19940307 Ver 1_Complete File_19940404

JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SEC RETARY
RV
WATER
PLANNING BRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
A d rs' n
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 4, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers 401 ISSUED
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Columbus County, Replacement of Bridge No. 5 on
NC 211 Over Dans Creek Canal, State Project No.
5.143001, Federal Aid Project No. BRS-7960 (5),
TIP No. B-1140.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project
planning report for the subject project. 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) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 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.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
B. nn
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
9

BJO/rml
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Jeff Richter, COE-Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NC DEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NC DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coord.
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer- Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. F. Rosser, PE, Division 6 Engineer
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch

PROJECT PLANNING REPORT
COLUMBUS COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 8
ON N.C. 211.
:OVER DANS CREEK CANAL
STATE PROJECT: 8.143001
FEDERAL AID PROJECT: BRS-7960 (5)
B-1140

SUBMITTED TO
PLANNING BOARD
BY
PLANNING AND RESEARCH.BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA'DEPARTMENT OF-TRANSPORTATION
SUTTON-KENNERLY & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5318 :West Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27409
August, 1984 ;
COLUMBUS COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 8
ON N. C. 211
OVER DANS CREEK CANAL
State Project: 8.1430101
Federal Aid Project: BRS-7960(5)
B-1140
I. SUMMARY
Columbus County Bridge No. 8 has been approved by the North Carolina Board
of Transportation for the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program. This
bridge --is being replaced because of a general deteriorating condition of
the substructure. The proposed bridge replacement will not induce
significant foreseeable alterations in land use, planned growth, travel
patterns, or in natural and cultural resources, and therefore this project
will be processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion.
The existing 541-6" long structure is recommended to be replaced with a 2 @
12-foot x 8-foot concrete box culvert on the same alignment. The
recommended roadway over the culvert consists of a 20-foot wide pavement
with 6-foot unsable shoulders. In using the existing alignment, minimum
approach work will be required to tie the new structure into the existing
roadway. During construction, traffic will be routed to a temporary CMPA
culvert that is to be placed adjacent to the present structure on the west
side. The estimated cost of this replacement project in 1984 dollars is
$198,000.
II. EXISTING INVENTORY AND HISTORY
The existing Columbus County Bridge No. 8 over Dans Creek Canal is
a 54'-6 long, two, lane, three span structure. The clear width of roadway
on the bridge is :241-0" from curb to curb, and 25'-4" out to out of the
bridge deck. Each simple span is constructed of nominal 12-inch steel
stringers at 26-1/2-inches on centers that support a 5-inch concrete deck.
On top of the 'concrete deck is a 1-1/2-inch asphalt wearing surface. Sub-
structure construction consists of round treated timber piles, and a 25-
inch deep x 24-inch wide concrete pile cap. The floor of the structure is
approximately 9.0 feet above the bed of Dans Creek Canal, with a water
depth at the time of the last inspection of 0.5-feet. Concrete railing is
29-inches in height above the road surface, and is continuous along the
bridge length. Presently the posted load limits are 19 tons for single
vehicles, and 28 tons for truck tractor semi-trailers. The present
sufficiency rating for this structure is 30.3 compared to 100.0 for a new
structure.
The present structure was constructed in 1952. Since that time there have
been no closings.or major repairs made, ';with the exception of normal
maintenance such as sweeping and a new overlayment of the asphalt wearing
1
surface. The date of the last state approved condition inspection was
February 28, 1984.
N.C. 211 is a paved route with -an 18-foot wide asphalt surface, and 8-foot,
unpaved shoulders on each side. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per:
hour, and the horizontal alignment of the roadway at the bridge is 90'
degrees to the flow of Dans Creek Canal. Horizontal alignment to the north
and south is good, with straight roadway from each approach. Vertical
alignment is good also with. flat surrounding terrain: Surrounding
utilities include a telephone stream crossing 31-feet from the roadway to
the east.
III. ROAD,FUNCTION AND LAND USE
N.C. 211 is classified as a major collector on the Federal Functional
Classification System, and is on the Federal-Aid Secondary System.
Principal land use in the vicinity of this bridge is primarily swamp and.
woodlands. Some surrounding farmlands also exist nearby, but not in the-
direct vicinity of the bridge. The Town of Bolton lies less than 3-miles
to the northwest. Presently there are no USGS gaging stations near the
site. Present plans for replacement include no foreseeable changes in:
surrounding land use or topographic features.
IV. TRAFFIC DATA AND ACCIDENT RECORDS
Approximately 1300 vehicles `use this bridge daily as of 1983. It is.
anticipated that by the year 2003, approximately 2300 vehicles will'use
this route daily. This volume includes approximately 3% dual tired trucks,
and 1% truck tractor semi-trailers daily. Since January, 1981, two
accidents have been reported near the bridge. No fatalities were
associated with these accidents. Two school busses use the crossing twice-
daily.
V. ALTERNATIVES
The following five-alternatives were considered:
A) No-build
B) Removal of bridge without replacement
C) Rehabilitation
D) Removal of the bridge and replacement at the existing location
E) Removal of the bridge and replacement at an alternate site
ALTERNATIVE A - This alternative consists of doing nothing to the present
structure, and simply leaving the bridge in its present condition. If the
bridge is left as is, then deterioration that is presently takingplace in
the substructure.will continue to worsen until it is in danger of collapse.
2
Maintenance and repairs required to keep the bridge open will become so
numerous and expensive, it will make this alternative very undesirable.
This alternative is not considered feasible.
ALTERNATIVE B - This alternative consists of removing the existing bridge,
and not building anew one to replace it. This alternative would eliminate
the deteriorating and potentially dangerous structure that presently
exists, however, it would create other problems with the present roadway
system. Because of the relatively high volume of traffic that uses this
roadway each day, closing of this structure and roadway would create a'
detour route of over 44 miles. This would limit direct access to traffic
traveling north and south across the Green Swamp from US 74-76 into
Brunswick County and US 17. This alternative is not considered feasible.
ALTERNATIVE C - This alternative consists of. rehabilitating the existing
structure to bring it up to current design standards for loads and roadway
:width. This alternative would eliminate the complete costs of building a
new structure, however, the major problem with this structure lies in the
supporting substructure. The existing timber piles are soft, and have
deteriorated in numerous areas. The bridge wingwalls are also in a very
deteriorated condition. The costs involved in making these repairs would
be just as much as replacement, therefore, this. alternative is not
considered feasible.
ALTERNATIVE D - This alternative consists of removal of the existing
bridge, and replacement with a new structure at the existing site. This
new bridge would be designed to carry.-all North Carolina legal traffic
loads, and would-be constructed to comply with current width requirements.
During construction, traffic would be -required to either be routed to a
temporary crossing, or detoured around the project site. Roadway work
involved with this replacement would be minor, assuming no vertical
realignment is required at the stream crossing...
ALTERNATIVE E -'This alternative consists of removal of the existing
bridge, and replacement with a new structure at an alternate location.
This new bridge would be designed to carry all North Carolina legal traffic
loads, and would be constructed to comply with current- width requirements.
During construction,' traffic would, be routed across the existing structure,
thus requiring no detour or temporary structure. Major costs in addition
to the structure would be in roadway work, and the purchase of neW right of
way.
VI. HYDROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
A.preliminary hydrographic analysis was completed for this crossing. The
results of this analysis are presented in the attached hydrographic
analysis memorandum.
3
VII. ESTIMATED COSTS
ALTERNATIVE A - No-build
Not considered feasible
ALTERNATIVE B - Removal of Bridge Without Replacement
Not considered feasible
ALTERNATIVE C - Rehabilitation
Not considered feasible
ALTERNATIVE D - Removal and Replacement at Existing Location
Utility adjustments -
Bell South = $ 8,000
Demolition & removal of existing
. structure = $ 10,000
Temporary crossing
(2 @ 117" x 79" CMPA) = $ 30,000
Temporary roadway = $ 60,000
Concrete box culvert = $ 34,000
Roadway approaches = $ 25,000
Contingencies and Engineering = $ 25,000
Right of way = $ 6,000
Total = $198,000
ALTERNATIVE E - Removal and-Replacement at an Alternate Site
Not considered feasible
e
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In examining the individual: alternatives, it is apparent that Alternative A
should be eliminated because of the deteriorated condition of the present
substructure. If this structure were not replaced, then major repairs
would need"to be made soon to keep this bridge open t'o traffic. These
repairs, in.-all likelihood, will cost as much or more than a new structure.
A look at Alternative B makes it apparent that this choice should also be
eliminated because of the hardships that this would bring upon the
residents of the Town of Bolton and travelers across the Green Swamp.
Permanent elimination of this road and bridge would- cause much difficulty
for vehicles traveling north and south between US 76-74 and US 17 in
Brunswick County. This closing would also create a lengthy detour for
emergency vehicles.
4
Alternative C was not considered feasible because of the deteriorating
condition of the bridge superstructure, and the costs in making these
repairs would be more costly than replacement.
Alternative E would require constructing a bridge structure on a new
alignment. The present structure is on a very straight and flat section of
road, and to change this alignment would produce a poorer alignment, impact
the wetlands, and costs for right-of-way acquisition and roadwork would be
more than for-Alternate D. Thus, this alternative is not considered
feasible.
Alternative D is therefore the recommended alternative. The replacement
structure is recommended to be a twin 12-foot x 8-foot box culvert with a
20-foot wide pavement and 6-foot usable shoulders over the culvert. The
top of the box culvert shall be approximately 1=foot below natural ground,
and earth fill over the top shall be used to maintain the existing vertical
and horizontal alignment. Minimum approach work shall be required to
transition from the 20-foot bridge travelway to the existing 18-foot
pavement.
During construction this alternative will either require detouring around
the site or erecting a temporary detour structure on the west side adjacent
to the proposed project. If an offsite detour were used, approximately
1300 VPD would have to travel an average of 44 miles. The estimated road
user costs to detour around this site would be prohibitive and at the same
time impose unreasonable burdens on the public. Thus, it is recommended
that a temporary detour structure made of two 117" x 79" CMPA's be
constructed to the west 'of the existing bridge. The crossing will be
utilized to maintain the north-south traffic across the Green Swamp during
demolition and construction of the replacement project. Division concurs
that this alterative is a reasonable solution. Hydrographic design shall
accommodate the' 50-year flood.
1
IX.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of
an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment with the-use of current NCDOT
Standards and Specifications. Therefore, the project is classified as a
Categorical Exclusion..
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulations. No significant change in land use is expected to result from
construction of the project.
a ?
5
The project is rural in nature and involves only replacement of an
inadequate structure at the existing location. Thus, no adverse impact on
families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited.
Since the proposed project does- not increase the number of lines of
traffic nor move the traffic substantially closer to the existing
development, this project is not expected to alter the noise environment.
The proposed bridge replacement will have no adverse effect on the ambient
air quality in Columbus County. Since the anticipated traffic volume is
less than 2000 vehicles per hour within a period of ten years after
completion of construction, the project will be compatible with the North
Carolina Plan for Implementing Natfonal Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The replacement of the subject structure is not expected to result in a
significant increase in traffic noise. No change in traffic patterns or
substantial increase in traffic volumes will occur as a result of the
project. Therefore the project is not expected to have a significant
impact on existing and future land uses. Furthermore, no substantial
adverse construction noise impacts can be identified. Due to the limited
impact of the project and since the project has been designated a
categorical exclusion, this evaluation completes the noise assessment
requirements of FHPM 7-7-3 and no additional traffic noise reports are
required for this project.,
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation Officer, has conducted a review of:_ the project, and is aware
of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance
which would be affected by the project. They have no comment on the
project as currently proposed.
No wetlands are associated with the NC 211 crossing of a drainage canal,
other than a few isolated pools of water. The impact of the proposed
project on these wetlands will be temporary and limited to the period of
construction since the replacement structure is at the existing location.
Fills used in construction of the temporary on-site detour will be removed.
The margins of these isolated pools and the inner slopes of the ditch
support a few species of plants often found in wetlands. Some of these
plant species are: black 'willow (Salix ni ra), wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), red bay (Persia boronia), titi (Cyrilla racemifloria), elm
(Ulmus ?jp.), cypress (Taxodium distichum), buttonbush Cephalanthus
occidentalis), alder (Alnus.serrulata), rattan (Berchemia scandens), and
rush (Jancus repens).
Upland conditions in the area are of three types, a bern paralleling the
ditch, slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
plantation and loblolly pine woodlands with an-understory of red maple and
6
sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua). Few if any animal species are in the
area that could be specifically associated with aquatic conditions.
Fishery resources of this drainage canal are dependent upon fish movement
from the Cape Fear River via Livinglston Creek. The canal is designed to
carry a large volume of water during periods of heavy runoff from
commercial forest lands. The canal is a tributary of Dans Creek._ Dans
Creek carries a water quality classification of C SW fishing water. The
ecological classification of Livingston Creek is Robin-Warmouth. No
endangered' or threatened plant or animal species are known to occur at or
near this bridge. The effects of siltation and erosion should be
adequately controlled by the use of silt fences and other siltation and
erosion control measures.
It is anticipated that it will not be necessary to apply to.the Corps of
Engineers for an individual.permit a's the Nationwide Section 404 permit
provisions are applicable, and the provisions of Sections 330.5(b) and
330.6 of the Interim Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps will
be followed.

7 a
R
t
v tt
? It _ sr?r ,y.. Nwelr `. • , !Ls v r..3p• .
too b?aed u
y,pl Z •
7 !!!2 ~ ? ?b?p
1 1`
I 11
L"A /..
i
?f ? IA ?t; ? 7t3 lf:V/
•f 1!N . 7 3 Y+p''f lip Nr& i b
1fLt ? ? -
-0 Fr Lou
!AV
211 2 N,
t. ro. ,S im 1 ,L. `3 2 1!Y 1St ?' y _
i 13 ? !lam - IC+
imi cg
BOLTON v •?
? N?
C I1 O /
1l73 y Vl! u
B-1 140 Lin
711 ` \ / ]t lS'
_ 5 A M P o
W
Z• -
/
8
? N
t A too
I'I
111 \l
lb C.0
J ?
e w
J
cp"
BRIDGE 8
COLUMBUS COUNTY
NC 211

8/84 FIG.
`i
r
D
O
N
0
Z
pY
O
J
I
Z
WUr
Cf) N
co v
D
JO 9
2
r
Z
Z
pY
O
J

W
0
N
H
cn
pS.
E
LLI
ga+
a. _ W

r
z
'-. ?l .- ?_ . a• „? 1?^ rh h . .`C•?lpN .?.?j01(1,'ipv eM -?
?? •;, F .,?d?, 4 , ;? ^ ?,
71
?? ` - ?r. _ -?.. it .. ? we ?+•• ? ? r ` ?R, '"
47
=r f` 7 ?t W -
fit, 70 To 'I
tl? ?M1r? - ? . '1i '_•.a- .. _? 'Rfi'? - ..oC??• L '7gfJ• '?a.+•. ? `?SA , ? eo•:
Ceq,
16
ez i Bud khead Ba _ YN' • 63 l?? mk
-?No
? ! lA+if66, '+`'??r •- - 6 new Rope ° OLD LAK. ??„? /L EasttAreadla?,, • .e•/ „? ?, `. ?•\ ?Q
Urn
, Jl +?, r a v/? I F`y It /( r e f
Rice f i§ld
.?.^ - _ - .. 0M
Lam
"T 57
' y/{ , ? 'L"??•--- <.T? CMS 63 -f
Goos?
'Hollow. S
a o.4
•? t _ - -
N ^ ' Betio - , - }/
A• NTIC 1 BM"• •sa C X,_ F + i. !. -` . l?.mel 66 j ". 1 1?.,. •• s CO S •• _ "ss gyro B}7PdV111@
S Water I • \ ??. 1 ° ?? • ;, ' ?. 1 ,A of $r L NE
-?`_ 1 56 '1• _ .<-_ ????. ?..?? __?? _ J`
? _ v < - Av
- ti 4" 5o V - ' - _ y s ? tea` ?.Y - .-?}cM -? ?T 0 R
Jue
• -- ? _ ` - Pte` a-.
41. 4= - O .100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
?1
?s?+? IN_ _-?•.. - - LINE
.....WSAL •^'` ` 1'7 ""?1 n Ya
.NA
• -r may., l Creek
M -I
BRIDGE 8
- ."?• - ? ?- - < ? ? "•?' i'? ` SZ .:?_ ?• iF ? ill '-! SST ; c,?'? • p0 -\
16.
4 4S
FLOOD PRONE AREA k a«:mod
- -.? ,
_ Qt
46
?`---Is?p ° ° .?• ?,: B-1 140 COLUMBUS COUNTY
BIK.1 M BRIDGE 8 CANAL`.
,y sa ?, - s l a?
' tea - 3: SCALE: 1 INCH - 2000 FEET
s,naRidge CONTOUR INTERVAL: 10 FEET
Rev- 8%84 FIG.4
SUTTON - KENNERLY & ASSOCIATES a CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5318 WEST MARKET STREET, GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27409 PHONE [phone]
June 13, 1984
Columbus-County
I.D. NO.: B=1140
MEMORANDUM TO: Manager
Planning and Research Branch
FROM: Sutton-Kennerly & Associates
SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 8 on N:C. 211 over Dans
Creek Canal (Green Swamp)._
The drainage basin for the canal at this location is approximately 11
square miles. The existing structure consists of 3 @ 18' steel girder
spans for a total length of W-6".
The estimated replacement structure is s-a double 12' x 8' box culvert
located so that the top is 1-foot above: natural ground and the: same
horizontal alignment.as the present structure is maintained. Fill will be
placed on the top of the culvert so that the grade will be the same
elevation as the existing.
Columbus County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance emergency
program.- Attached is a copy of a section of the Bolton topographic
=quadrangle (Fig. 4) on which is shown the approximate limits of the 100
year floodplain. The,floodplain in the area of.the crossing is essentially
-nonexistent. A densely forested treed-farm surrounds the site. -
It lot anticipated that- a permit will not= be required-to Construct a
temporary crossing.
If an on-site detour is required, it is recommended that 2 @ 117";x 79"
CMPA's be-installed west of the present structure.
A field reconnaissance will be necessary to.determine a more exact drainage
area. The canal is a 20-25 foot base: box cut.. There is.no flood plain.
i
r - i
?IOR1H .
?IROLINN
)E4?IRTMENT ? v E o
i?
June 7, 1984
,ULTURAL
r-y ??CC C. Douglass Jewell _ K
'c ENNt??-?
.(:)U CJ Sutton-Kennerly and Associates sU
5318 West Market Street
Greensboro, N.C. 27409
?aleign
Jorf~ Carolina Re: Fourteen *bridge replacements in Robeson,
Bladen, Sampson, Brunswick and Columbus
Counties, ER 84-7963
Dear Mr. Jewell:
Thank you for your letter of May 18, 1984 concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties
of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would
be affected by the project. Therefore we have no comment on the project
as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the stational
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhance-
ment of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
William S. Price, Jr. i'
State Historic Preservation Officer
WSP•slw
Scup W Hodgkins.
Secretary
James B Hunt, Jr.. .
Governor
0,