 Ft.
-OR T 117.86 N r of l Nat rol
=
( R = 1.90986' 0=1.0 Ft. crow D a Graam
11 99'97' CDR.COR 5E = 0.04 \ 8 \ O 16+20 TO SY +65 -L- RT MIn. 0= Ft.
L
ill Ll N49i
e•6•B 99,9s cpR B RUNOFF = 88'
I I I
JBK Ate. N Y # FROM STA 19 Q3) STA 20+50 -L- RT
CL A 20+66 -L-
1 39150'
5'86
r 21 COR RED SLAB
SrEW= 0.
Lei o PI = 19+00.00 w GP-19.9
a
1-1
EL = 50.82 0 a N PI = 22+00.00
-3 co 0
0 EL = 49.92' ° 04 0
N r x c o PI = 16+75.00 VC = 160' Lu
to ry
EL = 45.87' K = 64 0 I° y' VC = 140' PI = 23+75.00
IL n U1 W s o ° a VC = 150' z ~ 2 + 0
° K = 74 EL = 46.07' 4c + ~ o
0 RED m N IC to Ic
z~ax 0+ K= 94 " VC = 180' Nto t- N
ooLHR
R4 •0 (oUl WhQ- SLAB =Q K=102 cQ =0(DW
mLFIJWE COQ 125 On7
m N W PROPOSED
O Q, F
GRADE Z F .J Q
H0.3000% W W W
50 FEATHER 0 ME
MATCH EX STING 2,200 50
- - Y 200 o (+)0.6000 FEATHE TO
-77 MATCH ISTING
III - - ~ - _
- _ 0.4400
GROUND XCAVATE EST. 46 CY

l I I I
I I I ~
- I I I
40 EXCAYA E EST. 10 CY 1 I
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA
EL Y=43.9 1 ~ 40
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 4700 CFS
1 DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS
l DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 44,6 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 5700 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = I00 YRS
Ij BASE hw ELEVATION = 451 FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE =(4700 CFS
SM N1 ! OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = < 50 YRS
30 BM k2 OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 44,0 FT
-L- Sta. 11+12.81 (39.14' RT) -L- Sta. 19+88.48 (38.55' RT)
EL 45.22 EL 46.86 30
SPIKE IN 18" PINE TREE SPIKE IN 24" PINE TREE DATE OF SURVEY I2-12-05
W.S. ELEVATION
AT DATE OF SURVEY ` 41.7 FT
.1 Dr"
W SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)-L-
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28

3 4 D \ PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
LNU I `.I IL'VIZ i~ 7a1'su
U 20+66 ~ l l(YI ',110WING BRIDGE /PAVEMENT RELATIONSHIP
qq
I 11 W ! AA , J r
IS N LlI \ I f IwJ45' a J„o5 8-3830
4
CORED S
M I 1,
1 SKEW-q0• 1 Y
9p l RW SHEET NO.
GP-/
f
R
OADWAY DESIGN
I > ? 'C1 HYDRAULICS
I N( l
I I ENGINEER
r
ENGINEER
III [ll ~~~Iq}~w'1 ~I ON r
I B77
I I 1 41 ~ _ i
1 Aw wY * * w Ul_NV ` MEL 'I ~I~ Y ,
F~RI f I"'
E w w w I S ~qu PRELIMIN RY PLANS
rtr'I'I4T~~\ I~ ,
L_ Y T m NOT
S NM _A C T S 1 N { en vl uu ro mx9Tnurnmr
_ SELECT MATERIAL BEHIND L . I I ) W B77
J r
I~ I I l
SEE WALL DETAIL
5 IC
1 1' / a u, rrrID r SUHGATE DESIGN GROUP. PA
II I I I +SODO i / 1 WIIUUSmItlI
I STATE OF NORTH CA ~AEJNA NOTES
1 +50.00 C 'B' RP RAP U) 1. FOR CROSS SECTIONS OF: SEE SHEETS:
I N BRIDGE -L- X-1 THRU X-10
\ M ASTIN
tr 1 TO BE REMOVED
I I I ~ 4.' O G LI 2. FOR STRUCTURE PUNS: S- THAU S
- -
1 HOULD BEAM BRIDGE
I SR IBEIG cry _ _ v END OF BRDGE
r
_~~S _ _ _ _ _ - _ o TA 2l,'86s L LT w Y ry Y' 8 y ,
CL RI RIP RAP y. ~ # =Y ~ 'l y Y,
I I I - _
=1 f Y W
I -PJJ Y' DODO +
1 I I R'RCP 'py- ~ _TB "•-~e_ - Tr - n..~.-. ~ Y
I I I RElAO
I I I f.
+
GIN CONC B ' , 9$ F
o
B, wlLSO +ooDD PuE S 57'03'48.3E
- - - - -
II $ 4000 +7500 ( p~ _vC wM _ - --2GI-0 19258ST
TEPHEN 1.
I
I I I I o ~ yv+ MITq' JAMES
I I I ~ ~ + ~ STA 65 -L- R F 4r -
I I I II au , r _
I I I r SEE DETN F _ I -
,
I o o + + i i~ 'Y +50.00 +73D0 ~'a+42.46 ST K-
a m rv ry ,m ; 55D0 75.00 g lO.00 A 19+65 T ° AWING WALL 2

7 ~I 'Nw aI3 ICI STA 20+50 -L- RT
JAMES M 1 EST DDE +F 10 CY
°R g SUSAN P. LITTLE
SEE DETAIL 2
0 II II II 7 .2 1, 1
Z I I I I
~ II ~ 1I ~ ~ ~ V~ r 7
N \ O
I W. E. PRESCOTT. JR., & JACK 6. PRESCOTT.
23 ET IL & SUSAN P. uT7LE
3 CURVE D TA
I I I ~ JSFD ~ LAT A 'V' OIT~}I
~EENSygyp IN to Scolel D DETAIL 2
P! St'37- 2 +60.~
= 455 (LT) ST N A vV%ITCH
D = 300' a JuuSDICTI N"turd 1 --I -p. INat to S-1.1
~~L = 235.43' D rFt.
Oq Min. D=1.2 Ft. N turd 1 Notur"I
= 117.86' C=1.0 Ft. Ground a Gr"una
D '
R 1,909.86' D TO ST +65 -L- RT Min. D= Ft.
0.04 FF = 88'
I I I JB•+ ~ i ~ FROM STp 19 ~ STA. 20+50 -1- RT
Y
I Cl A 20+66 -L-
1@ W+
1 1 5' & 3050'
21' CORED SLAM
SKEW= 0
PI = 19+00.00 GP=4999'
v o w EL = 50.82' o e N PI = 22+00.00 0 = T 3 co o VC = 160' W EL = 49.92' o
o o m N4 W O PI = 16+75.00 K= 64 x w o0
CC to r x o EL = 45.87' co + 2 + VC = 140' PI = 23+75.00 o + o 00
N4
4+ •W aoa m e~ K = 74 EL = 46.07' Q+ oo H
7 w) U) z o a VC = 150' Nz+ C RED 0 Lv VC = 180' l LOV V F- 0 In IN•I
„ v E+oU; K=94 oa S B oa K=102 Eno1ox
I WF- ZI.- OQ Z+ W
in 5
HJ OT--a
z[a 9) Lu
0NWE 0~7a
m co Lu PROPOSED
o Q. F
Z~Ja
50 GRADE OD.300096 WNW f
FEATHER D
MATCH EX STING ()2.2DD 2 200 o FEATHE TO 50
HATCH EXISTING
I XCAVATE EST. 46 CY
GRO NO
I I I ~ I
I I
40 EXCAYA E EST. 10 CY /
I = BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA 40
EL V=43.9 / DESIGN DISCHARGE = 4700 CFS
1 DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS
! DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 445 FT
f BASE DISCHARGE = 5700 CFS
BASE FREOUENCY = 100 YRS
BASE HW ELEVATION = 45J FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE =14700 CFS
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = (50 YRS
30 BM 111 BM k2 N { OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 44.0 FT
•L• Sta. 11+12.81 (39.14' RT 30
) -L• Ste. 19+68.48 (38.55' AT) I
1
EL 45.22 EL 46.86 I DATE OF SURVEY 12-12-05
SPINE IN 18" PINE TREE SPIKE IN 24" PINE TREE
~ WS. ELEVATION
AT GATE OF SURVEY = 417 FT
E P
Cho4s
SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)-L-
~a
:a
e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

' PROJECT REFFIIENCE N0, SHEET NO.
DFNOTFS FIII\LN ~Auo
s
PI SIO 38+07.94 ~f0 W F 1 L. A N D 83 % B-3930
= 3T 40' 24.4 rRn N~ GRi/ " I ROADWAY DESIGN EET No. HYDRAULICS
DENOTES TEMPORARY ENGINEER ENGNEER
D = srr 14.8* DENOTES IMPAC TS IN wq 9'J6 I' do~
. 00 6459 /
L = 608.90' SURFQQr IW,IT ~qq r 'D"'0w"s,llp " MPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
T = 315.90' '$kg oI'144TlIAhbLINa I Mgwy ~ /
R = 926.00' wAt
SE = 0.04 " h""/
RUNOFF = 88' Raoos A OEUr •yr. " PRELIMIN RY PLANS
ro Nm Us rnxaLxvcLwN
" xIfTIA(: Vol I
• w + + DENOTES MECHANIZED wpu I' To BE D y - SELECT WALL MATERIAL BEHIND WALL
I • * 4 * y ` E " 'wp "I SEE
CLEARING FORESTS. L.LO
III 51. l/ y« S Y X16 E TO a 5 SUIGAIERE9 p M", PA
AININGWALL A SP
55m m *3 c~Y * L 5 ~y pfJ N wtnn.cmc iII!
W, C 16 \ * - _ _ NOTES ~p
RETAIN*AND 'IRE rig` + 1. FOR CROSS SECTONS OF: SEE SHEETS:
VINE WISH 77'* -SR y \ * * -L- IL1 1N0.U %10
+25m IN PIPE \
2. FOR STRUCTURE PLANS: S- ,HW s
tag E 2* rIWpS JI% ~•iOPt F .J, - * \ -
II Ii I * \pUE * * ~ .
-e CLWI'
RIP RAP ~OOm \
I I I *
li * * * E REA PDE \\d 4044* ti~----
~\\30A3 ~ * *
I I I * * ~ ti// r ~ +OOmu200D ooos E+~5 PUE
y wY . - w E * 7 * * w Aos 6m tom +B
* * Y . _ A S AUE .EMI ~ \ SSFy :y /
* - N' S NS +9249 p11 1 t RODOp om"~ W moo, 0~
/ i 4' J'r 16Ltl h \B'
y '1%./~ ~,M +9 m m p \
50DO * +65m
\ ep
Dp 70mp
15m
JAME N
1.5:1 SLOPESW1lOCI,PLATING * AETAWIN WALL ? ( 5'. \w\4MgW "SNIP)
A A4+30 TO gA 3Y+1Q,{_ ITT \ • ~p y T
.qN ^~M'~~ STA 4+ TOE A4 {-`ET 6 AN P. ITT B' 0, °W~HI-
SEE DETAIL +M RIP MP +50m + m I 7'~
I'S
W*SDicnoNAL UIDER BtM GUTTER 6°m 30m i I / W~L az
0 / * ~CRffR ND O IAIDGE TO c3~
* 11 OD Rl 'III' s~~9 CUr ,,nn
W
t:1 * * 'ice 1 ?~.4 1' \,\C3
1%-
"z * * SKETCH SHOWING BRIDGE / PAVEMENT RELATIONSHIP \ 9, 1
D s s-
1
w ' ' I * * j _ m 1', II \ SUSTAINABLE FORESTS, LLD.

I I I
I I I ~ / * * W Ap 111 I1', `L )Bid Q`~~ CRNE~EMEINC RpAp
077 O
I I I I it 5 F.
I 1 I ~ 1 ~ 'NO DECK DRAINS AEOUIRFD /.••1HH"' R, E. PRESCOTT• JR., & JACK B. PRESCOTT• ly y / 1 2eY6a
-00. C ~3• y `
AND SUSAN P. LITTLE 11 B77 m 977 JAMES M. LITTLE AND C \
/ SUSAN P. LITTLE
I I I
I 1 1
I I 1 p94'1.
I 1 I
I I 1
I I I / . 0.EBJa
I 1 1
I I I
1 I I
SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)-L-
I I I
1 I 1
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
Gn W~ O
G n WOW 11-0
O O C W)
O H GO O+ m+ <+n c; In 00 Ic 0) is to •7 cm
ad N7 w
n~K ~aa PI = 37+65.00 Wf zF =F~ e.aa
z l7 a EL = 47.80 M o W N PI = 40+10.00
qa WNW O< •f
I I I
M a s N VC = 140' EL = 47.06' _
v wf.i K=99 YK=891 WNW
_ PI = 41+00.00
co W 2 EL = 45.98'
C RED VC = 100'
g K = 179
50 PI = 34+80.00 PR POSED B IDGE
EL = 44.60' 50
FEAT ER TO VC = 80'
NATO EXISTIN K = 98 0. 1.1200 000% TCH FEAT Et T
EXIS INO
(')1 2000% (-)0.64 0'E
III _ I
72' LINER
40 BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA EXISTING
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 2600 CFS 40
DESIGN FREWENCY = 25 YRS AREA 0 BE EXCAVATED
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 45J FT EST. 0 CY
BM t3 BASE DISCHARGE = 39170 CFS BM A4 '
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS ELEY= 1.74 BN k5
-L- Sta. 32+54.54 (58.12' LT) BASE HW ELEVATION = 45.4 FT -L• Sta. 38+42,02 (9.72' RT) -L• Sta. 42+40.00 (87.51' RT)
EL 42.83 OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE =<2600 CFS EL 43.78 ; EL 45.30
SPIKE IN TREE OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = < Z5T85 SPIKE IN 24" PINE TREE
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 45D FT EXTG ; SPIKE IN 18" PINE TREE
84' CMP
30
DATE OF SURVEY = 12-12-05 30
WS.ElEVATION e w
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 415 FT S _ I~,
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

1 /'N , I PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0.
DENOTES F I LL~I N NO ea GREEN SWAVP , , "630 s
PI Sto 38+0794 WETLAND NC / , N , MY SHEET NO.
= 3T 40' 24.4" (RT) +94J6 ~R/p ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
OIv a DENOTES TEMPORARY ENGINEER ENGINEER
DENOTES IMPACTS IN LF
L = 5m1a8 I R A(~rg I~~ATFR w4 so 6459 IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
/ G r~ SNIP
T = 35.970' SURF'S>cATE OF•NORTH LANOLINA 4
R = 926.00' w7pw N(P`
SE = 0.04 O w a / PRELIMIN RY PLANS
RUNOFF = 88' n 6 ' +
G * , ov Nor
u_ cawa NvcnvN
FOR
A +M * Gy D SELECT MATE~RIT~A~L BEHIND WALL
* DENOTES MECHANIZED v 0000
CLEARING + R - SEE WAUD LS
0 • _ SBIEAIEOESIGN "P. FA
+ + A gUy - f r c WALL A SP FORESTS, LL . M1RnKSMH urn 'm,,,,,W .=e,.,.="
5( + 9 m NOTES
J6
NA AND.A 1. FOR CROSS SECTIONS OF: SEE SHEETS:
RET
+25DO 14 NE 7Z' ,y \ GLI U x'I THU 11-10
I I I SMO RIPE
I I I + Z. FOR STRUCTURE PLANS: S- THRU S-
I I I
,2S c 2'7
I I ,Y R 3196' \
I I I ~ [
I I I ~
4D
I I I A, +Y + E ~ - -
REfN E +Y
W W / r +00D0 OD0 CODS A&
a Qyr M / 36,('0 DO 20DO y `
6~ . 11
'T cu! 5 +36D IT N0005 A 9 ~y~
N B61 30 +pp SOm ~ rv I ~ ~
I I +92D DO 1.17 8 ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~B17 O\
N 91 UL N
a
1.5:1 * PIATI ~ A RETNN WALL 7 JAME 5 .1 7~ N ~WAA\ A!SNIP
/ / A + 0 S RT O S AN P. ITT .~OWNS~__
/ 1' i IP
A A OA~O A A RIP RAP
1U0.1SDIC11 \ ER E GUTTER 60.00
/ / +I i CREEK )GE TO
I I I 'r'1
"z i + OWING BRIDGE / PAVEMENT- RELATIONSHIP r~

O i i i >y W ~ m, 11 11 SUSTAINABLE FORESTS, L.L.C. '
I I I I ~ , 11 ~
1 I / W m PARKING op
I I a A 4 AREA oPT p
O • .
I I B77 077
5
I I +M PpDD Q
I I I I 'NO DECK DRAINS REQUIRED I I
W. E. PRESCOTT, JR., & JACK B. PRESCOTT, II II` I
AND SUSAN P. LITTLE ~P0^ JAMES M. LITTLE AND o
s
I 117 877 / SUSAN P. LITTLE
I I I
I I I
SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)-L-
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
n W l h O O
I I I
O O QIOO oil OrlNll 6F50
I I 1 = W O m+ M+ W O N
11 A. N p. m C01 CrN 2N7
C, I Its -e 92 +
w cm In
U; CC m ~ a a PI = 37+65.00 LOU < o < o < d a a
z m as EL = 47.80' w w N PI = 40+10.00 Lu N uA
o<
° u < • VC = 140' VC EL = 47 = 80' 08' w o uE
W K = 99 K = 89 _PI = 41+00,00
N W 2 " EL = 45.98'
C RED VC = 100'
S B K=179
50 PI = 34+80.00 PRIPOSED 8 IDOE 50
EL = 44.60'
FEAT ER TO VC = 80' FEATHER TO
IIATC EXISTIN K = 98 000% ~•)1 TCN EXISTING
+ 1.1z00 20
~ - 00$ -)0.64 0%
72" INER ~ - _
i
40 BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA EXISTING
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 2600 CFS GROUN
j
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS AREA 0 BE EXCAVATED
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 451 FT EST. 0 CY
BM k3 BASE DISCHARGE = 3900 CFS BIN 114 ELEV= 1.74 m is
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS
L- Sta. 32+54.54 (58.12' LT) BASE Hw ELEVATION = 454 FT -L- Sta. 38+42.02 (9.72' RT) -L- Sta. 42+40.00 (87.51' RT)
EL 42.83 OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE =(2600 CFS EL 43.78 EL 45.30
SPINE IN TREE OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = C_ZS.YR5 SPINE IN 24" PINE TREE SPINE IN 18" PINE TREE
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 45,0 FT EXTG
84' CMP
I ~
30
DATE OF SURVEY = 12-12-05 , 30
l
INS. ELEVATION
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 41b F7 t
0 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

i
0 5 10 PRO1. REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0. TOTAL SHEETS
1JJ111 B-3830 SMODELNAMES

TEMP FILL SATE
IN ETLAN
0
0.04 0.04
/ 20+ 0.00 - -
i' E%. El 48.55 -

0
034 0.03
- - - -
_ o
19+ 0.00 /
_ E%. EL 47.87 -

0.020 0.009

-
/ 19+ 0.00
47 12

N
/ 18+50.00

0.040 0.070

\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' 18+00.00
\ E%. El 46.00
w`
of
\ / S
o~
i4
ooh
PRELI UNARY PLANS
DD NOT USE FOR CON UC"GN

0515 10 PROJ. REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS
lL W B-3830 SMODELNAMES

IMPACTS TO
SURF CE WATER
0 07A

--1 22+ 0.00 /
L 40.4/

PACTS 0
SURFACE NATER
a.o~o
QA0
~i' 21+ 0.00 _

6
Q O.Od

- --J 21+ 0.00
Fy F1 A7-48

SITE I

MECHANIZED
0.04 o.o+ CLEARING

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

rawil
OI
$h Q
20+50.00
iF
NF E%. EL 29.22
<f¢
oF«
PRELI INARY PLANS
0o NOT US6 FOR CON UMON
F

T
0 5 JO PROJ. REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS
LLWJ B-3830 SMODELNAMES

50
50
0.020 0.020
40
24+ W.00
ES. 45.52 40.
15

45 0.o2a ' 0.020 45

' 24+)0.00 EX E 45.68
35 \ \
35

50
0.020 0.020 50

40 23+ 0.00
\ EX EL 45.76 40

Ain sn
0.020 0.020
45

45

~ 23+ 0.00 - - - - - - -
\ \
35 EX E 45.83 \
SIT 35
55 IMPA TS TO
SURFACE WA ER 55
45
45
40 22+ 0.00 \
\ / EX EL 46.01 - low 40
35
heet 3s
oc„
PRELI INARY PLANS
1,0 110 100 W NOT USE FOR CON -RUCTION ~o 4p 20 0 4 60 0 o i0 io to

~ j
0~ _ ~5_ _1J0 PROJ. REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS
V iW B-3830 SMODELNAME$

PACTS 114
S RFACE ATER
FILL I WETLA DS -F LL IN W TLAND
50
a0 Y
i
45
i
An
/
-
38+00.00
35
EX. EL 40.10
IMPA TS IN
SUR ACE WA ER
1- LL IN IN
50 W TLAND WET AND
50
0.04
45
.35 -
40 40
EX. 39.98
SITE 3
W TLAND
IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WAT R
50 > 0.ao 0.ao
45 - - - - 45
37+ 0.00 40
EX. EL 43.71
TEMP IMPACTS N
SURFAC WATER
so Y PACTS N
A 11 -1
0.040 o.ao
45 - -
- 45
-AQ OM
EX. E 45.57
35
SITE 2 35
30
30
50
45 _ 0.oaa o.a0
- 45
r
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
36 0.00
411-
35 EX. EL 45.66 /
35
<E'
o~»
PREL[ INAla PLANS
W NM USE FOR CONS VCf10N
10 10 10 0 0 0 2 D 0 0 0 10 10 10

0~ _ 5L X10 PROJ. REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS
l1JlJJJ B-3830 SMODELNAMES

50
45 50

40 A _5
? 41+ .oo i'
EX. EL 45.82 40

50
45 - fp 0Am
.040 0.040
An 45
40+ 0.00 ~
35 -
35

50
d
0.040 As 50

40 40+ o.oo ~
EX. EL 46.76
40
50
040 0.0 0 50
40 45
-
39+ 0.00 40
- - EX. EL 43.97

50
0.040 50

A _15
40
40
39+00.00 _ - --35
EX. El 38.87 - IMPACTS IN
SURF CE WAT R
SST 3
WE LANDS WETLANDS
o 40 0.040 51 n
45
45
- - - -
35 4-
Perm
38+50.00
35
o E%. El 40.71 c,
heel
o~
PR L1 INARY PLANS
1 0 1 O 1 O 00 NM USE "it CON UC710N
z0 0 0 10 10 10

~ ~ z'err; '.lo-ul I /I I nr Inlr 1 nl '.Irra. (
(f/ f ' I' ICI, ( I I I I I I ( RI11LE 7=ITV RAtt ftAlS 11ldLLT WYl[NQ N0. NO,
Sn<[T!
C. B-3830 1
. - I~7~ rt~n FROr.rn FLIW.lA uucwPnav
33701.1.1 RRZ-194701 P.E.
n NC B7 332a1.1.2 aU-191701 ROW /MUM
G' a I COLUMBUS COUNTY
M Friar z
AECrN S Swamp
PROJECT `RJ
M 00 P,AiDICE Oi0

No. 6 rDV, LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 363 AND NO. 364 OVER FRL4R SWAMP
I 79 v NO-56- 5 Fnar
Swamp AND BIG CREEK ON SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)
Mainline Canal
Lake Waccamaw ENO TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURES.
PROJECT
V
a
0
QR BEGIN BRIDGE
POC STA 38+56.79-L-
rim
END BRIDGE
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-3830 POC STA 39+77,33-L-
` . BEGIN CONSTRUCTION -L- SR 1941 BEILA COOu RD
[~I POT STA 15+50.00-L-
END BRIDGES - C END TIP PROJECT B-3830
POC STA 21+63.54-1-- END CONSTRUCTION
- POT STA 42+20.00-L-
4 J ~00LA RD `
L, SR 947 DEL
e^'` .ate _ / ~
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
Ta~fi END CONSTRUCTION POT STA 33+75.00-L- ro
POT STA 27+00.00-L- ~~atF
- , - 1 1 e_ , eorLa r° 4jF~~C
\n '
0 BEGIN BRIDGE
POC STA 19+68.46-L-

PRELIMINARY PLANS
• NCDOT CONTACT: DOUG TAYLOR, P.E. W NOT U~%E FOR -NSTRUCr1ON
l~ CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD Il.
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Prepared In the Office of: HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
50 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0 50 100 ADT 2007 = 800 LENGTH ROADWAY 421 Fayetteville sr, sere 1303, Raleigh NC, 27ee1 ADT 2027 = 1470 moor,
TIP PROJECT 8-3830=
PLANS DHV = 14 % 0.320 MILES :eoE srAamARD sPECDTCRnoxs a<e,;o
D = 65% LENGTH STRUCTURE P~ A
g 50 0 50 100 T 3 % TIP PROJECT B-3830 = 0.058 MILES RIGHT OF WAY DATE: DA[7D LWILYER,P.E
~T - - - - -
I
V = 50 MPH A,rgart 17,2007 PROJECT FMMER ROADWAY DESIGN
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL( • (TEST 1% + DUAL 2%) TOTAL LENGTH OF ENGINEER "op,
Tp
5 0 5 10 TIP PROJECT B-3830 = 0.378 MILES
LETTING DATE: RD.oDELL,P.E.
August 19,1008 PROJECT DESIGN JWCJNEER
IiI, PROFILE (VERTICAL) FUNC.CLASS. = RURAL LOCAL PE P.E
3
SIGNATURE STATE 1UGRWAY D.RS.FGN EA'GDIBER

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. sHEEr No.
Note: Not to Scale ( 7~{ R„3 „
* ~~I~~~ ~~~~~I ~l'1~~~~[ RWSHEETNO.
S. U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering

CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o N use roe consrai~remv
WATER:
Water Manhole 0
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.' RAILROADS' Water Meter C)
State Line Standard Gauge $ Water Valve 0
CSY TRANSPORTATION
County Line RR Signal Milepost ~Po J5 EXISTING STRUCTURES.- Water Hydrant 0
Township Line Switch MAJOR: Recorded UIG Water Line
SR
aNC - - -
Ci Line RR Abandoned C Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert Designated UG Water
~ ~ Line (S.U.E.*)
Reservation Line RR Dismantled Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - CONC WW Above Ground Water Line A /G Water
Property Line MINOR:
Existing Iron Pin 0 RIGHT OF WAY Head and End Wall CeC ew TV:
Property Corner Baseline Control Point Pipe Culvert - TV Satellite Dish
Pro Monument 0 Existing Right of Way Marker Footbridge
Property TV Pedestal
Parcel/Sequence Number i23 Existing Right of Way Line - Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or 1B ?ce TV Tower
Existing Fence Line - Proposed Right of Way Line Paved Ditch Gutter UIG TV Cable Hand Hole f
Proposed Woven Wire Fence Proposed Right of Way Line with A Storm Sewer Manhole 0 Recorded UG TV Cable
z Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Chain Link Fence a Storm Sewer
Proposed Right of Way Line with Designated UG N Cable (S.U.E.`) - - - - - -
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence 17 Concrete or Granite Marker Recorded UG Fiber Optic Cable "
Existing Wetland Bounds - - - -~W- - - - Existing Control of Access - - UTILITIES' Designated USG Fiber Optic Cable S.U.E' "
Proposed Wetland Boundary W~ Proposed Control of Access POWER:
Existing High Quality Wetland Boundary WLe Existing Easement Line --E-- Existing Power Pole GAS:
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary B Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - E Proposed Power Pole U Gas Valve 0
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary EP9 Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -ME Existing Joint Use Pole 1+ Gas Meter
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement- PDE Proposed Joint Use Pole -t)- Recorded UIG Gas Line
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.' Proposed Permanent Utility Easement PUE
Power Manhole © Designated UG Gas Line (S.U.E. )
Gas Pump Vent or UIG Tank Cap 0 A
ROADS AND REIATED FF.ATURES.• Power Line Tower Above Ground Gas Line
Sign S
Well ° Existing Edge of Pavement Power Transformer
lLG Power Cable Hand Hole "H SANITARY SEWER:
Small Mine x Existing Curb
foundation C H-Frame Pole ? Sanitary Sewer Manhole
0 Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
Recorded LPG Power Line P Sanitary Sewer Cleanout p
Area Outline Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
Designated UG Power Line (S.U.E.*) ----P---- UG Sanitary Sewer Line
Cemetery 0 Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp © Above Ground Sanitary Sewer A/G Sanitary Sewer
Building Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp ccFR
TELEPHONE: Recorded SS Forced Main Line
School Existing Metal Guardrail
Existing Telephone Pole + Designated 55 Forced Main Line (S.U.E.*) -
Church Proposed Guardrail T T T T EE-----
Proposed Telephone Pole -o-
Dam Existing Cable Guiderail
_ Telephone Manhole 0 MISCELLANEOUS:
Proposed Cable Guiderail " "
HYDROLOGY.' Telephone Booth ID Utility Pole
Stream or Body of Water Equality Symbol
Y ® Telephone Pedestal D Utility Pole with Base
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r-- - Pavement Removal
Telephone Cell Tower Utility Located Object p
1 River Basin Buffer VEGETATION: LM Telephone Cable Hand Hole WW Utility Traffic Signal Box
Flaw Arrow E Single Tree Q Recorded UoG Telephone Cable Utility Unknown UG Line
a Disappearing Stream Single Shrub Designated UIG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.`)- ----T---- WG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Pa
Spring cf t Hedge r Recorded U/G Telephone Conduit C= A/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
3
Swamp Marsh Woods Line s Designated UG Telephone Conduit(S.U.E.`y ----PE--- UG Test Hole (S.U.E.*)
a Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch Orchard Recorded WG Fiber Optics Cable i ie- Abandoned According to Utility Records - AATUR
False Sump Vineyard "^ey~W Designated UIG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.`)- CPO--- End of Information E.O.I.
~a
_ - _

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SNEER N0.
"an 2
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
EXISTING PAVEMENT ENGINEER ENGINEER
s
2
__~,0, 8.0' 2 ~ Z PRELIMIN RY PLANS

GRADE N \ 4 cI W rvOT vsE F~ o~.,Ta 7a.•
POINT VARIES (See Plans) SUICAIESESIGNOIWF,FA
ORIGINAL GROUND 2y 08 (cI J 65.02 ~ 0265I .08 OR161NAL GROUND - -
4:1 q./
` .O2 - - .02 - - - CI EY
T El W U EI T
WEDGING DETAIL NOTES:
GRADE TO THIS LINE
ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND x TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH TO BE INCREASED 3' WHERE GUARDRAIL IS USED.
TYPICAL SECTION N0.1 *x CONSTRUCT FULL DEPTH PAVED SHOULDERS AT WIDTHS & LOCATIONS SHOWN
ON PLAN SHEET 4 & 5 AS REWIRED FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL
USE ON: -L-SIG. l5+50.00 to Sto.17+00.00 x x x VARY GRADED SHOULDER WIDTH LEFT (5' MAXJ TO MATCH EXISTING
-L-Sta.23+58.00 to Sta.27+00.00 SHOULDER (SEE CROSS SECTIONS)
-L-Sta.33+75.00 to Sta.36+27.86 PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE N UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
-L-Sta. 39+77.33 (END BRIDGE) to Sta. 42+20.00
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
I PROPOSED APPROX. 250 IN. ASPHALT CONC. SURFACE COURSE,
C1 TYPE SF~ERS. AN AVERAGE RATE OF 140 LBS/SY IN EACH
OF TWO 0
i
0 PROPOSED VAR. DEPTH. ASPHALT CONC. SURFACE COURSE,
0 C2 TYPE SF95A AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LBS PER SY PER
8.0 5.0 1IN.DEPTH, TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN
-1 x, _22,0' S. 8.0`
125 IN. NOR GREATER THAN /5 IN. IN DEPTH.
* GRADE PROPOSED APPROX.4.0 IN. ASPHALT CONC. BASE COURSE,
POINT El TYPE 825AB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE Of 456 LBS/SY.
65" 65" PROPOSED VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONC. BASE COURSE,
ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND E2 TYPE B25AB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS PER SY PER I
08 02 02 6 .08 IN. DEPTH, TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3A IN.
4J _ 4.•/ NOR GREATER THAN 55 IN. IN DEPTH.
T El .02 .02 El T EARTH MATERIAL
GRADE TO THIS LINE - U EXISTING PAVEMENT
ORIGINAL GROUND ORIGINAL GROUND
V MILLING
TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
USE ON: -L-Sta.17+00.00 to Sta.19+68.46 (BEGIN BRIDGE) W WEDGING
-L-Sta. 21+63.54 (END BRIDGE) to Sta. 23+58.00
-L-Sta.36+27.86 to Sta.38+56.79 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
I
VARIES 1926'TO 195'
l 7" A
GRADE
//.0, 1`7
_ 1l.9 C 1/.O' 1L0' D ! 1'-7" POINT
C2
.04 04 .04 .08 .08
000000000000 000000000000 - -
00 0000 0000 00 0000 00 00 00 0o ORIGINAL GROUND - - - 1
ORIGINAL GROUND
} GRADE
GRADE
POINT POINT T w u T
s 39.0' OUT -OUT 39.0' OUT -OUT
i TYPICAL SECTION ON STRUCTURE TYPICAL SECTION ON STRUCTURE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
USE ON: -L- Sta. 19+68.46 (BEGIN BRIDGE) to USE ON: -L- Sta. 38+56.79 (BEGIN BRIDGE) to
a e Sta. 21+6354 (END BRIDGE) Sta. 39+77.33 (END BRIDGE) USE ON: -L- RESURFACE Sta. 27+00.00 to Sta.33+75.00
A = VARIES FROM 6.92'TO 9.41' C = VARIES FROM 5.47'TO 8.02'
B = VARIES FROM 4.43' TO 6.91'
a D =VARIES FROM 5.81'TO 836' NOTE: SHOULDER WIDTH VARIES ON BRIDGE DUE TO HORIZONTAL CURVE ON TANGENT BRIDGE.

COMPUTED 1Y: DATE:
QIEfXED Er: DATE: EeOIECf EEF9El1CE NO. SHEET No.
eae3o 3D

PARCEL INDEX SHEET

PARCEL No. SHEET No. PROPERTY OWNER NAME

1 4 J. M. LITTLE
2 4 STEPHEN M. & PAULA P. SMITH
3 4 JAMES F. RIGGS
4 4 JAMES M. & SUSAN P. LITTLE
5 4 J. M. LITTLE
6 4&5 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
7 4&5 W. E. PRESCOTT, JR., & JACK B. PRESCOTT, & SUSAN P. LITTLE
8 5 SP FORESTS, L.L.C.
9 5 JAMES M. LITTLE AND SUSAN P. LITTLE

z"
0
N_
Y

i
Fh
3
s
z

s
V
~a

/ I SKETCH SHOWING BRIDGE / PAVEMENT RELATIONSHIP PROLECr RE 830 NO. SHEET
4 NO.
eaelo
4
SHEET
I I
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB END APPROACH SLAB "W DESIGN NO.
rol EER
1 Cl '*BRIXE W .5 ta.2I+7TS4 SNEER n ENGINEER
'PIP B77
'BEGIN TIP PROJECT,8-3830 O J PiQ i
~ 1 J. M. LITTLE PRELIMIN RY PLANS
DO NOT L'.lE PO CONST-CTIOV
D8. 221 PIA 0024 SELECT MATERIAL REMIND WALL I 177
SEE WALL DETAIL BEGEND BRIDGE
`II
so, BEGIN WALL 1 1 I Sta.19+68.46 D9wTEOESDwaDw9,rA
-
T!PER +5090 POT Sta. 16+80 o Sto.2l+6354
4031 PC Sta. 19+42.46 END WALL 1 .w.,
H STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1-50DO CL 'e•uFRAP POC Sta.19+81 IONS NOTES
- h OB. 501 PG. 0821 I. FOR CROSS SECTIONS OF: SEE SHEETS:
N R-I THRU > iD
PO S A 18+81.07 (14 44'LT)-L DUSTING BRIDGE
J-1 ; TO BE REMOVED @ 2. FOR SnUC URE PLANS: S- THRU
V' { w snoUlDER BERM CURER T Sta. 21+7749
1G55J`.~. ENO OF BRIDGE
m~„ ?UE ' -
J
p
• AI.4 ~ ~ 4958 70 STA 21+86.5 1- IT
END CONSTRUCTION
PUE CL ~E RAP r RIP RAF a a' ur RAP
_ POT STA 27+0000
` REM n PUE A ++.4 .01'L I L
1 PUE
/UE PUE
„ • o a. F_ a - - _ u~p r. 30.23
PUE 23 j. 9
$5' ` ' $9 ~ _ PUE
.m GR 750 T-
N/
29.4 -
RETAIN
a'
B. WILSON - +00.00 y'i. FUp. e 8 a S 03'48-3'
40DO -
I +7500 a r~u - ? 2c
01 PG 3z3 RETAIN DI 40110 LATUN' DDCH -
30,00 w
32'
I8 STA 16+10 TO 30.00
.Gb r
I„ I STA 19+651- F,~Ei I. 6J0 r~ PU +00.00 J50
T J, I I SEE DETA0.1 F PpE1A~
r I +50-00 +7307 +4246 SID V DITNE P PUE PUE !E` - PUE PUE PUE - PU END WALL 2
55cn 7560 3000 L RETUNING WAJ1 i "x 'LIP RAP + POT Sto.26+75
- - I STA 19+65 TO
SELECT MATERIAL BEHIND WALL cl e
I, 30+SD RT EE WALL DETAIL 50 T~ ER +0000
: I ' Ij JAMES M & EST DDE +E40 CY S
55 _ 54.79
l.Jll +776 30,i7Q
SUSAN P. LITTLE SEE DETAIL 1
i I
0 I D L D8.551PC. 0944
STEPHEN M OO BEGIN WALL 2 \ a
ED .914 PC ULA P' SMITH POD Sta. Z+46 W. E. PRESCOTT, JR.,,&& JACK B. PRESCOTT, 0742 DO' 502 PC. 0462 DETAIL ( & SUSAN P. LITTLE
J CURVE DATA FOR -L- , DO. 465 PG. 0536
LATERAL to ' DITCH
(Not DETAIL 2
J MES P.RIG PISta 20+60.32 2uu5olcrlonuSTREAi "
. 578 PG, 0210 L = T 03' 46.5' (LT) 1 Fu STAN A 'v' UircH
voce Not to s~bi
d D = 3' 00' 00.0 0
L = 235.43' + D r=
I Ja Min. L2 Fi, om~ oun
R = 1,909.86'
\ FROM STA16+20TO STA. 19+651-RT Mln.o: Ft.
SE = 0.04
NJ i SY.. A
P'L'W s x, RUNOFF = 88'
FROM S7A 19p45-T0 STA. 20+501-IT
= PI = 19+00.00 W m
v o w EL = 50.82' r, ! PI = 22+00.00 0 =
0 o m w W °o PI = 16+75.00 VC = 160' a m W EL = 49.92' w
w m x EL = 45.87` K = 64 R/ + 2 ^ VC = 140 PI = 23+75.00 0 m m 00
W s K = 74 EL = 46.07' t+ • a o
m N 0.0 VC = 150'
, C a a
IEU
Z~au mmm K= 94 S 0 K = 1 2 mom
111
= 102
W F-
WFJ
0 4(
O S -)0.300
FEAT ER 0
IIATC EX TIN l )2. 00 _ 2 F "THE TO 50
0.6 RO-O MISTING
MIA
0R0 NO CA ATE EST 46 CY
4 EX AVA E E517. 10 Y r I
E V= J I I - BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA 40
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 4700 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 50 YRS
l DESIGN RW ELEVATION = ".6 FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 5700 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = /00 YRS
II BASE 10 ELEVATION = 451 FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE =<4700 CFS
01ERTOPPING FREQUENCY = < 50 YRS
3 M B1 42 OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 44D FT
8 L. Ste. 11+12.81 (39.14' RT) -L- Ste. 19+88.48 (38.55' RT)
71 30
EL 45.22 EL 46.56 DATE OF SURVEY 12-12-05
Z SPINE IN 18" PINE TREE SPINE IN 24" PINE TREE
ELEVATION
AT _
# I AT DATE OF SURVEY 413 FT
SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)-L -
I I i
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
31 1

Iu~ CURVE DATA FOR -L- PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
P1 Sto 38+0794 u e~
L = 3T 40' 24.4 (RT) ER sNEET No.
D = 511'I48' +9416 ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
N59 / n ENGINEER ENGI EER
L = 608.87'
T = 315-W STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 6
R = 926A0' OB.SOIPG.0621
SE=0.04
RUNOFF = 88' O / PRELIMIN RY PLANS ig .98'(44. / 1 Q , + I - - o / BUSTING . DGf m NVf I'SE FO COASTRI'CTIOv "AFS c L I To eE e
RI. SELECT MATERIAL BEHIND WALL
YED AQs SEE WALL DEkuL 8 END TIP PROJECT 8-3830
+%m \ N T/ N SNGIEDESRRDigf,PA
• ~F,.....R.
PC Sta. 34+9204 SSm \ m +3 1°1 Mw RETAINING WALLA SP FORESTS, L.L.. N%ufimNA ry~'XCm
Ml ')IA 42+ZC.00
5l7 GRADE TO IDS. 671 PG. 0495
PT Std-41+0091 :.a te
END WALL 4 Mons
RETAIN-AN -
+25m LRNE WITH 73• \ALLIANN ,~1 , 11 x \ h/p r r - - POT 41+75 1. FOR CR{ss SECTIONS OF: R ~EESHEETS:
40D, SM0011H PIPE
+5om - - -
+25m 31.96 . 8 30TMER 3. FOR STRUCTURE PLANS: 5- THw s-
-30D4
A
CL~r
RIP RAP
E E +00m °
UM : E PD - PUE - 4014
PUE
30D3 - -
i ° E I
O+20DO 30m - -
' ,B1y ,a
c
36
*60.00

F
. - E 1 +36m
\ F 1 0.S
f , 3om B,
2 E S ,y 3 m Irsamm 65m +65.00
GAk 3,so 01>S'!y
\r(
.91
f_ \ AINI WALL 3 SOm +0091
A 31+50 ToOES`1AWROOC TI G RET

ST
TA 3A+.o To A 35+90 4-ET ~ END ALL 3 3ci~e i ' y V le
/ SEE DETAIL RIF RAP, +50m
IowL OC Sta. +75
5 OSDrn
w 60m +3 m
ODU)ER A GUTTER
TO ' A\..' O T J
i. / J r ^ D 0 BRIDGE
N
~s 4~ 1 Atl 4N
_L_ ICI , y. X
6

o FU I Z:, I Q +e . .46'LTI-L SKETCH SHOVING BRIDGE /PAVEMENT RELATIONSHIP
POT Sta. 31+42.02 BEGIN APPR SLAB SUSTAINABLE
Sta.38+42.82 JAMES M. LITTLE AND FORESTS, L.L.C.
' END APPR 51.08 SUSAN P. LITTLE I ' )B. 556 PG. 0030
" Sta.39+91.05 DB. 551 PG. 944
!wk
577 177
` 1 ` •NO DECR DRUMS REQUIRED ' .
W. E. PRESCOTT, JR., & JACK B. PRESCOTT,
AND SUSAN P. LITTLE I
JAMES M. LITTLE AND
D8.465 PG. 0536 I R77 W R7 SUSAN P. LITTLE
BEGIN BRIDGE END BRIDGE I DB. 551 PG. 944 \ \
Sta. 38+56.79 Sta. 39+77.33
SR 1947 (BELLA COOLA RD)-L-
W
O
O w + t4 W ' N
a „
co
~L+va
n ai ~ a v PI = 37+65.00 < o
z = j s a
EL = 47.80' PI = 40+10.00
r) < VC = 140' EL = 47.06' z
WHJ K=99 VC=80' W W
rArv 2 „ K = 89 _PI = 41+00.00
EL = 45.98'
C RED VC = 100'
50 PI = 34+80.00 PR POS 0 s K = 179
EL = 44.60' B IDG 50
FEAT VC = 80'
K = 98 0. 000 P TN TO
20011 F- ~_A%Tclli FXTSrTwr
I I
T -
72" LINER
I
40 BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA EXISTING-/ \
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 2600 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS AREA B EX VA ED 40
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 45J FT I /I
BFq T __7 0__o
M N3 BASE DISCHARGE = 3900 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = NXI YRS ON N4 I E V= 1.7 BB /5
-L- Sta. 32+54.54 (58.12' LT) BASE HW ELEVATION = 45.4 FT L- Sta. 38+42.02 (9.72' RT) -L- Ste. 42+40.00 (87,51' RT)
8 EL 42.83 OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE =(2600 CFS EL 43.78
SPIKE IN TREE OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = < 25 YRS SPIKE EL 45,30
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 45.0 F7 IN 24" PINE TREE I SPIKE IN 18" PINE TREE
30 EX 0, 4" P
DATE OF SURVEY = 12-12-05 30
8 WS. ELEVATION
AT DATE OF SURVEY = 415 FT
~s
a 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

PROIER REFERENCE NO. SNEER NO.
LSpO %-1

B-3830

CROSS-SECTIONS

INDEX OF SHEETS

TITLE SHEET NO.

CROSS-SECTION INDEX X-1
CROSS SECTION SUMMARY X-lA
X-2 THRU X-10

z
0
N_
C

NOTE: APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES ONLY. UNCLASSIFIED
I EXCAVATION, BORROW EXCAVATION, FINE GRADING,
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, AND REMOVAL OF
g' EXISTING PAVEMENT WILL BE PAID FOR AT THE
CONTRACT LUMP SUM PRICE FOR "GRADING".
a
s8
a=
a
Fr.
~g~

I

DATE: 10,22,2007
TIME: 9:12:11 AM
r: rx&t\b3830\nwdway\X c\B3830 RDY ¦pI tl.d8n

rl-{

t+f+r y +

rt

{ j - L

1 ' .t + + 1 f

t

t - -

7 + - -

r + rr
H +

-I

1-17- tt -+t -tt

L
t
t _
_ +r+ +
a +I- +
Li -
}

-
ft- -t- It TV

T 4-
- - + f - 1 h 1=t t I- t-fi
It" It I if T 1 4,
T +i+
t_
: r
4- - I A- 414
- - _ r1 1 ftT -a'
{
4 --4
i
r,
T- -4
+ r _ + i +
-T- TTI

I $ a-I l
T -r
r
+ T+ I f_ rtt i- - o z
+

- r
m
N z

t: It ±1±it
{ . m

i
I

6.

DATE: 1022,2007
TIME: 9:42:13 AM
r.\ncdot\b3B30\roodwoy\X.\83830 RDV -I LIAl

4 -1
r`t~
- - _ _
-
- -

- -
- -
--''-r-i - - - - - - - - - - -

t r-~ - - - - - - - - - -
1

klq+
T - - - _ _ - - t.

1 7
- - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+ " - - - = .
+
- - ~

+ - - - - - I: _
- L _
're
F. som
-

- - - 4_ - - -
- -
+ - -
- - - i
'

:
:
:
Tt-
-i -
r
1444-
- - - - -
r
1
:
~Y F +
T
_ r 1 1
t i + M
! + - r
t t
- ~ - ~r
L ~
1 -i- _
.
fi NtF Z
-
r
- - - - r,-i-+- - -1+- - - , - - O
k- -
T
to

I i

DATE: V222007
TIME: 9:42:16 AM
r. neder 63830 roadway 83830 RDY x01 LI.dgn
rt
t±
H
- r-

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
~FH

-

It I
- -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
:
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -

- -
. .
IiIIIIIII lilt

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

+ + -
14 -
L J.

~ t
-
if T

:
:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-r" _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - T- t" t - + 1 - - - - tom..- -
I 1-t
T TT
+f -fli

lilt
r
_ --II t m
ttr
I -F
+
N
LLL

t
I I

DATE: 1627,2007
TIME: 9:42:18 AM
r:\ncdol\b3830 roodwoy\Xu\83830 ROY xi Ll.dBn
`t

-4 1

- - - - - - - - - - - -
_ _ - : _
- - - - - - - - - - -
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -

- _f_ .

C
T
f

- - + +
y + m Fr 1+
- + _ + -
1
+
Y J
+ + 1 ,
r a
- - - T
~F A T
- - - - - - +
- y + tt
+ -
4+ 44
~i -
h +
+
44-
+
1 +
HE An
_1144 711 Ill[ +
y
,-I-f-
_
2
~ + x T
rl { I
- - _ r
44 ~ '
ft r fi r + + Fh }1+} I~
44
a+-
N
IN Lo a

I I

a

DATE: 1022/2007
TIME 9:42:20 AM
r- nalot\63830\.adway\X=\83830 RDY :pl L1.d8n
1
- -

- - r - - - -
_LL

- - - -

7 t - - - - - - - - -

- -
- - r - - - - -
+
r - - .
y

-07

ift L
-

I If TIM-" - _LLFIL FT

44-
r
' : , - J - _ ~ } ~~i -tom + •1 1_' _ - ~ _ - t -
4-41 r
-4 i
- :_-G-
- r
- -
1..
i
f
- + 4-1
-
+ t*

+ ;
fi#
- - -
+ + r+ t
,
- - - L _L - t r
+ _ f- - _ + r
4.
- - - T _r - - + .-i-i t-~ - 4 - - -
+ - + - r
- - - - - LT
- -
ITT
H- -H F
a
+ 1 r1- -1+1 + i rll+ ++_t+ Fir + ! +
' t F I u
P+.
-1- ' trt 1 _ r -
T 4- 4-
- a+ µ#7 y-+ 1 f} m
O
Tr t
1t -t +
- Y+'
{
_T ~4
- ++i + Z
_ + _ L h

41 4 -4
+t4 4-
1
444- It
Til-
. - . - -'-1 + - -•-i- - = . _

DATE: 1027,2007
TIME: 9:42:25 AM
r.\ncdot\63830 \74c\83830 RDY apl 12.d8n
~-+-t
+ Ifll 1 t
7 -L
- -

T-r

+ - - -
~_rt - - -
ftt
t -47

=4 -I-F- } I t+ _ - - _ - -

y
t - - + -
- --r-- -i - - -
-

+ -

Hi --r
+I .11~ Y1L _i w
g, I

_ f - Vii{ -I hl

#144 +

1
- - 4# r1f1#

'1- - k+-F-
C
At -4 y-
+ - + }
b1t r
ti
_ 44
,
i
-
1 - -L {
i
i
TRT -4
+ + _
till
1 #ti
~WM -W 44+T
i fi
r +
4- 4
~Jt
+ _ F ~ rid
-LET
#ff
- - ~
- t t
+H4- Ho f #tl+
H- - co
+ - - - - 1 Lt + + r + r 2 co m
_ z
:
+H+ , If 4 u
+ r T ~ O
~:H±L i _f± ±fff -J±LL +H+-§-
m
-tat
-41

-4
+
rT~ H4
44 44 J~4 0
t - + j t
tttL
+ i { t+ +
- r - - - + } 1
i.
_ a
- t +
r
a -1
44
r tt -1
m
lift.
- 1

I,

DATE: 10222007
TIME: 9:42:27 AM
r:\ncdol\L3930\,nadway\Y~\93830 RDr ,wi i2.doo
+ -YU + t
at
Ftt
+
1l -
ii+ + 71 f 1 , +!y
+ ± I +i f ~t ;
+
7 -7,
+
4-4
:t t L +
r
+ t
+ J-1
44-
+ - r Ht + =L t..
f- 41-

r-r k

Y
i+ Y

- r. + + ; rlr - - +
i
LLB
-
±i
- - - - - - -
~Tr- r' - 1'~- -
t r}
It . r 1
L 4-
4 4
+H414 t- t
1- t
Itt
+ +
17
+ + +-{_i-. r1- - 1
_ f - -
r
+ + H + T
+ r
rt
1 1
+
L + _ _ t; t - - -t +
J + _ - , h + to r
-1 77
4i 4
$r
- - - - - - - -r Yom!-
+ +

FT 4:1-14 1-1 Ft
yid-! i t
-1t l 1 + j'ist_ I .1+~ Ir I: f! 1 }f
4 'i-: l,it
1 +
-It
+
4-1 4 4-
4 4+ +1
-I- - - - - - - - - t - - f #
- ~$1++ i i + f V -
+#11t
ft +4
IT-
r-
oZ
-TT
114 H
0
I
M441-
+ _ + +r + 1 7 y +r F I 1 a $ + ~
- i- r K
4 t-

F r rt+1
l +
t~ 4-14 A- i 'A
+r 1 1j- 1
-ttt
1

1

v

DATE: 1022,2007
TIME: 9:42:29 AM
r:\ncdot\b3B30\nwdwcy\Xx\B3630 RDY xi L2.dgn
tt-
r
7
R I i d -
11 IT
414
i ITT 1-,14~ .4
+ + - +
- - - - - - - - - - - -
F _ + +
I T+y Ll-}. j~- +
Y
1 ~.--L +L
r
1J.
_ 41.E- - - ++i t h- i 1 ~I
+ + 1. ! t r i1 } t_ rT -r T
r +

_ + +-1
,
I L ~ 1 ~ r I t
t
+ } X t
t
1 tL + 7 ff -
J, Ut
11
11
f+ 4
-
1_11 41- IT
1-- L
4 414-t-14t1l,
+ F_ _ t
I Trt +
+t ; +L+

+ 1
T 4-
444
r' + + + +tl r
It
t *7 w L + i i
ITT
H tt r} ! 1 -
411+4
r
+ -
+l F +
- - - r- a + tr +
~ y 4-f' # Iii
1 1 1-# ilptl- 1-11T
H F
-1 IL
41 T
+ + $ - _ 1 + i r V-1`
-
t- 4_
-H 117 -
a
+ +r T
-
EL 7 4-
F r
4_4 T-r-
- 4 _T_ -:4 tit 4-H 441-i t
i L
t
} + o Z
+
+ ft # A
# Ti
- - - - -
r o
it F+
-T~r t- - T :NIT
_'FFTT T+4
+k+` 1 rt
i
_ _ lL +1 + } -f
t+ 1{ - + t y Irk r t~7
4+ 4
O
41 Id, - - - - - - - -t _ _ - J } r '1= ± } t 1T-^ L"t-~- 1-
1
r
k
-44
_ 'la t
I~ ~i rat ~T i~' y ' _

f
I

DATE: 1022,1007
TIME: 9:42:32 AM
r:\ncdot\b3B30\roodway\Xa\B3830 RDY ¦pl L2.dpn

Wti+ 41
t
439 ~i
44-H 4M- +
i
t -
1
44
114+ +f-H 4t it4 iM MI, if
11 HIM
ITTF
+ }
I al

met
+-4 -4
+
_ ~ Tr +
- l r+
Ill--+Ii id 4M 4
- + T1
_ i.. +.-444+ -
"4t H
t +
+1 F
111-7 FT-17 _F_TTT_ 7TT _m T1
i
t.
I ft 144+ T TF
tft- -f-
+ - ~4-+- 'h1+
1 t + ~
+ 44- +41- T 41
!4 +4
yr {

- - 1..---a+t -

-

L - i
Y }
_44 T
y -
+1
HL 4-
_1'+
+ t~ y}1

_ Fr f
- - - -
H-Ho
._...i... _ _ _ _ _ _
li +
44
}
+ r
t t
4 4-

7- IT i+.. i iy 4 # f+
i
+ 0
± -
+H 11 H
T 4-44-
-'-l )ppaa• ~e
t c Z 41 _4 t
O
mm
I
4- 7 4f4 t ~i + r I-_ i+ O
+ { + } +4 ~ +T
t r1 - T
_