19950595 Ver 1_Complete File_19950608

t
.Ar
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ISSUED
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT )R. R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 29, 1995--?---
? it 15
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers -
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Columbus County, Replacement of Bridge Nos. 7, 11, 16 and 21 over
White Marsh Swamp on SR 1001, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1001(10),
State Project No. 8.2430201, TIP No. B-2018.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The project involves the replacement of four bridges along existing
alignment of SR 1001. NCDOT will maintain traffic using a two lane temporary detours.
The detours will be constructed downstream of the existing road due to less wetland
impacts and will avoid a residence. The project will result in approximately .15 acres of
permanent and 3.4 acres of temporary wetland impacts.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will
apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.
01'.1

2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141 ext. 307.
Sincere y,
i
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
COE Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, PE, Division 6 Engineer

1
Columbus County
SR 1001
Bridge Nos. 7, 11, 16 and 21
Over White Marsh Swamp
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-1001(10)
State Project No. 8.2430201
T.I.P. No. B-2018
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
t - t W ,, ?/ '? ,, _(2
AT H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE NicW s L. Graf, P.E.
/r? Division Administrator, FHWA

Columbus County
SR 1001
Bridge Nos. 7, 11, 16 and 21
Over White Marsh Swamp
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-1001(10)
State Project No. 8.2430201
T.I.P. No. B-2018
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1994
Documentation Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates
t???? CARp
SEAL s
ichael E. kranni , P.E. 10926 i
oject Manager >??•.?,
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Ga rimes, E., Unit Head
Consultant En ' eering Unit
ql?- &
Philip D. Edwards
Project Planning Engineer

Columbus County
SR 1001
Bridge Nos. 7, 11, 16 and 21
over White Marsh Swamp
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1001(10)
State Project 8.2430201
TIP #8-2018
Bridge Nos. 7, 11, 16 and 21 are on SR 1001 over the White Marsh Swamp and are
scheduled for replacement in the NCDOT 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impact. Basic sedimentation and erosion control measures
in accordance with the NCDOT "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures"
will be implemented during construction. Temporary fill placed in wetlands will be
removed following completion of the permanent structure. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary.
11. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Nos. 7, 11, 16, and 21 will be replaced on the existing alignment as shown
in Figures 2, 2B, 2C and 2D. Traffic will be maintained on run-around detours
constructed on the downstream side of each bridge.
Existing curves on the south approach to Bridge No. 7 and the north approach to
Bridge No. 21 will be improved to satisfy minimum design speed criteria for the
project. This will introduce a curved alignment across Bridge No. 7. As a result
Bridge No. 7 will be replaced slightly downstream of the existing bridge location.
The existing elevations and grades will be maintained at each bridge location.
All replacement structures will provide decks with a 9.2 meters (30.17 feet) clear
roadway width. The travelway is 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) with a 1.0 meter (3.28
feet) shoulder on each side.
1

The design speed for the detour structures is 80 kilometers per hour (kph) (50 miles
per hour). The design speed for the bridges is 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per
hour).
For the purpose of hydraulic performance, no more than two bridges will be under
construction at any one time.
The estimated cost based on current prices is $3,744,500. The estimated total cost
of the project as shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $1,400,000.
III. BXISTINC CONDITIONS
SR 1001 is classified as a major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The roadway serves as a primary crossing of White Marsh Swamp
between US 74 and NC 130. The land use in the vicinity consists of
rural/residential and cultivated fields. The total length of the White Marsh Swamp
crossing on SR 1001 is 0.8 kilometers (0.5 mile). (See Figure 1) SR 1001 is a two
lane facility providing a total pavement width of 5.5 meters (18 feet) with 2.4
meters (8 feet) unpaved shoulders. All four structures provide a clear roadway
width of 7.2 meters (24 feet) and a total bridge width of 7.77 meters (25.5 feet)
from face-of-rail to face-of-rail. The existing right-of-way along SR 1001 is
estimated to be from toe of slope to toe of slope.
The horizontal alignment from Bridge No. '7 to No. 21 is on a tangent. The
southern approach to Bridge No. 7 is on a 220 meters (8°) radius horizontal curve
to the end of the bridge. The northern approach to Bridge No. 21 consists of a
270 meters (6°30') radius curve. (See Figures 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H,
31)
The projected traffic volume is 1,400 vehicles per day (VPD) for 1995 and 2,500
VPD for the design year 2015. The volumes include 8% truck-tractor semi-trailer
and 3% dual tired and 60% directional. The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers
per hour (55 miles per hour) and the posted load limit is 18,000 kilograms (18
tons) for single vehicles and 27,000 kilograms (27 tons) for truck-tractor semi-
trailers.
Bridge Nos. 7, 11 and 16 were built in 1950. Bridge No. 21 was built in 1949. All
four bridges consist of a five inch reinforced concrete deck slab and 12-W12 x
16.5 beams at 0.68 meters (2.25 feet) centers. The substructure consists of
timber piles supporting reinforced concrete caps. The end bents include vertical
abutment walls of timber planks. Generally, all substructure units have
experienced repair modifications. The number of spans, length, sufficiency rating
and load limits for each bridge is:
2

Bridne No. No. of Spans Lenoth Sufficiency Ratina Posted Load
7 7 39 meters (128 feet) 20.7 18/27 Tons
11 4 22.1 meters (72.4 feet) 21.3 18/27 Tons
16 5 27.9 meters (91.5 feet) 25.9 20/29 Tons
21 4 22.3 meters (73.3 feet) 25.4 20/29 Tons
The sufficiency rating is compared to a value of 100.0 for a new bridge. The
sufficiency rating for each ride is below the minimum criteria of 50.0 established by
the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program for structure replacement. The estimated
remaining life of each structure ranges from zero to three years.
One traffic accident was reported on SR 1001 near Bridge No. 16 between January
1990 and March 1993.
The Columbus County School System reports that no buses currently travel on this
section of SR 1001.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
SR 1001 is the primary crossing of the White Marsh Swamp. The minimum off-site
detour length would be 40 kilometers (25 miles). Alternatives studied focussed on
maintaining traffic, satisfying minimum design criteria and minimizing environmental
impacts.
Two replacement alternatives were evaluated for Bridge Nos. 7 and 21: Alternative
No. 1 replaces the structures on the existing locations and Alternative No. 2
replaces the structures on new locations. See Figures 2, 2A, 2D, and 2E.
Due to the tangent alignment of SR 1001, one replacement alternative is evaluated
for Bridge Nos. 11 and 16. Each structure will be replaced on existing location.
Detour alignments using pipe culverts are proposed on the downstream side of
each bridge. See Figures 213, and 2C.
The existing grade will be maintained at each bridge location.
The hydraulic study identifies Bridge Nos. 7 and 21 as crossing the main tributary
channels of the drainage basin. Bridge Nos. 11 and 16 are identified as overflow
structures. For hydraulic purposes no more than two of the four structures will be
replaced at any one time.
3

Alternative No. 1 (Recommended) uses the existing alignment and grade for the
replacement structures at each bridge site. A 220 meter radius (8°)curve and a 270
meter radius (6°30') curve presently exist at the south approach to Bridge No. 7 and
the north approach to Bridge No. 21, respectively. Both curves will be improved to
395 meter radius (4°-301 curves to satisfy the minimum criteria for a 100 kilometers
per hour (62.14 miles per hour) design speed. This introduces a curve onto Bridge No.
7 and requires a slight downstream shift in the alignment.
The detour alignments at each site were chosen on the downstream side because the
potential total impact to wetlands is generally less than on the upstream side and
residential encroachment is avoided. Detour structure lengths of 36.6 meters (120
feet) and 21.3 meters (70 feet) are proposed at Bridge Nos. 7 and 21, respectively,
to accommodate a 5-year storm. The run-around detours at each overflow structure,
Bridge Nos. 11 and 16, require two 1.2 meters (48 inches) corrugated steel pipes to
convey the 5-year storm. The detour grades will be lowered 1.0 meters (3.28 feet)
to 1.2 meters (4 feet) below the existing roadway grade to reduce the amount of fill
required. The detour alignments will use 235 meters radius (7°-30') reverse curves
which satisfy an 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) design speed.
Alternative No. 2 proposes a permanent relocation for the replacement of Bridge Nos.
7 and 21. The new alignments use a 395 meter radius (4°-301 curve on the south
approach to Bridge No. 7 and the north approach to Bridge No. 21. Both alignments
tie into the existing alignment with 875 meter radius (2°) curves. A tangent alignment
is provided across Bridge Nos. 7 and 21. Additional right-of-way will be acquired for
the relocated structures and roadway approaches at Bridge Nos. 7 and 21, however,
detour structures are not required.
Alternative No. 1 is recommended because it results in minimal environmental impact
while essentially maintaining the existing tangent alignment. Alternative No. 1 will
have approximately 1.36 hectares (3.4 acres) of temporary impacts and 0.06 hectares
(0.15 acres) of permanent impacts to wetlands. However, the detour alignments are
temporary and once removed, impacted wetlands will be restored.
Alternative 2 is not considered reasonable and feasible for replacement of Bridge Nos.
7 and 21 due to the additional right-of-way acquisition and long term impacts to the
natural environment. This alternative will have approximately 0.7 hectares (1.75
acres) of temporary impacts and 1.1 hectares (2.75 acres) of permanent impacts to
wetlands.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually require closure of the bridges. This is not
a desirable alternative due to the level of traffic service provided by SR 1001.
Investigations by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicate that rehabilitation is not feasible
due to the age and deteriorated condition of the existing bridges.
4
4.
The design criteria for both alternatives at each site is as follows (See Figure 4):
The approach roadway width is a 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travelway with 2.4
meters (8.0 feet) shoulder.
The clear roadway width across the bridge is 9.2 meters (30.17 feet).
The bridge width accommodates a 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travelway with 1.0
meters (3.28 feet) shoulders.
The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour) with a posted
speed limit of 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour).
The detour design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) with a
posted speed limit of 72.5 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour).
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as
follows:
Structure Removal
Pavement Removal
New Structures
Construct/Remove Detour Structures
Roadway & Detour Approaches
Traffic Control
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements
TOTAL
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
$ 45,000 $ 45,000
27,200 20,700
755,800 755,800
195,600 10,200
1,584,600 1,273,500
12,000 12,000
526,800 428,300
511,000 412,000
. 86,500 60,000
$3,744,500 $3,017,500
5

VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge Nos, 7, 11, 16, and 21 over the White Marsh Swamp will be replaced at
their existing locations with traffic maintained on run-around detours constructed
downstream of each site. The existing 220 meters radius (8°) curve on the south
approach to Bridge No. 7 and the 270 meters radius (6°-30') curve on the north
approach to Bridge No. 21 will be improved to 395 meters radius (4°-30') curves to
provide a 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour) design speed. Approximately
150 meters (500 feet) and 275 meters (900 feet), respectively, of approach
roadway work will be required to accommodate these alignment improvements.
Additional right-of-way will be necessary. The right-of-way width will vary, and
will include enough width to accommodate the new fill slope. The overflow
bridges, Nos. 11 and 16 will require minor approach roadway work. All four
replacement structures will maintain existing elevations and grades. The run-
around detours will provide a design speed of 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per
hour) by using 235 meters radius (7°-30') reverse curves. (See Figure 2, 2B, 2C,
and 2D) The NCDOT Division Engineer concurs with this recommendation.
A 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) wide pavement with 2.4 meters (8 feet) shoulders will be
provided on the approach improvements to each bridge. In accordance with
current NCDOT Bridge Policy, each replacement structure will provide a clear width
of 9.2 meters (30.17 feet). This will allow for a 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travel.way
and 1.0 meters (3.28 feet) shoulders across the structures.
Based on the field reconnaissance at each site and preliminary hydraulic analysis,
estimated replacement structures with lengths of 45.7 meters (150 feet) at the
southern most site (Bridge No. 7), and 30.5 meters (100 feet) at the northern most
site (Bridge No. 21) are proposed. Total structure lengths of 29.3 meters (96 feet)
and 33.8 meters 011 feet) are estimated for Bridge Nos. 11 and 16, respectively.
The bridge openings are based on the historic performance of the existing structure
and on field observations. The bridge openings may be adjusted during final
hydraulic design as determined appropriate to accommodate design flows. The
replacement structures will improve flow characteristics at each site and will not
impact adjacent properties by altering the existing floodway from roadway
encroachment.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The project area is in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province and lies southwest
of Lake Waccamaw and south of the town of Hallsboro, NC. The project area is
generally flat, surrounded by Cypress-Gum Swamp with extensive standing water.
The forest canopy is generally contiguous except for openings such as the road.
The project is about four air miles southwest of lake Waccamaw.
6

METHODOLOGY
A Natural Resources investigation was undertaken to search for evidence of protected
plants and animals and unique or high quality natural communities, to describe current
vegetation and habitats, to identify wetlands, and to provide information to avoid or
minimize the adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement
projects.
During the period of December 1993 and March 1994 correspondence relative to
these projects was initiated with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, the
North Carolina Wildlife Commission, the U.S. Fish tic Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Management, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the county Soil Conservation Service office. Data on
potential listed species, soil types, and stream characteristics were gathered.
Biologists visited the bridge sites on February 5 and March 18, 1994 to gather data
and verify documented information. At each bridge, the area was divided into four
quadrants, with the road dividing the east-west parameters and the water channel
dividing the north-south parameters. Information on tree ages was gained using a
5.15 millimeters increment borer. Basal Area data was gained using a ten factor
prism. No canopy cover estimations were made since the work was accomplished
before the leaves were fully open. Wetland determinations were made using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and Munsell color charts. Precise
delineation was not performed, but area estimates and descriptions of wetlands are
included.
Forest community types follow Schafale and Weakley (1990), Plant nomenclature
follows Radford (1981). Status of listed animals follows LeGrand (1993) and the
1993 US Fish and Wildlife Service "Listed and Candidate Species of North Carolina,
by County" publication. Status of listed plant species follows Weakley (1993) and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service list.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Plant Communities
Two community types occur within the study area, Cypress-Gum Swamp and
Roadside. The Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater subtype) occupies the majority of
the study area with a narrow band of Roadside community along the right-of-way.
7

Cypress-gum swamp
This community is present on both sides of SR 1001 throughout the study area except
for the narrow band of roadside community adjacent to the roadway. The forest floor
was entirely under water during both visits. The community is strongly dominated by
cypress and black gum, with occasional red maple and oak.
The canopy of the Cypress-gum swamp is dominated by cypress (Taxodium distichum)
and black gum (Nyssa biflora), with occasional red maple (Acer rubrum)and oak
(0uercus nigra, 0. ems) as a minor component close to the right-of-way. The
subcanopy, shrubs and vines, which were often quite sparse due to the high water
level, included bay (Persea palustris), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), ash (r in
caroliniana), water-elm (Planera aauatica), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetter-bush ( ni
lucida), climbing hydrangca (Decumaria barbara), cross vine (Anisostichus capreolate),
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia & S. walteri), elderberry (Sambucus canadesis) and
Virginia willow (Itea virginica). Within the canopy and boles of trees Spanish moss
(Tillandsia usneoides), numerous crustose lichens and resurrection fern (Polypodium
polypodioides) were found. Herb cover was also quite sparse due to the water levels.
Species present in this community included burred (Sl2arganium americanum), water
arrowhead (Sagittaria sue), chain fern (Woodwardia aerolata), lizard's tail ( r r
cernuus), rice cut grass (Leersia oryzoides), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical, sedges
(Carex sap.), parrot-feather (Mvriophyllum heteroRhyllum), pickerelweed (Pontederia
rd a) and rushes (Juncus effusu
Near the roadside at Bridge No. 21 is a cypress-gum, diameter of 0.3 meters 0 2
inches), estimated to be seventy-five years old. The highest basal area figures
occurred around Bridge No. 11, with 20.4-24 metersz/hectare (220-260 feet2/acre).
Basal area on the northeast side of Bridge No. 7 was 11.1-14.9 meters2/hectare (120-
160 feet2/acre). The site also contained a large cypress tree (1.4 meters [54 inches]
diameter at breast height) and two rather large (0.7-0.8 meters [27-31 inch] diameter
breast height) oaks immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. The tallest trees were
estimated to be 13.7-15.2 meters (45-50 feet) high. The oldest trees are hollow and
difficult to core. Therefore, it was not possible to measure the age of the large
cypress. The southwest side of Bridge No. 7 contained virtually no forest or wetland
due to the area being cleared for two house trailers.
Roadside
A roadside community occurs only on the fill dirt that forms a narrow strip adjacent
to the road. It is surrounded by standing water and the Cypress-gum swamp
community. This community type is caused by disturbance due to maintenance of the
existing road. It is not a natural community and is therefore not classified in Schafale
and Weakley (1990). No canopy is present in this community type, only a single
vegetation layer. It is generally composed of weedy, invasive species, the majority
8

of which are non-native. The community found at this location included species such
as pasture grasses (Festuca s •p Poa sr).), purpletop grass (Tridens flavus), chickweed
(Stellaria media & Cerastium glomeratum), mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thalania),
horse nettle (Solanum carolinense), dock (Rumex crisl2us), poke weed (Phvtolacca
americana), wood sorrel (Oxalis rubra), corn salad (Valerianella radiata), vetch (Viri
anaustifolia), lyre leaf sage (Salvia Ivrata), field garlic (Allium vineale), evening
primrose (Oenothera biennis), butterfly violet (Viola gapillionacia), cinquefoil (potentilla
recta) and wild chervil (Chaero2hyllum taintuieri). Other species include: ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron, only observed at Bridge No. 21), primrose violet
(Viola Drimulifolia), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), cranesbill (Geranium
carolinianum), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), verbena (Verbena sue), dandelion
(Taraxacum officionale), lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) and privet (Ligustrum sinense, only observed at Bridge No. 7).
Wildlife
Numerous signs of wildlife were observed. Both the lack of development and the
varied habitats of this site provide for a number of common wildlife species. A flock
of rusty blackbirds (Euphagus carolinus) were observed foraging through the forest
floor as they migrated. Common flickers (Colawes auratus) were noted. The site is
habitat for white tail deer (Odocoileus virginiana). Signs of crawfish (Cambarus cf.
i n ) were observed. A dragonfly and signs of beavers (Castor canadensis) were
also noted. A pair of hawks that are likely cooper's hawks (Accipiter cool2erii) were
briefly seen near Bridge No. 7. These birds are nesting in the general vicinity, but the
nest was not noted in the immediate project area.
Other wildlife likely to occur in the project area include amphibians such as the spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocepha), pickerel frog (Rana
alu ri ), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), southerntoad (Bufo terrestris), slimy slalmander
(Plethodon glutinosus) and southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus).
Reptiles include the banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), rat snake (Elaphae
obsoleta), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus),
Carolina anole (Anolus carolinensis), eastern fence lizard (Sclerol2sis undulatus), five-
lined skink (Eumeces latices), snapping turtle (Chelydra ser ems), spotted turtle
(Clemmys auttata) and eastern boxturtle (Terrapene caroling).
Birds include the indigo bunting (Passrina cyanea), common crow ( rv
brachyrhyncos), turkey vulture (Coragyps atratus), common grackle (Quiscalus
ouiscula), towhee (Pi ilp o erythroohtyalmus), common flicker (ColaF2tes auratus), red-
eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Mammals
include the raccoon (Procyon lotor), opsossum (Didel his vir iniana), marsh rabbit
(Sylvilaaus palustris), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), house mouse (Mus musculus),
grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and southeasten shrew (Longirostrus longirostrus).
9
d
Fish likely to be found in the project area include the bowfin (Amia calva), carp
(Cvorinus carpio), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus
n li ), mosquitofish (Cambusia affinis) and pirate perch (Al2hredoderus sayanus).
Biotic Community Impacts
Forest cover and wetlands within the proposed right-of-way will be impacted. These
areas are presented in Table I below.
TA13LE I - INOTIC COMMUNITY 6'41 PACTS: Estimated Arms In Hactares (Acres)
T=temporary; P=pmrmanant
Community Type aridpe 7 Qridpm 11 T-addge 16 addpe 21
T P T P T P T P
Alternate 1 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02
(0.1) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)

Roadside
Alternate 2 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.06 _
(0.15) (0.05) (0.05) (0.15)
Alternate 1 0.24 0.03 0.34 0.36 0.42 0.03
(0.6) (0.07) (0.85) (0.9) (1.05) (0.08)
Cypress-Gum
Swamp
Alternate 2 - 0.5 0.34 0.36 _ 0.6
(1.25) (0.85) (0.9) (1.5)
0.28 0.03 0.36 0.39 0
44 0
03
Alternate 1 (0.7) (0.07) (0.9) (0.95) .
(1.1) .
(0.09)

TOTAL AREA
0.06 0.5 0.36 0.39 0.08 0.6
Alternate 2 (0.15) (1.25) (0.9) _ (0.95) _ (0.15) (1.5)
The preferred alternative (No. 1) provides for minimal environmental impact while
maintaining a predominantly tangent alignment superior to that of Alternative No. 2.
Impacts to the plant communities as a result of this project will occur immediately
adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. Replacing bridges
7 and 21 on the existing location (Alt. 1) will result in lesser impact on plant
communities than replacing the bridges on a new location (Alt. 2). The fills placed in
the White Marsh Swamp for the construction of temporary detours will be removed
following completion of the replacement structure.
The proposed bridge replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of
animal populations. Impacts associated with this type of construction can include
temporary loss of aquatic organisms, increased silt load in wetlands and aquatic
systems, modification of benthic substrates, and alteration of downstream spawning
beds for fish. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by
10
J
maintaining flow and stream integrity. Temporary impacts from increased siltation
during construction will be minimized by implementation of NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters".
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
it
The project is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The entire site
consists of Dorovan Muck, a deep, very poorly drained hydric soil that occurs in
frequently flooded woodlands and often covers large areas. The water table is usually
at or above the surface. This series is usually composed of about 1.8 meters (70
inches) of black and dark reddish brown muck, with up to 1.9 meters (75 inches) of
underlying grayish brown sandy loam.
Water Resources
The White Marsh Swamp is part of a large tributary swamp system of the Waccamaw
River. Headwater reaches are formed by numerous small swamp streams including
Brown Marsh Swamp near the Whitesville. White Marsh Swamp is typical of low
flowing, tannin colored swamp systems of this ecoregion.
It has no special designation for Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Wild and
Scenic status, but it is a tributary to the Waccamaw River which has been nominated
for ORW designation. It has a Best Usage Classification of C Sw. The "C" class
means it is suitable for agricultural uses, fish and wildlife propagation and secondary
reaction, but not rated for human consumption or contact recreation (State of NC,
1993). The "Sw" classification denotes that this water body is a swamp, and
therefore has different levels for parameters such as dissolved oxygen. The average
flow rate for the water body at the project area is 10.2 cubic meters per second (360
cubic feet per second) (United States Geological Survey).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is a program that is used to
monitor water quality. It has been incorporated into the Basin Wide program being
established by the state. There are no monitoring stations at this particular site. The
closest stations within the basin are downstream along the Waccamaw River. Samples
taken at these stations indicate that the water quality is good (the ratings at the
various sites were: "good-fair", "excellent", "good", "good", "good", "fair" and
"good-fair"). The total number of taxa (species or genera) of benthic
macroinverteb rates collected at these stations is appreciable, ranging from 55 to 94.
11
4
TABLE If - AQUATIC CONDITIONS OBSERVED
Observation point Bridge 7 Bridge 11 [fridge 10 Bridge 21
Substrate muck, sand muck, gravel muck, gravel muck, gravel
Currant flow strong moderate moderato strong
Channel width 39 (128) 23 (76) 28 (92) 22(73)
motors (feet)
Bank height level on all but SW level level level
motors (feet) 1.5(5)
Water depth 0.6+ (2+) 0.6+ (2+) 0.6+ (2+) 0.6+ (2+)
meters (feat)
Water color transparent black transparent black transparent black transparent black
Water odor .none none none none
Aquatic veg yes yes yes yes
Adjacent veg cypress-gum on
all but SW (open) cypress-gum cypress-gum cypress-gum
Wetlands Assoc. entire area,
except SW entire area entire area entire area
Water Resource Impacts
Potential short-term impacts to water quality in the project area include: increased
sedimentation and erosion, alteration of water levels and water flow, and some
changes in light and temperature (in the immediate area) due to vegetation removal.
Short-term impacts will be minimized by implementation of NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" as applicable. Long-term
impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of the proposed bridge
replacements.
12

SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Wetlands are designated as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3) and are
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Wetlands are defined by three
criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the
soil surface (COE, 1987). The total area of direct impact to wetlands expected for this
project is 1.5 hectares (3.6 acres) for temporary construction and 0.07 hectares (0.17
acres) for permanent construction.
Extensive wetlands were present at all bridges. These areas were completely covered
by water during the survey period. Soils in locations which were covered by 51-102
millimeters (2-4 inches) of water, had colors and hues ranging from 2.5YR3/2 to
5YR2/1 when measured at depths of 254 millimeters (10 inches).
The areas containing the least amount of wetlands were the southwest quadrant of
Bridge No. 7 and the northeast quadrant of Bridge No. 21. At Bridge No. 21,
extensive wetlands occurred along the southeast, northwest and southwest
quadrants. The northeast quadrant of Bridge No. 21 contains wetlands that run
parallel to the road for a distance of approximately 20.7 meters (68 feet) from the
main channel. At this location, the soil (at a depth of 177 millimeters [7 inches]) had
a chroma of 2 (5YR3/2).
Permits
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 US COE
1344), a permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since this project is classified as a categorical exclusion and since most of the bridges
will have a permanent impact on less than 0.4 hectare 0.0 acre) of wetland, it is likely
that this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5
(A) 23. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the
US COE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued
for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit
is required.
There will be no unnecessary impacts to wetlands.
13
Compensatory mitigation, which is regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers, is
not usually required for projects authorized under a Nationwide Permit. However,
NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will be
implemented, as applicable, to minimize adverse impacts.
Rare and Protected S ecies
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants or animals is subject to review by the US Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973. The USFWS and other resource agencies exercise jurisdiction in accordance
with the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et.
seq.). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals
where statewide populations are in decline.
Federally Protected Species
Table III below shows the Federally Protected Species listed as occurring in Columbus
County.
TABLE III - FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Scientific name Common Name Status- Habitat
Picoides borealls Red-cockaded woodpecker E mature long leaf pines
Menida extensa Waccamaw silverside T aquatic
Lysimachia asperulifolia rough-lvd loosestrife E pocosins/savanna
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooleys meadow rue E wet savannas
-Federal status: E = endangered; T = threatened
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida, west to eastern Texas, including the states of Kentucky, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Oklahoma and Missouri. It is currently known only in coastal states of its
historic range, plus southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. North Carolina
populations are found in the sandhills and southern coastal plain.
14

The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on
the sides of the nape of the neck in the male. The back has horizontal stripes of black
and white and the breast and underside is white with streaked flanks. It has large
white cheek patches surrounded by a black cap, nape and throat.
The RCW uses open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly long leaf ( in
I ri ), for nesting and foraging. Suitable habitat must contain at minimum 50%
pine and a fairly open understory. The birds nest only in trees that are 60 years or
older and are contiguous with pine dominated forest stands that are at least 30 years
in age. The RCW foraging range is about 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) and must be
connected to suitable nesting sites.
RCWs nest exclusively in living pine trees that are frequently infected with the fungus
that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies and are found at 4-30
meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground, with an average height of 9-15 meters
(30-50 feet). Large incrustations of running sap on the tree trunk is an indicator sign
of a nest tree. This may be a defense against predators. A clan of RCW's consists
of one breeding pair and the offspring of previous years. An occasional helper bird
may be present. Eggs are laid in April, May and June. Clutch size varies from 3-5
eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the young. The diet consists mainly
of insects, but occasionally includes seasonal fruits.
The project area was surveyed in February and March, 1994 for potential habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. During the survey, no suitable habitat for RCWs was
found within the project area. No mature longleaf pine forests are present.
Thalictrum coolevi (Cooley's meadowrue) E
The Cooley's meadowrue was historically found in the southeastern coastal plain in
North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Currently known populations are limited to nine
locations in North Carolina and one in Florida.
This species is a perennial plant that grows to 1 meter (3 feet) in height. This
rhizomatous plant grows erect in sunlight but is often trailing in shady areas. Leaves
are generally lanceolate and unlobed, though two or three lobes can occur. Flowers
lack petals, but sepals on staminate ones are somewhat showy, with yellow to white
color and lavender filaments that are about 5-7 millimeter (0.2-0.3 inches) long.
Pistilate flowers have smaller greenish sepals. Fruits are narrowly ellipsoid achenes,
5-6 millimeter (0.2-0.3 inches) long. Fruits mature in August and September.
15

Habitat for this species is sunny areas such as wet bogs, savannas and savanna-like
openings, sandy roadsides, right-of-ways, and old clearcuts. It is dependent on some
form of disturbance that keeps the habitat open. All known populations are on
circumneutral, poorly drained moderately permeable soils of the Grifton series.
The project area was examined for potential habitat in February and March, 1994.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There is no suitable habitat for Cooley's meadowrue
within the project area. No calcareous soils are known to occur in the project area.
Lvsimachia asl2erulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
The rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North
Carolina and South Carolina. It is currently known from nine North Carolina
populations and is believed to be extirpated from South Carolina.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb with slender stems, growing to a height
of 3-6 decimeter (12-24 inches). The leaves are whorled at intervals along the stem
below raceme of bright yellow flowers. The five-petalled flowers occur in threes or
fours. Fruits are found from July through October.
The habitat for this species is in the ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond
pine pocosins with dense growth and wet, peaty, acidic soils or seasonally saturated
sands. It has been found in Carolina bays. Areas must be fire maintained to provide
proper habitat for this species. It is rarely associated with hardwood forests.
The project area was examined for potential habitat in February and March, 1994.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There is no suitable habitat for rough-leaved
loosestrife within project area. No dense undergrowth nor pine uplands are present.
Menida extensa (Waccamaw silverside) T
The Waccamaw silverside is an endemic fish known only from Lake Waccamaw. It
is similar to Menida beryllina, but has a much more slender body (with a depth of
about 1 %s x width) and a dark outlines on the scales on its back.
It is usually found in large schools near the surface of open water.
The project area was examined for potential habitat in February and March, 1994.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There is no suitable habitat for Waccamaw silverside
within the project area. To date, this species has only been found in lake habitat.
16
4
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
Federal Candidate (C2) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act. These species show evidence of decline or vulnerability and may
become listed in the future. Presently, there has not been sufficient data gathered on
many of these species to ascertain the correct status. State listed species with
designations of Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern are granted protection
by the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Enforcement and administration falls under the jurisdiction
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
Table IV (below) lists Federal Candidate Species, with corresponding and state
protection status, for Columbus County.
TABLE IV FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES,
WITH STATE PROTECTED STATUS
Scientific name Common name Federal Status' State Status"
Aimophila aestivalis Bachmans sparrow C2 SC
Ammordramus henslowii Henslows sparrow C2
Plecotus rafinesquii Rafinesques big eared bat C2 SC
Elassoma boehlkei Carolina pygmy sunfish C2 T
Fundulus waccamawensis Waccamaw killifish C2 SC
Tridopsis soelneri Cape Fear threetooth C2 T
Ellipto sp ,.,.?....,.,a„ .,..,.?,..a, Wac. lance pearly mussel C2
Ellipto waccamawensis Waccamaw spike C2 T
Lampsilis fullerkati Waccamaw fat mucket C2 T
Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput mussel C2 T
Amorpha geo. var confusa Savanna lead plant C2
Dionaea musciplla venus flytrap C2
Eupatorium resinosum pine barren boneset C2
Fimbristylis perpusilla Harpers fringe rush C2 T
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint C2
17
?u
TABLE IV FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES,
WITH STATE PROTECTED STATUS
Scientific name Common name Federal Status • State Status**
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane C2
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-parnassus C2 E
Plantago sparsiflora pineland plantain C2 E
Rhyncospora decurrens swamp forest beakrush C2
Solidago verna spring-flowering goldenrod C2 E
Sporoboius teretifolius wireleaf dropseed C2 T
Tofieldia glabra smooth bog-asphodel C2
'Federal status: C2 = candidate; " State status: E = endangered, T = threatened, SC = special
concern;
The above mentioned species, and their appropriate habitat, were not surveyed for in
this study. NC NHP records showed no known occurrences in the project area.
There is habitat for the following Federal Candidate species: Cape Fear threetooth
(Tridopsis solneri), pine barrens boneset (Eunatorium resinosum), Harper's fringe rush
(Fimbristylis perpusilla), Carolina bogmint (Macbridea caroliniana), and swamp forest
beakrush (Rhyncopora decurrens). None of these species were noted during the
spring survey.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement/removal
of inadequate bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited
scope and environmental consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plan or zoning regulations. No
significant change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of
the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Limited right-of-way
and temporary easement acquisition will be required. No relocatees will be
involved with implementation of the proposed alternative.
18

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.
Impacts on utilities as a result of the proposed action will be low.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity
to comment.
In a letter dated June 17, 1994, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
indicated there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register
within the APE. Therefore, the Deputy State Historical Preservation Officer has no
comments regarding historic architectural resources.
The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer also indicated in a letter dated August
30, 1994, that, "it is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by this project".
Therefore, an intensive archaeological survey'is not recommended.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils
for all land acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils
are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). According to the SCS, the
proposed project will not impact soils defined as prime, statewide or local important
farmland soils. Therefore, this project is exempt from further consideration under the
act.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Wilmington Regional
Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Columbus County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of the attainment area.
19
Minor shifts in the existing alignment will occur at Bridge No. 7 and Bridge No. 21.
The only noise receptors in the project area are two house trailers located along the
west side of the south roadway approach to Bridge No. 7. The alignment shift in this
area will actually move the roadway slightly further away from the receptors. Traffic
volumes will not increase or decrease as a result of the project. The predicted noise
levels are not expected to change significantly from existing noise levels, therefore,
no impacts will occur. Noise levels may temporarily increase during construction.
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 772) and for air quality (1990
CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
Records of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the N.C.
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section indicated that no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites are known to exist in the project
area.
Columbus County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The
project limits for the White Marsh Swamp along SR 1001 are not located in a detailed
FEMA study area. Approximate limits of the 100 year floodplain in the project area
are shown on Figure 5. Impacts to the floodplain as a result of roadway
encroachment are not considered to be significant.
There are no reasonable alignment alternatives which will avoid crossing the White
Marsh Swamp.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of this project.
20
3
REFERENCES
Brown, P.M. 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geologic Survey, Raleigh, NC
Bull, J. & Farrand, J. Jr. 1988, The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American
Birds, Eastern Region, Alfred A. Knoph, New York.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Tech. Rept. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways, Experiment Stn.,
Vicksburg, MS.
LeGrand H.E., Jr. 1993, Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey & J.R. Harrison, 1980, Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Personal Communication relative to Federally
Protected Species.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles & C.R. Bell, 1981, Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. & A.S. Weakley, 1990, Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, 3rd approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Spruill, W.E. 19900 Soil Survey of Columbus County, NC, Soil Conservation Service,
USDA publication, Raleigh, NC.
State of North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources, 1993.
Classifications and Water Quay Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Lumber River Basin, NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC.
US Fish & Wildlife Service, 1993, Listed and Candidate Species of North Carolina, by
County.
Weakley, A.S. 1993, Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
21

LJO.ZTU CAILOL=A D=rA2TLIL'ItT 07
T2An" a ODTATl07
DIV1320I9 09 MOUVATO
rLASrIiIUO 42rD IurvTIIOTrISD AL
D,2Asrcu
BRIDGE NO.S 7,11,16, & 21
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
I O'OGURE 9
1
1
1
?uftallazzussiNaomi 111u11111so ??uunneni???u?
\ 1
1 .5 O 1 UILE
SCALE: 1 .a_ 0 1 2 KM
O
Q
IQ
O O
O
N

r r
y•? C'
At-
<? W
y?' -n S? e f '. x o
?fi Spy,
9 ,'e , P `T ? • '# 'lip
?' r+ aR
wk r
.r 3
P 1 ??
} ^? i
??' :??""Hi ad ?'ap as•ax? '`.s ,?r? 1.°?,w?'??, " ? 'r+.' «?` !"S lb? ak?rs?;..r 4f"?° '? 3 ? # i} `' ^ .S ? "
.z'?"$s . atti ? E; 5?,8 ,: 7?, ?4 .. ?b• j?.4 •"N,m. t,,r, ?•+Js d .'z.w?r `},? •0f.., td?' t,
rtu
W >;r ??? •' .,'< , is '•a.},". ,41: !? f q° Y1? KC
4^" ?4
o y?.,, ca ,?` t. i p 11 •Yy 1. i 5 'k1MS?'i4 ,a eye a?P4? ?a. DM ?r?? " r^- ? a '?y
T 6 +tkfp ?i `ter c`?',w?, 1arr. 4 'i x ?al?°% AN O Z+,' r Yw $l .` 1*03 itV42v.? f,p. '"" •+, a (Y', 5: '? '7'K ?? ?. '
a ?W4i'
17 re W ,i' 1if ^?.
7t •'Y Mfr '{-' ? ?" r+iy" '?.+R ?' ?i'F<' ?, ,y f` ?/4: b'w .y'f^4 }• 4
^z?jr,,?^i (S
(VS} ?u bry 1?y,?7?",,,
W /? J t J '7;"•yrf??` b .?''? yr,?t "fy, s qIq ?," .•fi t':t°Y ak v g'e
CO
44 44
44
m r " 1 , 4,, Lx r•S'°' M `.' x?ia?YW ,x .`"? 3. "_1"?a t?,aag s.. aes ?,} '.ti51 . 15s' e'ff rd?j °.r n^
t x,
44 e
't
,t?Q
w
V, vNi"
`I' IV* Y } fi ? ?Q r
w
" 3-1
w
t<?y
ty^ti'.. 'roc t. R 9 j 'R 4..( f a • ?` f kd
2
74
?.,
?b
AN
AY 6 p 1 ??q Lf'1 u, at.,
44A
t
b X, f "
1 4 M
p^?1
ai x ? ?`???a1 9 p .a?`EM1 Icy ?+' T j ^..?^74 r ?;??d?'k
40
k??
{) f
Awns ?s aT d t M ? '? ? ?i

/ l4 9

sz ?y
G
C

to
Cfl
r
s y k e
? i
` p
?
? 1 ?
f)
.j3?ll

I
Sf
?Jp L ?
j+ .; y
Mill
i
r a s;?yt
,

I` S L
'
V
{
toll
R
£4 ,T W,
Y 4
{

? tt4 ?
it ? ? ?i 6 ? f
,

g
N
O O
IA

BRIDGE NO. 7
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
1
ELEVATION
LOOKING NORTHWEST
LOOKING UPSTREAM
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3
f
BRIDGE NO. 7
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING SOUTH
?, tl
' s
ICI
I1
II
SOUTHBOUND APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3A
i
t
I BRIDGE NO. 7
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
I
i
TYPICAL SECTION {
LOOKING NORTH i
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 313
I,?
A
I
BRIDGE NO. 11
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
LOOKING UPSTREAM
j
FIGURE 3C
It
BRIDGE NO. 11
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3D
i
BRIDGE NO. 11
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
,> t
a
4
ELEVATION
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
FIGURE 3E
t
BRIDGE NO. 16
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING NORTH
ELEVATION
LOOKING NORTHWEST
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
i
i
FIGURE 3F

ti
I
BRIDGE NO. 16
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
LOOKING UPSTREAM
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 39

I
BRIDGE NO. 21
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING SOUTH
LOOKING UPSTREAM
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3H

BRIDGE NO. 21
COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING NORTH

NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH

M
ELEVATION
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
FIGURE 31

I

(/1 v m
w m L
co H
v
P N.
_J Q
°
a N N w \ .-

z O m v
a z ?U =
F- z lpi. C3 Q F- N
0 V)~Z
r x
m C! It
La 0 CL (n Q
w0 0W 1-.
E m I= cr- U 2

o
wa 0
LL
U ? p w
mNQ
a wa ¢ w
(D _j a?
cr-
U
w
J
w U 1-
z
O J 1--1
Q
U Q F N
cn
>-
CL w
Q
Cf-
i
V) w
} o
%:E z cr-

Q N m w
I p LL1 H
v W1 - C) W
2
N U z
F- col o ?- ?

N 0
N
Z w
lD
z
M m 0
0 C
N
CL
z tD
4 m 0
0 a. N
p
0 Q
p
U
O
Q p
U r
' Ln

• Z Z
O
co
lD 0
LL ?D N z
M N M W =E
O Z V) G
? .J J
Q co (-- Q J
N U U Q
LLl O
- CL ••
V) ?- LLJ
tD F- z
M a
U
CL

F--
M

O
z

1- z
N ?
-• O
X m
w CD
FMURE 4
r
i

DRIDGE
NO. 7
alp

COLUMBUS COUNTY
B-2018
NE A
FOGURE
rUAT_ is
]jj y ? A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
J=s B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
UcUy Ray hcC . Secretary
August 30, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridges 7, 11, 16, and 21, SR 1001, B-
2018, Columbus County, ER 94-8013
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Division of Archives zod History
%ViW.:m S. Price, Jr., Director
This letter is to follow-up on the August 16, 1994 meeting of Steve Claggett, state
archaeologist, and Phillip Edwards with North Carolina Department of
Transportation. At the meeting four bridges and the general alignment of the
planned on-site detours were discussed.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
In the future it will be very helpful to our review process if you will send each
project separately rather than include them in one letter. Given the need for
review by two separate offices, it is easier and less confusing to have only one
project per request for review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Z"Z,? ?'A)
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf, FHwA
Phillip Edwards, NCDOT
109 Fan Jc= &= - tB? d3h, Ncrth t=c:a3 27601.2Z07

4
' le? K
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
J== B. Hart. Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
BM Ray b4..cC . S=t Lary William S. Pricc, Jr., Director
June 17, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridges No. 7, 11, 16, and 21 on SR
1001 over White Marsh Creek, Columbus County,
B-2018, ER 94-8013
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1994, providing additional information
concerning the above project.
Based upon the aerial photograph and photographs of structures in the area of
potential effect, we believe that no historic properties are located in the area of
potential effect for the project. Therefore, we have no further comment on this
project in terms of historic architectural resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
ir'?avid rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
N. Graf
109 E= Jerks Street - Btt:i,-A Ncnb C.--c!!a2 27601-2 07
1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4
Division of Solid Waste Management`"
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
'j rr-p
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary William L. Meyer, Director
February 7, 1994 - -
i -
MEMORANDUM ;
TO: Michael E. Kranni , P.E. t
THROUGH: Doug Holyfield, ead
Waste Management Branch
FROM: Larry D. Perry, Supervisor
Eastern Area Compliance Unit
RE: RCRA Comments on the NCDOT Group V Bridge Replacement Report
The Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the noted project and offers the following
comments:
There are numerous RCRA hazardous waste generating facilities in the counties where
the replacement projects are located, but we do not believe there are any located near
the proposed projects. I do not believe that these projects will cause any adverse
situation on any sites that might generate or handle hazardous waste nor any hazardous
waste generator facility cause an adverse situation on any project.
This review only considered hazardous waste sites or generators. By copy of this
memorandum, this packet is being referred to the Solid Waste Section and Superfund for
their review.
If a site is encountered that raises concerns or questions, please contact our office at
[phone].
LDP/lfb
cc: Solid Waste Section
Superfund
LP0089
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
GROUNDWATER SECTION
9
January 25, 1994 1 '
Michael E. Krannitz
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh Bldg., Suite 910
Raleigh, NC 27602
DearMr. Krannitz:
The Groundwater Section has reviewed its records for the the items you requested in your
December 14, 1993, letter to Arthur Mouberry regarding thirteen bridges slated for replacement
in the State. All bridges, except for numbers 77 and 315, were reviewed with regards to
hazardous waste sites, hazardous waste generators, landfills, and underground storage tanks.
According to our records, none of the above situations were within 1000 feet of these
bridges. However, Solid Waste Management (SWNI) for the State maintains complete records
for all landfills and hazardous waste sites and generators. I suggest contacting Dou.a Holvfield of
the Hazardous Waste Section of SWM, [phone], for more information. Fay Sweat, in our
Pollution Control Branch [[phone]], maintains the incident management database for all
reported underground storage tank incidents in the State.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], ext. 406.
Sincerely,
r- V"
Z4.-
Brian Wagner
Hydrogeologist
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Ted Bush
Bob Cheek
Fay Sweat
Doug Holyfield
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emvoyer "recyclod/ 10% post-consumer pooer
Ir StAtt s
?" SX
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
J:.mes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secrctary
January 12, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, PE
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridges No. 7, 11, 16, and 21 on SR
1001 over White Marsh Swamp, Columbus
County, B-2018, ER 94-8013
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 14, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Columbus County has
never been conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project
site, please send us photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each
structure. These photographs should be keyed to a map that clearly shows the
site location. If there are no buildings over fifty years old on or adjacent to the
project site, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that
significant archaeological resources would be affected and no investigations would
be recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be in a new location, please
forward a map to this office indicating the location of the new alignment so we
may evaluate the potential effects of the replacement upon archaeological
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avid Brook v
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:s1w
cc: N. Graf
H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
January 5, 1994
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
FILE NO. CESAW-C-010
Mr. Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
Post Office Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 910
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Reference your letter dated December 14, 1993, concerning the proposed
replacement of 9 bridges by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in Bladen/Pender, Columbus/Brunswick, Duplin, Onslow, Wake, and
Wayne/Johnston Counties, North Carolina.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 330, Nationwide Permit Program Regulations, dated
November 22, 1991, Categorical Exclusion determinations are "activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined... that the activity, work, or discharge is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation...." and that the
Corps of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Our review of your information indicates that the work is eligible for
authorization under the terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusions). Temporary detours involving fills in wetlands or
waters of the United States or not authorized by this permit. However, such
temporary detours may be authorized under the provisions of Nationwide Permit
33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering), Nationwide Permit 14 (Minor
Road Crossing), or NCDOT General Permit No. 31.
The request for our concurrence for Categorical Exclusions should be
submitted directly to this office by NCDOT or their designated authorized
agent. It should be accompanied by information in support of this
determination. Please refer to this file number and the date of this letter
when requesting the concurrence(s).
If you have questions please call Mr. Ernest Jahake, Wilmington Area
Field Office Manager, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
e Wrig
hie , Regulatory Branch
A

COLUMBUS COUNTY SCHOOLS
l?
w.? ACCREDITED BY THE STATE BOARD OF FJJtJCATION AND THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES ?; SCHOOLS
ADMINISTRATION
BOARD OF EDUCATION THOMAS A. NANCE
Jo Ann M Bomes
Superintendent
Michael W. Kellihan
Craven M Sealey DAN STRICKLAND
Raymond Shaw Assistant Superintendent
Pam Long Ward
January 3, 1994
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh Bldg., Suite 910
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Sirs:
The bridge on Hwy 904 does not effect us at all due to the County Line. The
bridges on Hwy 1001 is between the School Districts and will not affect the
buses, but will affect the mechanic working the area.
Thank you:
GJ.,c,Vc.w j ar.`
William Gore,
Transportation Director
WG/Jy9
Post Office Box 729 a Whiteville, North Carolina 28472 a 919.642-5168 / Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Employer