20081030 Ver 1_Application_20080630

4

?l
QL
6
C)
S
t

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 16, 2008
?UL f
W 4?q
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402
08103Q
Attention: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and Section 401
Water Quality Certification, for the proposed replacement of Bridge
Nos. 280 & 281 over Dan's Creek and Mill Creek on SR 1843 in
Columbus County. State Project No. 8.2430801, WBS Element
33443.1.1, Federal Project No. BRZ-1843(1); Division 6, TIP No. B-
4082.
Please find enclosed the permit drawings and half-size plans. A Categorical Exclusion (CE)
was completed for this project in November 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. 280 & 281 over Dan's
Creek and Mill Creek on SR 1843 in Columbus County. The project involves replacement of
the existing Bridge No. 280 73-foot structure with a 89-foot single span bridge and Bridge
No. 281 55-foot structure with a 82-foot single span bridge in approximately the same
location and roadway elevation of the existing structures using top-down construction.
Traffic will be detoured off-site along surrounding roads, during construction.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: The project is located within subbasin 030617 of the Cape Fear River
Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030005). Dan's Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number
[DWQ Index # 18-64-7] and Mill Creek [DWQ Index No. 18-64-7-(2)] with a Best Usage
Classification of "C Sw". Neither Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within one mile of project study area. Dan's Creek and Mill Creek are not designated as
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 ALEIGH MAIL NC SERVICE 27699-1548 CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
R
R
11
t.
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 Cape Fear River Basin, nor do they drain into any Section 303 (d)
waters within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts: Dan's Creek, Mill Creek and adjacent wetlands will be impacted by the
proposed project. Construction of the proposed project will result in a permanent impact of
0.07 acre from roadway fill in wetlands. In addition, there will be less than 0.01 acre of
surface water impacted by the proposed construction. (see permit drawings).
Temporary Impacts: Temporary Impacts: Proposed temporary wetland impacts to 0.06 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 0.25 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
A letter dated July 18, 2002 from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stated that
anadromous fish habitat is present at Dan's Creek and Mill Creek and requested an in-water
work moratorium. However, in an email (attached) dated July 31, 2006, Ron Sechler with
NMFS deferred the anadromous fish call to Fritz Rohde of North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF). In the above referenced email correspondence, the DMF indicated
there would be no anadromous fish present and with that information the NMFS said the
NCDOT could remove the moratorium request.
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.
NCDOT TIP B-4082 Page 2 of 4
•

Federally-protected species for Columbus Cnnnty
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 No Habitat No Effect
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
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:
• Use of an off-site detour during construction.
• 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
• Best Management Practices will also be utilized during demolition of the existing
bridge and construction of the new bridge.
Mitigation
Due to the limited amount of proposed impacts NCDOT is not proposing mitigation for this
site.
Project Schedule
The review date for this project is July 29, 2008 and the Let Date is September 16, 2008.
NCDOT TIP B-4082
Page 3 of 4
v
V
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This project was 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
23 (72 CFR; 11092-11198, March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3701 will apply to this
project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certification will be met. Therefore,
NCDOT is not requesting written concurrence. NCDOT is providing two copies of this
application to the NCDWQ, for their review.
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
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
/4d
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
CC: w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 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
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Anne Deaton, NCDMF
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Ms. Stacy Oberhausen, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT TIP B-4082
Page 4 of 4
Re.-[Fwd: B-4082]
AL
Subject: Re: [Fwd: B-40821
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:14:38 -0500
From: Ron Sechler <[e-mail]>
7?,y: "John S. Nlerritt" <[e-mail]>
John.,
Fritz ilas the most recent knowledge on these water bodies. So, if he believes that the moratorium is
unnecessary, I will defer to his position and you may delete the moratorium at this site.
Ron
John S. Merritt wrote:
Ron,
Do you ac;.°ee with Frit:z's call for dropping the moratorium. If
yc)u do please send me a quick email back indicating so. If not
please call me at your earliest convince, some unique
construction problems have arisen with this project that I would
need to discuss with you. Thanks for your help.
John Merritt
919-715-5536
this is correct. At that point: in the steams, there would be no anadromous fish present.
Fritz
John S. Merritt wrote:
11 Fritz,
We spoke February 23 concerning B-4082, Bridge No. 280 and 281 on
SR 1843 over Dan's Creek and Mill Creek in Columbus Co. Per our
conversation pertaining to an anadromous fish moratorium
? of 2
6/ 11 /2008 2:44 PM
Re: [,yWd: B-408,;,
requested by Ron Sechler with the National Marine Fisheries
Service in a letter dated March 7, 2003, you concluded that a
moratorium was not needed. for the fishery resource in that area.
P.s woLi re'Aiested, l; will pass this information to Ron Sechler and
cony,ult ;;vit'h 'hirri o:i-] this recommendation. Please send me a brief
('Mail back to ler. me know if this is correct. Thanks for your
John Merritt
2 of 2 6/11/2008 2:44 PNS
1.
EA
IE4
to
'Eq
469
169
d)
Z
0
jq *d1
E
F-tlIQ
V1ANZ
iqs
?I(PW
'a 'AD
464 'A ]
,a 469 *
,L4 11) R)
"a ??9?
16" 'Eq
9?1
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sleets
See Sheet 1-B for Conventlonal Symbols
See Sheet 1-C for Survey Control Sheet
O
V
W
O
Byrdville 1844 ++
? 1845
74 1836 Fr,Qeman
76 _
1881
\\i 1838 o-°
1837
80 1843
838
1839
. •, ? ? 1831
1830 1824
1688 1888
835
PRO ECT 1834 1828
SITE -
Swamp 1843
VICINITY MAP
--?9 DENOTES OFFSITE DETOUJ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
COLUMBUC COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGES 280 & 281 OVER DAN'S CREEK
ON SR 1843 (LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD)
TYPE OF WORK• GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, GUARDRAIL,
AND STRUCTURES
RAa RAW woncr AEF01"a PO Pm qtr
C B-4 082 1
rtan aw.Nn •.A-IIIOI,M¢ pOgp?v.
33443.1.1 BRZ-18431 PE
33443.2.1 BRZ-18431 W/ 8 UTIL

-L- STA. 12 + 00.00 BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4082 4
1
1
1
1\... SWAMP
TO SR 1888 ?. '"
SITE ??\,? BEGIN BRIDGE /
-L- STA. 16+14.81
SWAMP
S? I843 _ J I l' / END BRIDGE
JI; -L- STA. 16+97.19 j
LGSTAB14+96.81 \jv?CST
END BRIDGE
-L- STA. 15+84.19
TO SR 1831
-L- STA. 20+25.00 END TIP PROJECT B-4082
H
U
?I
NOTE: THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
NOTE: CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
?? g3
permit Drawing a
5hee1 ?---Of - ?'
WETLAND/STREAM
IMPACTS
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR 0ONPT1tU0n0N
UULUER POINT
2.0 ft
MIN. OVERLAP
TOE OF SLOPE
_ r- I T !- I'1 r n I'1 1'1 I n nl / r n I n n n r--r- . I I
N.T.S.
2.0' TYP.
TYPICAL SECTION
-L- STA. 12+50 TO 14+92 LEFT
-L- STA. 17+00 TO 19+50 LEFT
-L- STA. 13+50 TO 14+92 RIGHT
-L- STA. 17+00 TO 19+50 RIGHT
FILTER FABRIC
?-
3.0' 17
Permit Drawing
R POINT Sheet r Of
CLASS 11 RIPRAP 2' (TYPJ
i'Si
oESTIMATED OUANT/TIES:
T
T
Fp PLAIN RIP RAP.CLASS !1:_________________1150 TONS
TOE OF SLOPE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE ------------ 1600 SO. YD.
ki;

REVISIONS
007 14:51
O
G
? 'E7 .ell W 4/ ?. ...
N .. .. I ` 'Ile
S6? a
333 ? k w /' m I I
Slo, I Y I I
iiii?t: f I I IFS ? Q
++++La k I
8oaaF
?OOONm = I
k k I I Z
d I L
»» I I ? b
v?a? I
++++ RRR _ _ _. --
o,1r. k / I 7W5 ZI- -
Nil C/f Q
k \ \ ' I
10
O N k µ µµ:/;? /?/ ? Q 4
/ N}
??? k I a / / \?? 5
k \
F
k \
k Q /?)\\
Q k / it.
k
k\ KL'S9 ? L ~ ? k /M
?... B1 2.eeN k \ a ;av
\ qk B9. 'tiSS,g
S '(\\\\ as J?? ?/ ? ? 9y 9S 9N ?
j , Gf N?
i
E w k 09?' k '?V ICI
m. a ?$
M33NJ 5111'0 i o
µ K. k 9jBg. IA. 9LN
I
k 9 d?
k k si if
K- k > y \ T Ail
k k k k k k K ? \\ \\
O
k µ k k k kk k k ° a y ?° a\\ .. \ ? y ?/..
\-k k k k J? ,p \ \ N\.
k'
1 \ k 7 pl k Pow k
> k k o . \
aw ~ k k µ? JJB ..\
0°
o k /
IRi J? / k t
w'i RioQ k V y
q+N / 11? k k k / k µ k7S m ?.
i.?y / ?1 nRn k / ? N a °
/ µ µ µ
/ µ y
// k µ// ?k k
k ? k
k k /
Ik k / Z
I k / / m ? k 'ray
?yrOD
l / k k m>ik O"=
O I k w°og ?.s II ?? II ?
k
c+ ?aa'?Iy
? ? I ' \\ k k k~ m?' \ ?'R??fv
\ o0
L I I
\?`a l II
o
I I
11 ?'
?1 1
Z \ m \
\g
\ k 2Q q
K- KI
\ k N-
\ µ µ
\ k \
\ k k k
SSO 75,
\ k \
1 k k k
/ to.
\ o
I k k k ? ? I
i k k k •,\ 9
I k k
\ k k k µ k k
\ k
\ k
k ? \ \
/ k K. k k k .'
/ k k k
it k k
k
\\ ` k µ
raarati
VVVVVV V ???
ti
tigS
L
W?'?rbq\t
,',lop
U10
° cm
m?
"" 'm
icy ?
mu)
r
o m-
D
z
a? _
m
i

V
?r
1
CD
r
n ~
az ? ?
gg O
3 ?
Cb ?
zz ? A ?'
r c
27-DEC-2007 14:51
n^\dr a?noaT3e ??er ?i t^ b4882 _hyd_pr m_ve t_psh0
V-V
y
VYVN L
80°80=
O?OO?b
>?? k k
O
O- a
'O µ m? k
/ y k
/ k
/ O VT M
k k? 1'11
k k ? :
s
k \ µ ? /i
51 k
1 ?SQN
EOM '' I O
k k 9jB . `> i'
k k k VO? ? ?? \
k k F>>i ?. ? \\, r
\ l
µ 1 \ \ \
k k • \ \
k k k k µ k k k ? \\ '?
k
k k k k k kk k k ° i
k k N \ '.
k k \
`\ > \\ k 1a µ ?" ZO
ti Oa
N~
q+?
ij? //L}A
/ k
k a
I k k ° ;
Ik k ? ?
I k/ r I/ll

I
1
REVISIONS
Q
Q
J k z `
k k ? ? `•
k N /..
1 N
/
:v
• k
.999{ =t
y 9g 9S 9N
r m a'?_?
ILN s
?S
N 1 M I
4
J
c
k
k
H
k N
k
k `r
k IAi> k TA .
k y?
SO V ?P
k
k y ? O
k k a
\ k eo
\ µ k m
k
\ k k\ k .
k \
\ k
\ k
\ k
1 µ , k k
k
I
8 ' k k
I k k µ
k k
k µ
k k It
k
k
yk \\ ?
/ ••k
?, k µ k k k
?' k k k
? k k
? k
_ k k
OA 1LS
/0
?D -1
w- r
§4V
tigS
L
?tiGSb?•G
D
41.k ?
Ih
BSS
%p6
G9 pp
i PI
o cm
r rE Fn
mien r
mN
icy
r r
D
o a? _
N
/ / Z I
7
II II II II ? 3
w w
N?
a P
ti
r
96'601
Z
a z ? "?
»
»
N
»
»
»
»
M
M
Z
»u
»w»
W»W
»E
»a
»Z
T»0:
Vi»W
w»?
»w
»»»
»»»
P
P
n
N

0

5 10

PROJ. REFERENCE NO,

SHEET NO.

m 1
0 1
0 1 B-4082 X-1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 90 6 D ?D 60 5 0 A D 30 2 D 1 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
FI LL IN 51TE 1
40
-- H AND W ITILAND ILL IN
ETLAND

0

0.010

0.020 _ HAN
CLEARIN D
G

30
-- - -
S.
1.901

4n 14 +0 0.00

O.o29
0.029 4n
S.S.28.I10 S.S. 28.765 -- ---

13+-1- 0.00

'
0.041
3
0.047
JI

3• 40

__ _-_- ___ 5.5.7 672
5.5.29.]
0 _
--
---
---
20
40 13f 0.00 .
40

- q? 0.060
32 0060
25 S.S. 1.102
30
5.5 71.561
12 +
0,00 - ?-_

4n I
- 40

-- 0.060
3,2 0.070
-1
--- -- S.S. 31.777 ---

/0
/9F
Co/ 12 +0
'?UC 0.00
T-Zol
LA
f
40
-
-
- P it D
WKV
am 4n
'--- __? 3 3 -- --? PRELI I
DO NOr NARY
MR CO PLANS
UCnON

//45
D.00 10

-
- C ea n
lump s g and G
um price bbing, and R
or. Gradin. emoval of
" 'sting Pave ment will ' paid Tor fhe contra
10 10 10 10 10 10 0 4
0 30 0 1 1
-
11
0 all 10 10 10 10 1 0 1 0
u
a
a
w
w
w
a
w
a
Z
a?
0
awN
aNN
aaN
aaN
NW
?-Na
-z
.w¢
NNW
a NUI
aN?
aNN
NNM
aNa
WNN
0 5 10 PROD. R EFERENCE N O. SH EET NO.
8 -4082 X-3
1
40 50 U o 1 30 11, 10 T o 1 2 1
0 1 1 00 T o 1
0 1
i
30 1
0 15
0
4n
-in 0.047 0.047
1
-- -- 1 30
-- --- ---- --- -

19 f

0.00
S.
.1A,009 --

40
4n
0.028 0.028
-

--
---"
---
5.5.29.5
7

9 f

e00
--
.5.2A./90 in
40
4n
-in 1 0.020 0.010 -

--
---

---
---
-
---
- -
5.5.28.074

8+

.00
5.5.7
.431
---
-

---

---

-- in

F LL IN
D FILL IN SITE 2
WET D
40
HA ND HAND

3n C NG 0.020 0.009
- CLEARING

30

-
--
.5.7
.111
/V -?
o.00 s.s. si. is
--
40

-50
0.020

- 31
0.020

8 4n
5 5.27,583
f
17
0e00 5.5.27.397 _--
40 I

0.020

0.020 4n
I
3n 2 -

-?
----
.
5.27.710

S.s.27.A5i
-

---

----

---

-- in

I
17 1 0.00 Pe rmit Dr wing
a
?
e e i
110 110 140 14 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 ?q
1
1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
43
170 ` 410 171 701 ` % . SITE
._? s.
74
1 76 l9 11 `
i ?
I 900 214
'4\ 410 211
SEE INSET '•` 701 • 170
BELOW
COLUMBUS COLIN i
LIP
Ail-
Creek _ fr. u j
?? I -'1 Ji r?? { ?l i` ` '•r `'' E' ? `.?\; O`er). .?
1-?EG
P OJE.
WETLAND IMPACTS
Permit Drawino
Show__?_ _ of T?(p 3--

IKi 11,3 Ch
LAC / 7L N C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
COLUMBUS COUNTY
PROJECT044,LI tB-4"
BRIDGES NQ280 AND 281 OVER
DAN'S CREEK ON SR 184
(LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD)
BET OF_ /07

PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES
ADDRESSES
2357 LIVINGSTON CHAPEL RD
2 ASHFORD MALPASS
DELCO, NC 28436
3 GENE MALPASS 2529 LIVINGSTON CHAPEL RD
DELCO, NC 28436
4 NELSON APPLEWHITE JR RT I BOX SO
DELCO, NC 28436
Permit Drawing
sneer _q,___ of (D
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
COLUMBUS COUNTY
PROJECT: 55445.1.1 (B-4082)
BRIDGES NO 281 AND 261 OVER
DAN'S CREEK ON SR 1845
(LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD)
ZT OF / 07
M
8
See Suet 1-A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet t-8 for Conventlonol Symbols
See Sheet 1-C for Survey Control Sheet
N-
0-
0
0
V
W
Now;

0;
0
V
V
3
1
0
9
?V
a
T
L
N
0
P/A
N Q+
?j L+
m?
oh
o.
0 3?
uk
a?
m
w0
? L+
N ?+
0 L+
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Byrdville
u ?e
7e
1
?s" I ,
6 Iasi
1837
--- -pMIK t -
AL
in,
Swamp . „14
VICINITY MAP
- - - DENOTES OPPSITB DETOUR
GRAPIffC SCALES
50 25 0 50 190
PLANS
50 25 0 50 100
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2008 = 971
ADT 2028 = 1475
DHV = 14 %
D= 65%
T = 3 %'
V = 60 MPH
' TTST 1% + DUAL 2%
FUNC CLASS = LOCAL
COLUMBUS COUNTY
LOCATION; BRIDGES 280 & 2810VER DAN'S CREEK
ON SR 1843 (LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD)
TYPE OF WORM GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND
STRUCTURES
em a-n.rm= nw o "k mn
.C B-4082 i
MA" PWW1e R*?Wftp
-L- STA. 12 + 00.00 BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4082 4
?. J
mow.
TO SR 1888 ? \ ? ? /
BEGIN BRIDGE /
\ Fr rrr/ -L- STA. 16+14.81
1
1 r Sww _i
sR I8*3 ?? / END BRIDGE
1 -L- STA. 16+97.19 j
i
? \ J
BEGIN BRIDGE rv lfyf
J
•L- STA. 14+96.81 r?r j \J'pON
END BRIDGE mow.
40
-L- STA. 15+84.19 rev/ o r \ •? O _-
rv/ TO SR 1831
yr ?.
vv / %
rv/
-L- STA. 20+25.00 END TIP PROJECT B-4082
PROJECT LENGTH Prepared In thr Offlcs d,
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4082 = ,124 MILES DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Birch Ridge Dr., Raleigh NC, 27610
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4082 = .032 MILES 2W dfAAML4 0
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 84082 = .156 MILES
RGBT OF WAY DATE' BRENDA MOORE. P.E.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 Awiz= Al wan
LEMG DAZE. ROGER KLUCKMAN, P.E.
SEPTEMBER 16.2008 pRopff nmw Affia w
HYDRAULICS 112HGUOM
ROADWAY DBSIGN
MCNO M
i ^
N?J)
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S TATE OF NORTH CAROL U
ti
4
o ?

Note: Not to Scale
*S.UE, = Sub wface Ukdi& Bxgiwaixg
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOMMIRlES AND PROPERTY
State Line
County Una
Township Una - --
Cit
Un
y
a
Reservation Una - - -
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin 0
Property Comer -
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Una -X -X-X-
Proposed Woven Wins Fence e
Proposed Chain Unk Fence -
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence -
x
sting Wenond Boundary
- - - -??- - - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
w-
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
BUILDINGS AND 02YM CULTU".-
Gas Pump Vent or UG Tank Cap o
Sign o
Well o
Small Mine 5z
Foundation 0
Area Outline
Cemetery
Building
School
Church
Dam E
i
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone Z
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream
Spring
Swamp Marsh
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
F- /m
m
RAILROADS.-
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost
werasr ss
Switch D
s»
RR Abandoned - -.- - ---
RR Dismantled ---
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker Q
Existing Right of Way Una -
Proposed Right of Way Una -Q -
Proposed Right of Way Una with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Una with
Concrete or Granite Marker QD -
Existing Control of Access ---_-
Proposed Control of Access ?-
Existing Easement Una --E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement- -E
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -ME-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement- -?oE-
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement -ruE-
ROADS AND RFJATW FfOV"S.-
Existing Edge of Pavement -
Existing Curb -
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut --- ---
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill --- F ---
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp - cr
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail . T
Existing Cable Guiderail n "
Proposed Cable Guiderail n "
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
PEGETAT70N
Single Tree -
Single Shrub -
Hedge
Woods Line -
Orchard
Vineyard
0
0
ti
Q 4 Q 43
Nroyara
EXISTING STRUCTURES.
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UT7LITIES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pale
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Lino Tower
Power Transformer
UG Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole
Recorded U40 Power Una
Designated UG Power Line (S.U.E.')
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter C)
Water Valve
Water Hydrant $
Recorded UG Water Una
c? Designated UG Water Una (S.U.E.')-- - - - -•- - - -
Above Ground Water Line ./G eater

-C-----\ TV:
TV Satellite Dish X
>-----? TV Pedestal 10
?CB TV Tower
----- UG TV Cable Hand Hole p
® Recorded UG TV Cable ,.
Designated UG TV Cable (S.U.E.') ----•----
Recorded UG Fiber Optic Cable „ o-
Designated UG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.*y-- -
----r • __
4
b
8
H
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole -0-
Telephone Manhole p
Telephone Booth p
Telephone Pedestal p
Telephone Cell Tower i
UG Telephone Cable Hand Hole f9
Recorded UG Telephone Cable 1
Designated UG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.•)- ---- ----
Recorded UG Telephone Conduit "
Designated UG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.*) - - - -tt- - -
Recorded L G Fiber Optics Cable
Designated LkG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.'r ----f(4---
GAS:
Gas Valve Q
Gas Meter
Recorded UG Gas Una
Designated UG Gas Una (S.U.E.*) - - - -"- - - -
Above Ground Gas Una '/G C°'
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout p
UG Sanitary Sewer Una ss
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer 1/G SWItary Seri
Recorded SS Forced Main Una «-
Designated SS Forced Main Una (S.U.E.0)
- ----?----
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
Utility Pole with Bose El
Utility Located Object o
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown UG Una -
LIG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
AG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
ILG Test Hole (S.U.E.*)
m
Abandoned According to Utility Records - AATUR
End of Information E.O.I.
--Kh-
-K7-
SURVEY CONTROL SHEET B-4082
BL
POINT
------------ OESC.
---------------- -- NORTH
---- --------- - EAST
- ELEVATION L STATION OFFSET

1
64082-81.1 -
196532.6698 ------------- .
2211065.9750 -..------------ --
41.10 ---- ------'--- ----
OUTSIDE PROJECT ------------
LIMITS
2 84082 BL2 196976.9500 2211205.2780 30.60 1.80.55 25.96 RT
3 64082.131-3 197331.6060 2211421.9220 32.04 15.99.35 13.07 RT
101 B4082-1 (GPS) 197871.6020 2211721.1960 33.25 22.12.71 26.71 RT
.........
BM80 ELEVATION - 29.86
N 196944 E 2211250
L STATION 11.71 80 RIGHT
RR SPIKE IN BASE OF 18" PINE TREE
........................................
BEGIN TI
-L- PC IOt00.OO
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= 196821.5467
E=2211114.4153
NCDOT BASELINE STATION -BL-1-
POT 5+00.00
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES .
N= 196532.6690
E=2211065.9150
• BMe 0
NCDOT BASELINE STATION -BL-2-
PINC 9+65.61
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= 196976.9500
E=2211205.2780
.........
BMBI ELEVpT ION 34.03
N 197849 E 2211786
L STATION 21.99 94 RIGHT
RR SPIKE IN BASE OF 15' PINE TREE
.........
OqN,
2 3 Cq -L- PC 19+31.20
ff4- LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= 197612.7746
L PT 13+18.71 E=2211598.6689
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= 197107.4580 1
E=2211252.5517
SR 1843 LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD
lq AL
NCDOT BASELINE STATION -BL-3- P
PINC 13+BI.20 END TIP P I
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES LOCALIZE[
221
N= 197331.6060 E2=221
1 r E=2211421.9220
NOTES.
L- PT 22+52.17
I PROJECT COORDINATES
191913.6985
E= NCDOT GPS STATION 84082-2
E=2211697.2988 LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= 198877.0465
E=2211573.2310
.NCDOT BASELINE STATION 'GPS' B4082-1
POT 19+98.58
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= 197871.6020
46? E=2211721.1960
BM *81
L 770 CONTROL DATA FOR TIIIS PROJECT CAN BE FOUND ELECTRONICALLY BY SELECTINO
PROJECT CONTROL DATA AT.'
H7TPjWWW.DOH.DOT.STATENC.USPRBC01V8TRUCT/HIOHWAY/LOCANOIUR=CV
c
N
n
m
v
ni
m
DATUM DESCRIPTION
HE LOCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROJECT
IS BASED ON THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES ESTABLISHED BY
FOR MONUMENT 'B-4082x'
WITH STATE PLANE GRID COORONATES OF
NORTHNG: 1978TL603(ft) EASTNGs 221T2U97(ft)
THE AVERAGE COMBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS PROJECT
(GROUND TO GRID) ISs 1.00001980
THE N.C. LAMBERT GRID BEARING AND
LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCE FROM
B-4082-I' TO -L- STATION 12+00.00 IS
S 3128'56.5' W 1015.05 FT
ALL LINEAR OWNSIONS ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL DISTANCES
VERTICAL DATUM USED IS NAVD 88
77M PEES TO BE FOUND ARE AS FOLLOWS:
B4=j.S CONTROL 0B0M.TRT
SITE CALIBRATION DVFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN PROMED FOR THIS PROJECT. IF FURTHER
MMRMA27ON IS NEEDED, PLEASE CONTACT TTM LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
0 1NDIC,ATES OEODS77C CONTROL MONUMENTS USED OR SET FOR HORIZONTAL PROJECT CONTROL
BY THE NCDOT LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT:
PROJECT CONTROL ESTABLISHED USING GLOBAL POSI270MNG SYSTEM.
NETWORK ESTABLISHED FROM ZMT12VO HARM MONUdMM770N
NOTE; DRAV"NG NOT TO SCALE SEE OPS CALIBRATION SHEET FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COORDINATE VALUES.
FINAL PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
C1 PROP. APPROX. 114"ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A, AT
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LOS. PER S0. YD.
C2 PROP. APPROX. 21t"ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SFB.5A, AT
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LBS. PER 80. YD. IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF8.5A, AT
C3 AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER S0. YD. PER 1" DEPTH TO BE
PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 11t" IN DEPTH.
E1 PROP. APPROX. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 825.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 468 LBS. PER 80. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE TYPE 826.081, AT
6
EZ AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LOS. PER 80. YD. PER 1
DEPTH TO BE
PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN Sh " IN DEPTH.
R SHOULDER BERM GUTTER.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
U EXISTING PAVEMENT.
W WEDGING (SEE WEDGING DETAIL THIS SHEET).
NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
q4-
m
v
a it C2
" USE SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
k STA. 14+65.00 TO 4- STA. 14+82.81 (LT & Ril
m 4- STA. 17+11.19 TO 4- STA. 17+30.00 (LT 6 RT)
T E1
SHOULDER BERM GUTTER DETAIL
9'-11' N6GR
VAR SLOPE
SEE X SECRONS LO_
VAR SLOPE
SEE X-SECTIONS
?-s
9'-11' NGfiR
.08
Z 0 ,
L
GRADE
002 F4fT 0.02 FI+T-
U W 6.5' E
)7,-.,,,.
E TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO.1
6'
9' WGR
11' it'
rGRADE
0.02 FTtT 0.02 FVT?
6.5' El
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
d'
9' YYiGR
VAR SLOPE
SEE X-SECTIONS
9-4082 2
'AO i POWEVENT D9
e+or?
IELIMIN Y PLANS
DO NOT On Po Cor;rMUCnoli
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.1
TRANSITION FROM EXISTING -1r STA. 12+00.00 TO STA. 12+50.00
4- STA. 12+50.00 TO STA. 14+50.00
4- STA. 17+50.00 TO STA. 19+75.00
TRANSITION TO EXISTING -Lr STA. 19+75.00 TO STA. 20+25.00
VAR SLOPE
0.08 SEE X-SECTIONS
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
I
32'-10'
d'-11' 11' 11'
dog
GRADE
POINT
C1
2.75' 7.
? 0.02 F6fT 0.02 FG}T-,
3y7 2'/i
8 T.
3' 1
PAVEMENT
6'
DETAIL OF
8"x6" CONCRETE CURB
1000010019 .910010010 0 0 01001001001
PROPOSED CORED SLAB BRIDGE W USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.3
(STRUCTURE PAY REM) -I- STA. 14+96.81 TO STA. 15+84.19
TYPICAL SECTION NO.3 a'- STA. 16+14.81 TO STA. 16+97.19
'OVERLAY CORED SLAB BRIDGE AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
4- STA. 14+50.00 TO STA. 14±96.81 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
• OVERLAY REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB WITH ASPHALT PAVEMENT
BETWEEN 4- STA. 15+84.19 (END BRIDGE) AND STA. 16+14.81
(BEGIN BRIDGE)
46- STA.16+97.19 (END BRIDGE) TO STA.17+50.00
DETAIL SHOWING METHOD OF WEDGING
GUARDRAIL
CE
GUARDRAIL FA
SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS
FOR CURB AND GUTTER
OR FINISHED GRADE DETAILS
21
EMBANKMENT
v \
SEE FABRIC
OVERLAP DETAIL
1' CLEARANCE MIN
SHOULDER OR BERM
BREAK POINT
36" CLASS IV SELECT MATERIAL
0?
FILTER FABRIC
FOR ROCK PLATING
1' THICK RIPRAP
°A
A?
Z5011 os?op
ROCK PLATING DETAIL NO.1
USE ROCK PLATING DETAIL NO.1
AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:
m
m
0
a
Y
o
N
co
a.
-L- STA 12 + 00 TO -L- STA 14 + 96 (LT.)
-L- STA 13 + 50 TO -L- STA 14 + 96 (RT.)
-L- STA 16 + 97 TO -L- STA 19 + 60 (LT. & RT.)
EXTEND ROCK PLATING LIMITS TO 3:1 SLOPES.
FOR ROCK PLATING,
SEE ROCK PLATING SPECIAL PROVISION.
10' HEIGHT MAX
SLOPE STAKE POINT AND
CONSTRUCTION LIMIT
GROUND LINE -\
ROCK PLATING DETAIL(S) AND LOCATION(S) WERE PROVIDED THROUGH A SEALED DOCUMENT FROM
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT. THE DOCUMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ROADWAY DESIGN
UNIT ON JANUARY 22, 2008 AND SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, THEIN TUN ZAN, LICENSE #
30943.
TOP OF SLOPE
ROLL WIDTH
1V OVERLAP I w
MIN (TYP) i Z I i
I ? I
I °
LONGITLIDINALI
I DIRECTION I I
' TOE OF SLOPE
FABRIC OVERLAP DETAIL
(PLAN VIEW)
5' OVEItLAP
MIN "m
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES:
ROCK PLATING: 500 SO.YD.
P
V
N
COANURD NY. TICK
CHEM BY: CFP
M' - DISTANCE PROM EDGE OF LANE TO PACE Or aLMRDRAL
TOTAL OIAILDER WDM - DISTANCE MOM EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE TO SIOLLDRR BREAK POINT.
RARE LNDM • DISTANCE FROM UST SECTION OF PARALLEL GUARDRAIL TO END OF GUARDRAIL
W TOTAL WDTH OF RAM FROM RROINING OF TANK TO END OF GUARDRAIL
0 DATING IMPACT AT1lNLIATOR TYPE 330
Na NON-GATING IMPACT ATFE NIATOR TYPE 350
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GUARDRAIL SUMMARY

W

OCATIO LENGTH WAMANT POINT 'M
TOTAL PLATE LNODI w ANCHORS IMPACT

ATTINUATOR
040 RA N
SIRAIOIR
ADP
DOUBLE
APPROACH
TRAILING DW
FROM
E
O
L VIOLIL

WIDTH

APPROACH

TPALM

APPROACH

TRAILING

QM

477

ATa
IYPE SSO REMARKS
CLWW FACED be M .
.
. END AA SID DID RR0 RA 0 ND
4r 13+84.31 14+%.81 LT 1125 14+96.81 6.917 9.917 50 1 1
4r 12+59.31 14+%.81 RT 2375 14+96.81 JBIQ 6 VAR' 50 1 1 1
4,. 16+97.19 19+47.19 IT 250.0 16+97.14 6.917 9.917 50 1 1 1
-L- 16+97.19 18+09.69 ItT 1125 16+97.19 8 3,917 VAR.' 93.75 1.875 1 1

SUBTOTAL 712.5 4 4
LESS ANCHORS 275.0

TOTAL 437.5 DEDUCTIONS OF ANCHORS
SAY 437.5 4 GMU,T50 ® 50 200
4 TYPE B-77 0 18.75' - 75
ADDITIONAL POSTS - 5 EACH TOTAL • 275
' THE DISTANCE MOM EDGE OF TRAWL LANE TO SHOULDER MEAL POINT M VMRMAE !@ CNOS"ECIIONS.
LIST OF PIPES, END WALLS, ETC. (FOR PIPES 48" & UNDER)

P
L
- rg
8

STATION

B
Q ?

41

z?

p
F

SRO. on
OR
SM. r
FUNLEN
NOTED
0119M%4 1

j 2

<

ROAR,
D HOD
FANDAAD 940.03

9

i

H

9

9

p

!

A ARRRevuTHONI

41. CATCH MAN
N.O.I. NARROW DROP INLET
Da. DROP NET
0.01 ?0g1AAT?®pDIRpOP NET
G
DA
OLLI
u
d a LIAL R f .
.
INAIIDW Ma

Aff m
fY
1Y
AM
1Y
11'
/Y
CU. YDL
A .
1 G N i F

g LL ERKiION OOR

MJH. MANHOLE
TEAJ. TRAMC eEARRNG DEW INLET

7HICKPIM
OR mum R C

rM OF GRATE ?! < ` a yj dE S TIDE. TrMFC WRIMG NICTION TOE
`.y A C h is E F D d r d IS t7 d d d 4: IHLWHADIS

-L-12+32 RT 1 14
4r 14+70 LT 2 1 1 1
2 3 26
4-14+70 RT 31 1
1
1
1
3 01.11 11 2015' 1
4.17+30 LT 4 i 1 1
41 5 32
4.17+30 RT 5 1 1 1
5 12 2015'

] 4
TOTALS 71 11 24 4
r
r
4
4015

i
I _
-
I
-
--
F--
F- E
SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK
ICUAIC YARDSI
LOCATION NLTAIE UNDERCUT &W+% ROEIOW WARE
-L- STA. 12+00.00 TO 14+96.81 9 250 241
-L- STA. 15+84.19 TO 16+14.81 O 84 84
4r STA. 16+97.19 TO 20+25.00 23 126 203

PROJECT SUBTOTALS 32 560 526

UNCL STRUCT. EXCAV. IN UEU OF BORROW -136
EST. 5% TO REPLACE TOPSOIL ON BORROW PITS 20

GRAND TOTAL 32 412

SAY 40 420
Note: Approximate gaaMi11N1 only. UmJOEEIBNd &=valion, Borrow E armlion, Fine Grading,
C ring and Grubbing, and Removal OF EL611ing Pavement will be paid for at 1he lump
sum price for 'Grading.'
NOTE: Earthwork quantities are calculated the Radwey Design Unit
Theesee? earthwork?quentities a in paR on suDeurte?e
pro dtletl by the GaOLechnicel lneen r it
SUMMARY OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT
BREAK-UP / REMOVAL
ON SQUARE YARIM
LINE BEGIN SrATI N CID STATION LOCATION ASPHALT
RIMOVAL ASPHALT
E12Ax4HP
4- 14+50.00 15+14.74 EXISTING 131.4
-L- 15+88.43 16+1957 EXISTING 62.7
-L- 16+74.86 17+50.00 EXISTING 152.9

E TOTAL 347.0
SAY 350

Q
-L-
P1 Sto 11+6057
p = l1'15'48BfRT1
D = 5'25'00,0'
L - 3187r
T - A6057'
R - I.W77'
1 I /
-BL- 2
-L- POC STA.1+80.55,
25.96' RT. 1' Q
I I I/// 4 Q 1'ro11
//p Q Q l? l t;f
1
r -
I EP ?
I
C
IW WOODS .. '
?G
J?
s

190A9T itimema No, IHuT NO.
B-4082 4
IHr MEET N O.
10ADWAT DIIINN
ENa1RS HYMAIJUCI
E4096:R
PRELIMINARY
m ;?T to ""z4s PLANS
?-,-
} i
i }
}} }
I \?? Y
I
}
Y I
} } I
} I
1

-L- POC STA.22+12.71
26.71' RT.
m
a
a
N
m
m
N01
r1A0 ?
-r
P/ S/o 20•
o = 32'2
D-1001
L - 3205
T-A64S
R - 565.
L RA 19+76 TD ETA m+yy ETJ } EMTI
IEE 60,lt+i \? } \ OB IM PG 529
\ }}\
\ *} }\
1. I SPECIAL-LETEMU 'V' DITCH
VTN-V" „ BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
oEAU 360 _
PAVED SHOULDER
END BRIDGE ° 60p' SBG SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
-L- STA.16+9719 16tiD?s Er, FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
HIP IECM ITA,19+16 TO STA.20+26 k rt FOR STRUCTURE PLANS SEE SHEETS S-_ THRU S--

P?
P
e
BM'80 BM'81 -1 1
RR SPIKE IN A 15' PINE TREE
RR SPIKE IN A I8' PINE TREE
52R T OF BL STA.9+48 ELEV.29,86 6894' RT.OF BL STA 19+99 ELEV. 34.03
PIN.
STR
ATA
T
R
R
UC
E HYD
AULIC D
U

BRIDGE •280
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 1700 CFS
DESIGN FR
Y
E - 25 YRS
NC
EQU
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 305 FT
BASE DISCHARGE - 2272 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY - 100 YRS

BASE H w ELEVATION = 31B FT

100 OVER TOPPING DISCHARGE = 2300 CFS
OVE R TOPPING F REQ Y
UEN = 100+ Y RS
C
O VE R TOPPIN G E LEVA T ION = 3 1. 3 F T

90
:FF M

60

70

60

5
0

4
0

30

20

10

0

m
v

a
v

N
m
B

D
D/ 4. 4 4 4+ 4+ 44
n?

Ja
v3
nu
?a
J
10+00
11
+00
12+00
13
+00 14+00 15+00

RIGHT DITCH - - - - - - -

STRUCTURE HYDRAULIC DATA

BRIDGE •261
DESIG
R F
17
N DISCHA
GE =
00 C
S
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 305 FT
BASE DISCHARGE F
= 2272
C
S
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS
BASE Hv ELEVATION = 31B FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE F
- 2300
C
S
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY - 100+ YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 313 F T
STRUCTURE EXCAVAnoN
16+00 17+00 16+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
RD223187,1/5/2OOB.R:Roadway'XSCU(SC_Stm ry_y .)ds
PROJ. REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 8-4082 x-1A
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NOTE: EMBANKMENT COLUMN DOES NOT INCLUDES BACKFILL FOR UNDERCUT CROSS-SECTION SUMMARY
Station Uncl. Exc. Embt Approximate quantities only. Unclas sified Excavation, Borrow
Excavation, Fine Grading, Clearing a nd Grubbing, and Removal
L (cu. yd.) (cu. yd.) of Existing Pavement will be paid fo r at the lump sum
12+00.00 0 0 pricefor "Grading ".
12+25.23 0 2
12+50.00 1 5
12+61.20 1 4

13+06.10
3
19 -
13+18.71 0 7
13+50.00 1 21 - - - -
13+83.88 0 34
14+00.00 0 22 -- -- - - -- - --- ---
14+50.00 0 57
14+82.87 2 22 - -
14+96.81 1 7 -- -

Station Uncl. Exc. Embt

L (cu. yd.) (cu. yd.)
155+64.19 0 0 ----
1+00.00 0 54 --- - -- - - ---- -
16+14.81 0 13

Station Uncl. Exc. Embt

L (cu. yd.) (cu. yd.)
16+97.19 0 0
17+10.72 2 10
17+50.00 3 35
18+00.00 1 47
18+10.72 0 9 _
18+50.00 0 25
18+85.72 1 13 -
19+00.00 0 4
19+31.20 1 8

19+50.00
1
6 _
_ 19+75.00 4 10
20+00.00 7 10
20+25.00 3 4

8/23/99
rdy_x pI-new.dgn
¦
i
pl_new.dgn
xpl_new.dgn
-FEB-2008 14:34
? oe?1?R??? ??\64082_rdy_xpl_naw.dgn
05-FEB
--2008 14:34
RSE d
SUSF?I?AMS SSE08 2_rdy_xpl_n aw.dgn
8/23/99

Y
f
* ,

, t

4
;:
:
I ,_ °:

,.
'

•,
-

;

•

I

.I
:'
i :;
..

-
I
' ' I' i I „ , i'

- i
;I
'+_
T.. ?. ,
t•-
.
I 't
r
i
}
:III

'
,
f
t- Y
i

r

-

?
•I
'
I'
1
19 ? . 1 11: . 4

l

I I ;

+ +

+ f 4 X44 1 1 4 ,

+

+
llz;p

{
t

.

_

F

!

!

I Y} _
+
+

. . . ,.
---

=

--

::

1 : ,
,.
,. „ .
I ; `

_. `
,I
f
{
:,
-
,
{ ,.
+
+
+
+

,

..
., :
::
i .+
'
. •. ? . :
f , . ... .... -. I ., :. ..
. . .. . ',.I ... .:i 1 ,+ Vii, 1 .-

.
•

i 11 f
- -.

l ... .. ..

}. { _
I-

.
I _ _ _

- f ! 1
+ +
?
}
-.- .. ..
11 +
,.
+.

.. .. ... .. .. .
. .
.._. .. .
. .
.
...

.. .
.
J-

---

. ...
:
,?
I. ,.

... - ....

_ .... ..

.. I

•

.. 4

:. .. 4

_
+ . _

t

_
+
?
-.a i
v _ _
:t
_
1 . ?- .. to "' ` ., `` ; i =! '} sa _
???
}
+
f!;
Q N

+_. :- ::

..
-.
- Q

.
-
+

_
-

_
-
-

- -

-

-
.

-
•
0
.. -

_ _ J

.

..

.

.

.
i.. . .:

.. _ , I

... . .
,

L

::.

_. .

-

_

-

-

-

_

-

-
• - O. , . . . _ - __ _ __ __ ._. _ -- _ - __ __ - _ __ ...
:.' ;
i -^ -
?-

_

,r

_:._

_
:. ..
•

-
- - -
._
: . _ _
-.
_
.

.,
: _r - ... -
i
+ - ° I
+ - I .t 1.
I 1
+ + 1
+ _ _f +- _
'
-
- _
? . 'F
, I I I V.
-
..
-

. ?
?
I
l I.
?
?
I
i
. . I
:
? I
. .
,
, __ / :
. 1.
- ? I I I
? I . ? ; :
} I _. - -
I :•_ i,
+ +

..
..
..
..
.-_.
:. :
h . 11
:. . +
:
: +
.i: + +

+

+

:I

+.
7 1
t,
„ ± .
:. .,

. + + +
:.
4
:
.
.. .. .. :.

:
t i . .!.
. I : • . ,
..
_ } +

'

,

..

:.

_ _

.
.

. r .
-
. .

,-.
I

: -

..
I

..

:
I

.
!

.:
I
: I

-
1
I

-

f
_.

-

-

-

_
__-_

I a ...:

' .:

I , .

.
I. I_,

.. .. ._

.. ..

, '.

.,.

.

.

I
+

I
T

I
Tr

,

1
:.
}
: . .

+ :'. . :.
. . .

,
,. ..:
:,
:. ... ..
'
.','

I
: :
`

..

}

. I

i

.

.{

1

.

;
- + + + -- + - + + -rj { i j:
+ -

I
:.
::
+
+
:„

F

. ,

'

. t_

. .

, .

.

.
;

:'

:.

•
. I

+

?

,

, 1,

+

i
.

.

.

, ... `.
I

I

I
- '

. , .

. . .
,

I
:
_
+
? }
_
'
fia

-

'' - -_ I
• , I' - 4 ..
: II I I 4 1 4 I ' ' J
'
r 4 1 I ,,

}
iT .. .
1'
?
- '
__ - _ ? 11 „
_` I

d
,
I
I .
.
.
: :

''

I;

I
-

}
Q
. ? I _

:.
: I..
,_. .
.
: ::

": .

. , .
,

, .,,
-

:

a

,

}

I
_
._
-.-
,,-
.._
_ ,
-;_::
-
,

{ „
I

+.

.:

.
I I

`

. I l

X

-
-
a
I
I
4
I
:
I ?
i _ _-

- } , . + ?

.M.

.l,

___ +

. ++

F

+
_ -
114:34
tE b4 082_rdy_ xpl_new.dgn
sss
FES-2009 14:34
-o0?wRgg , ?,c?b X082-rdy-:pl-new.d9n
dy_xpl_-..dgn
Sit 1843 (LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD)
I11211)GE NO. 280 OVER DAN'S CREEK AND
BRIDGE, NO. 281 OVER MILL CREEK
COLUMBUS COUNTY
FFMERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1843(1)
S'I'A'TE PROJECT NO. 8.2430801
W.B.S. NO. 33443.1.1
T.I.P. NO. B-4082
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
AND NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
? ? r51 os ?-
Dat Gregory J. T e, Ph.D.
Environment Management Director
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
J GS
-7-7, P'/e
Pate John F. Sullivan, 111, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
SR 1843 (LIVINGSTON CHAPEL. ROAD)
BRIDGE NO. 280 OVER DAN'S CREEK AND
BRIDGE NO. 281 OVER MILL CREEK
COLUMBUS COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1843(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2430801
W.B.S. NO. 33443. 1.1
T.I.P. NO. B-4082
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NOVEMBER 2005
Document Prepared by:
Qk4, Inc.
7520 East Independence Blvd.
Suite 120
Charlotte, NC 28227
Ric rd L. Modlin, PE
Regional Manager
1 f f fif Is,, "r
•••••??N CARO '•,,.
=???FESS/p .
SEAL
14937
Q.;
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Theresa Ellerby, Project Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1 r
lkb
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
BRIDGE NO. 280 OVER DAN'S CREEK AND BRIDGE NO. 281 OVER MILL CREEK
ON SR 1843 (LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD)
COLUMBUS COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1843(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2430801
W.B.S. NO. 33443.1.1
T.I.P. NO. B-4082
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
In order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may utilize the project area as
spawning or nursery habitat, bottom-disturbing activities in the waters of Dan's Creek
and Mill Creek shall be restricted to the period between October 1 and March 1 of any
year unless prior approval is granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
following consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
November 2005
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
COLUMBUS COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 280 OVER DAN'S CREEK AND
BRIDGE NO. 281 OVER MILL CREEK
ON SR 1843 (LIVINGSTON CHAPEL ROAD)
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1843(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2430801
W.B.S. NO. 33443.1.1
TIP NO. B-4082
INTRODUCTION: The replacements of Bridge No. 280 over Dan's Creek and Bridge No. 281
over Mill Creek located on SR 1843 (Livingston Chapel Road) are included in the 2004-2010
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as B-4082 and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BRZ-1843 [ 1 ]). The
location of the proposed project is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are
anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 280 had a
sufficiency rating of 27.9 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. Bridge No. 281 had a
sufficiency rating of 19.9. The bridges are considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The replacement of these inadequate structures will result in safer
and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge Nos. 280 and 281 are located in a rural area of eastern Columbus County
approximately 24 miles east of the town of Whiteville and 2 miles south of US 74. Refer to
Figures 2 and 2A for photos of the existing project area.
Bridge No. 280 was constructed in 1950. Bridge No. 280 is a 4-span bridge consisting of a
reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete end
bents and interior bents with concrete caps on timber piles. The total length of Bridge No.
280 is 73'- 0". It has a clear roadway width of 24'- 0" that includes two travel lanes over
the bridge. The existing structure has a crown-to-bed height of 11'- 0"and the normal
depth of flow is 6'- 0". The bridge has a single vehicle (SV) weight limit of 15 tons and a
truck-tractor semitrailer (TTST) posted weight limit of 22 tons.
Bridge No. 281 was constructed in 1950. Bridge No. 281 is a 3-span bridge consisting of a
reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete end
bents and interior bents with concrete caps on timber piles. The total length of Bridge No.
281 is 55'- 0". It has a clear roadway width of 24'- 0" that includes two travel lanes over
the bridge.
The existing structure has a crown-to-bed height of 10'- 0"and the normal depth of flow is
2'- 0". The bridge has a single vehicle (SV) weight limit of 16 tons and a truck-tractor
semitrailer (TTST) posted weight limit of 23 tons. The existing bridges are located on a
horizontal tangent that extends approximately 400 feet north and 160 feet south from the
southern end of Bridge No. 280. The south approach to the bridges has a 1,175-foot radius
curve deflecting to the east. The north approach has a 600-foot radius curve deflecting to
the west. The lengths of these curves are approximately 500 and 460 feet, respectively.
Existing roadway grades are approximately 0.5%. The existing bridges are on a normal
crown cross slope.
SR 1843 (Livingston Chapel Road) is classified as a rural local facility in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. The estimated 2005 average daily traffic (ADT) volume
for SR 1843 is approximately 895 vehicles per day (vpd). Traffic is expected to increase to
1,525 vpd by the design year 2030. The volumes include 2 percent dual trucks and 1
percent TTST's. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridges is 55 miles-per-hour
(mph).
SR 1843 (Livingston Chapel Road) measures approximately 18 feet in width, with 4-foot
unpaved shoulders on each side of the .roadway. The vertical grade is slight, with
horizontal curves on both approaches. The existing right-of-way is approximately 60 feet
in width. Overhead powerlines, underground telephone cables and underground fiber optic
cables are located approximately 25 feet from the roadway on the east side of SR 1843.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Land use immediately adjacent to the two bridges consists of rural residential and
agriculture, with much of the surrounding area used for timber logging. The bridges are
separated by a private driveway, Dan's Creek Trail, which provides access to a single-
family residence located approximately 1,000 feet west of the bridges. The bridges are
approximately 30 feet apart from each other.
There was 1 accident reported in the vicinity of the bridges during the period of August 1,
2000 to January 31, 2005.
Three (3) school buses cross Bridge Nos. 280 and 281 for a total of 8 bus trips per day.
This section of SR 1843 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the
Transportation Improvement Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
There is no indication that an unusual amount of bicyclists use this roadway.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with six-foot
shoulders. The proposed structure(s) will provide a 30-foot travel way, consisting of two
12-foot travel lanes with 3-foot shoulders (see Figure 3). The design speed is 60 mph.
The length and opening size of the proposed structures may increase or decrease as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis
to be performed during the final design phase of the bridge.
B. Build Alternatives
Three (3) Build Alternatives studied for replacing the bridges are described as follows:
Alternative A - Replace In-Place with Single Structure Using Offsite Detour
Alternative A consists of replacing the two bridges with a single, new structure (see Figure
4). Based upon a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the proposed replacement structure will
be approximately 200 feet long. The length of the approach roadway will extend
approximately 100 feet to the north of the replacement structure and approximately 100
feet to the south of the new structure. During construction, traffic will be maintained by an
offsite detour along SR 1836 and SR 1838 that is approximately 4.5 miles in length. The
driveway entrance would be relocated approximately 150 feet south of its present location
and would require a culvert for it's crossing of Dan's Creek.
Alternative A was not selected as the preferred alternative because it has greater wetland
impacts, stream impacts and costs associated with replacing the existing structures and
relocating the existing driveway.
Alternative B - New Alignment To The East
Alternative B consists of replacing the two bridges with a single structure on a new
alignment approximately 35 feet east of the existing bridges (see Figure 5). Based on a
preliminary hydraulics analysis, the proposed structure will be approximately 180 feet long.
The length of the approach roadway will extend approximately 1,000 feet from the north
end of the replacement structure and approximately 900 feet from the south end. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway. In order to maintain
access to the driveway located between the existing bridges, one of the bridges will remain
open after construction.
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred alternative because it has greater wetland
impacts and costs more than either Alternative A or Alternative C.
Alternative C (Preferred) - Replace In-Place With Two Structures Using Offsite
Detour
Alternative C consists of replacing the two bridges with two new structures (see Figure 6).
The length of the approach roadway will extend approximately 400 feet to the north of the
replacement structures and approximately 350 feet to the south of the replacement
structures. During construction, traffic will be maintained by an offsite detour along SR
1836 and SR 1838 that is approximately 4.5 miles in length.
The driveway entrance will remain at its existing location, between the two bridges.
The driveway grade will be raised to the maximum extent possible to minimize sight
distance concerns. The distance between the two bridges will remain at approximately 30
feet and the driveway will include a continuous approach slab.
The slab will encompass the driveway apron, shop-curved guardrail with anchor units,
driveway embankment and bridge offsets. In addition, a six-foot shoulder on the left side
of the two bridges (total width 33') is recommended to improve the sight distance for
vehicles exiting the driveway.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridges because of
their poor condition. This is not desirable because of the traffic service provided by SR
1843. Investigation of the existing structures by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit
indicates that rehabilitation of the existing bridges is not feasible because of their age and
deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative C consists of replacing the existing bridges at their existing locations with two
new bridges while maintaining the existing driveway between them. During construction,
traffic will be maintained by an offsite temporary detour along SR 1836 and SR 1838.
Alternative C was selected as the "Preferred Alternative" because it has less wetland
impacts than Alternative A and lower estimated costs than Alternative A or B.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current dollars, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Estimated Costs
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 45,710 $ 19,710 $ 45,710
Structure (proposed) 502,350 461,550 373,070
Detour Structure and Approaches - - -
Roadway Approaches 172,860 825,040 198,530
Driveway Relocation 80,120 - -
User Costs (offsite detour) 158,280 - 158,280
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 114,000 371,400 89,400
Engineering and Contingencies 150,000 300,000 116,000
ROW/Cont. Easements/Utilities 82,220 72,300 62,900
TOTAL $ 1,305,540 $ 2,050,000 $1,043,890
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2006-2012 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program is $1,700,000, including $100,000 spent in prior years, $100,000 for
right-of-way acquisition and $1,500,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an
assessment of existing vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands and water
quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a
preliminary determination of permit needs. This section provides a description of the
various natural resources within the study area and the anticipated impacts of the proposed
project.
A. Methodology
Published information and resources were reviewed prior to conducting a field
investigation. Sources include, but are not limited to, the following:
• United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map ([USGS], 1986)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service Draft National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map
for Freeman, N.C. ([USFWS], 1989)
• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area
• Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey of Columbus County, ([USDA],
1990)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Quality Basin-Wide Assessment ([DWQ], Assessment 1999)
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species for Columbus County (USFWS, 2003)
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World Wide
Web by the NCDENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the project study area was obtained from the
USFWS list (USFWS, Columbus County 2003) of protected and candidate species (last
updated 5 February 2003), posted on the World Wide Web by the Ecological Services
branch of the USFWS office in North Carolina. Information concerning species under state
protection was obtained from the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats (NHP,
2004). NHP files were reviewed on 29 June 2001 and updated 3 June 2005 for locations of
significant natural areas and documented sightings of species on state or federal lists.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route on 14 July 2001.
Biologists conducted an additional field survey on 7 January 2004 for an expanded project
study area that includes the three alternatives. Water resources were identified and their
physical characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this study, a brief habitat
assessment was performed within the project study area including Dan's Creek and Mill
Creek.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats and burrows). Terrestrial community
classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where appropriate and plant
taxonomy follows Radford, Ahles and Bell. (1968). Vertebrate taxonomy follows Rohde,
Arndt, Lindquist and Parnell (1994), Conant, Roger and Collins (1998), the American
Ornithologist's Union (2001), Thorpe and Covich (1991), and Webster, Parnell and Biggs
(1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial photography of the project
study area. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified using the three-parameter approach
(hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and hydrology) outlined in U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual ([DOA], 1987). Wetlands were classified based
on Cowardin, Carter, Goblet and Laroe (1979).
The study limits used to evaluate the existing natural resources were approximately 3,000
feet in length and 250 feet in width, which equates to an area of approximately 17.2 acres.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area lies in the eastern portion of North Carolina within the Coastal Plain
physiographic province. Elevation above mean sea level in the project study area is
approximately 30 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929). The project vicinity is
rural in nature with flat topography and wide bottomland hardwood swamps adjacent to
streams. Almost all of the area surrounding the bridges is wooded swampland used for
timber logging.
There are two hydric soil mapping units (Muckalee sandy loam and Grifton fine sandy
loam), two non-hydric soil mapping units that may contain inclusions (Nahunta very fine
sandy loam and Goldsboro fine sandy loam) and one non-hydric soil mapping unit (Norfolk
loamy fine sand) mapped within the project study area (USDA, Hydric Soils 2004).
• Goldsboro fine sandy loam (GoA) occupies a small portion of the project study area
north of the Mill Creek swamp. This moderately well drained soil is on smooth
uplands. The seasonal high water table is 2 to 3 feet below the surface. Goldsboro may
contain inclusions of hydric soils such as Rains and Coxville in depressions.
• Grifton fine sandy loam (Gt) is mapped in the northern end of the project study area
within the pine woodland. This poorly drained soil is in broad interstream areas, on
fringes of floodplains, and in shallow depressions around the head of drainageways.
The seasonal high water table is 0.5 tol.5 feet below the surface during winter and
spring. Grifton is listed as a hydric soil and is limited in its use by wetness and
flooding.
• Muckalee sandy loam, frequently flooded (Mk) is mapped along most of the Dan's
Creek floodplain within the project study area. This poorly drained soil occurs on
floodplains of shallow meandering streams. Slopes are less than 2 percent.

The seasonal high water table is at 0.5 to 1.5 feet in winter and early spring. Muckalee
is listed as a hydric soil and is limited in its use by wetness and flooding.
• Nahunta very fine sandy loam (Na) is mapped north of the Mill Creek swamp within
the project area. This somewhat poorly drained soil is on broad, smooth flats and in
slight depressions on uplands. The seasonal high water table is 1.0 to 2.5 feet in winter
and spring. Included with Nahunta map units are small hydric areas of Grantham,
Rains, and Bethera soils. Uses for Nahunta soils can be limited by wetness.
• Norfolk loamy fine sand (Noll) occupies the areas of the project study area that are
mapped as agriculture land. This well drained soil is on convex ridges and smooth side
slopes on uplands. The seasonal high water table is 4 to 6 feet below the surface from
winter to early spring.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average height, in
feet, that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of
years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stands.
The soils in the project study area have the following site indices:
• The Muckalee soils have a site index of 90 for sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), 90
for loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), 90 for slash pine (Pinus elliottii), 90 for water oak
(Quercus nigra), 85 for green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and 100 for eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides).
• The Grifton soils have a site index of 89 for loblolly pine.
• The Nahunta soils have a site index of 87 for loblolly pine, 90 for sweetgum, and 100
for tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
• The Goldsboro soils have a site index of 90 for loblolly pine, 77 for longleaf pine
(Pinus plaustris), and 90 for sweetgum.
• The Norfolk soils have a site index of 84 for loblolly pine and 68 for longleaf pine.
C. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources potentially impacted by the
proposed project. Water resources assessments include the physical characteristics
potentially impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey), best usage
classifications, and water quality aspects of the water resources.
1. Waters Impacted
The project is located within sub-basin 030617 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ,
Assessment 2004; DWQ, BIMS 2005) and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit 03030005
(USGS, Hydrologic 1974). Dan's Creek originates from a canal approximately 2 miles
west of the project study area. The canal from which Dan's Creek originates also flows
west into Lake Waccamaw and the Lumber River basin. Dan's Creek is channelized along
most of its length within the project study area. Mill Creek originates 2.7 miles northwest
of the project study area.
In the project study area, Mill Creek is inundated with no defined bank and little noticeable
channel development. Immediately downstream of Bridge No. 280, Mill Creek empties
into Dan's Creek. The stream then continues in a southeasterly direction. The streams
flow slowly or are stagnant in the project study area.
From the project study area, Dan's Creek meanders in an easterly direction about 0.75
miles to its confluence with Livingston Creek. Livingston Creek enters the Cape Fear
River near Riegelwood, 7.5 miles northeast of the project study area. The drainage area at
the two bridge crossings is approximately 494 acres (0.77 square mile).
Dan's Creek is approximately 25 feet wide with a substrate that consists of sand and silt.
The water was an opaque brownish-green on the day of the site visit and approximately 2
feet deep. Dan's Creek has a well-defined channel with its banks approximately 2 to 3 feet
high. Conversely, Mill Creek is a very unstable system that appears to have been affected
by beaver activity. This system has no defined stream channel and is currently impounded.
The substrate appears to have a high percentage of silt and mud. This area is now a swamp
forest vegetated with aquatic species such as lizard tail (Saururus cernuus) and sensitive
fern (Onoclea sensibilis) where it appears the channel may have been.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ as part of an
effort to maintain, protect and enhance water quality within the state. Best Usage
Classifications (BUC) and Stream Index Numbers (SIN) follow Classifications and Water
Quality Standards published for each river basin (DEM, Cape Fear 1993), as updated
through January 2004. Dan's Creek (SIN 18-64-7) has been assigned a BUC of C Sw from
its source to Livingston Creek. Mill Creek (18-64-7-2) has been assigned a BUC of C Sw
from its source to Dan's Creek (DEM, Cape Fear 1993; DWQ, BIMS 2005).
Class C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life
(including propagation and survival), and wildlife. Secondary recreation is any activity
involving human body contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis (DEM,
Standards 1996). The Sw designation refers to the swampy low flow, low oxygen nature of
the stream. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities (DEM, Standards
1996).
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area
(DWQ, BIMS 2005). Neither Dan's Creek nor Mill Creek within the project study area
have been listed as impaired waters according to the 303(d) list (DWQ, List 2005).
The project study area watershed is cleared for both agriculture and forestry purposes.
Residential uses are low-density single-family homes. Potential threats to stream quality in
this area are forestry operations that would result in increased soil erosion, and runoff from
agricultural and residential areas.
Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the DWQ. The program has
established monitoring stations for sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which
are known to have varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality
can be derived from the number of taxa present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa.
Streams can then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent.
There are no monitoring stations on Dan's Creek or Mill Creek. The nearest sampling
station is located about 4 miles downstream of the project study area on Livingston Creek
at US 74. It was classified as Fair in 1993 and Good-Fair in 1998 (DWQ, Assessment
2004).
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater point source discharges
include municipal (city or county) Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP), industrial
WWTP, small domestic wastewater treatment plants serving schools, commercial offices,
residential subdivisions, and individual homes (DWQ, Permits 2005). Stormwater point
source discharges include stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater
discharges associated with certain industrial activities. Point source discharges must apply
for and obtain an NPDES permit to discharge. Point source discharges in North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program administered by the DWQ. There are no permits issued to discharge within the
project study area as of May 2005 (DWQ, Permits 2005).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary
impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic
community. In general, replacing an existing structure in the same location with an off-site
detour is the preferred approach to minimize environmental impacts. Bridge replacement
on a new alignment results in more severe impacts, and physical impacts are incurred at the
point of bridge replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts will be made to
ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, during
the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented. The
superstructures for both Bridge No. 280 and 281 consist of a reinforced concrete deck on I-
beams. Their substructure consists of reinforced concrete end bents and interior bents, with
concrete caps on timber piles. Bridge No. 280 has 4 spans and totals 73 feet in length.
Bridge No. 281 has 3 spans and totals 55 feet in length.
There is the potential for the concrete deck and parts of the interior and end bents for both
bridges to be dropped into waters of the United States during demolition and removal. The
maximum resulting temporary fill associated with the removal of Bridge No. 280 is
approximately 30.7 cubic yards. The maximum resulting temporary fill associated with the
removal of Bridge No. 281 is approximately 40.3 cubic yards.
The segments of Dan's Creek and Mill Creek within the project study area are Class C Sw
waters. Due to the size of Dan's Creek and Mill Creek, and their distance from the Cape
Fear River, these creeks are unlikely to serve as habitat for the shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum).
The streambed in the project study area is sand, silt, and organic matter. Therefore,
conditions in the stream raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is recommended.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. These classifications follow the NHP classification system (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990) where possible and the descriptions written to reflect local variations
within the project study area. Six terrestrial plant communities were identified within the
project study area: mixed hardwood forest, pine woodland, swamp forest, agricultural land,
successional (clear-cut) land and maintained/disturbed areas (see Figure 7).
Mixed Hardwood Forest - This community is characterized by the dominance of
hardwoods in the canopy and is found on uplands. This community is located east of SR
1843 and south of Dan's Creek within the project study area. Typical overstory vegetation
consists of southern red oak (Quercus falcata), willow oak (Quercus phellos), red maple
(Ater rubrum), sweetgum and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
10
A few pines (Pinus spp.) may be scattered throughout this community type. Understory
vegetation generally consists of sapling-sized overstory species as well as flowering
dogwood (Cornus Florida) with an herbaceous layer consisting of Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Pine Woodland - The pine woodland community type is characterized by a predominance
(greater than 80 percent cover) of pines in the canopy. Within the project study area pine
woodland occupies the northwestern tip and the upland area north and adjacent the Mill
Creek wetland. The canopy is dominated by loblolly pine. Vegetative composition varies
depending upon hydrologic regimes. The wetter areas consist of a developing hardwood
sub-canopy that includes laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and water oak, with shrubs
consisting of horsesugar (Symplocos tinctoria), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) and sweet
gallberry (Ilex coriacea). The herbaceous layer in these wet areas is sparse consisting of
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and peatmoss (Sphagnum sp.). The dryer areas consist
of a developing sub-canopy that includes water oak, sweetgum and southern red oak with
shrubs that include wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and red bay (Persea palustris). The
herbaceous layer is sparse with coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens) and Japanese
honeysuckle.
Swamp Forest - This community occurs along the banks and on the floodplain of Dan's
Creek and Mill Creek throughout the project study area. The canopy consists of green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple, and water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica). Vines and herbaceous species present include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier, royal fern (Osmunda regalis) and cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea). This community represents a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
(Blackwater subtype) as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Agricultural Land - Agricultural land within the project study area is used for row crops
and pasture lands. Corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) are the dominant row
crops within the project study area. Cattle are the predominant livestock species within the
project study area.
Successional (Clear-Cut) Land - This community type is different from various other
forest communities by dominance of vegetation within the herbaceous or shrubby strata
rather than dominance of vegetation in the tree strata. Vegetation within the regenerating
areas consists of remnants of previous forest cover with varying amounts of early
successional species. The northeast portion of swamp forest was clear-cut about three
years ago and is now a natural regenerating community. Vegetation occurring within this
wetland area includes shrub and tree species such as buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), sweetgum, bald cypress, black willow (Salix nigra) and loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda). Vines and herbaceous species present include greenbrier, trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), Bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus) and palmetto (Sabal minor). Additional upland
clear-cut areas occur north of, and are contiguous with, the clear-cut swamp forest.
Regenerated vegetation within this area includes shrub and tree species to include loblolly
pine, sweetgum, red maple and American holly (Ilex opaca), with an herbaceous layer of
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
Maintained/Disturbed Areas - The maintained/disturbed areas include roadsides,
driveways, maintained residential yards and other areas where human related activities
dominate. Also within the general category of maintained/disturbed areas are areas
characterized as maintained roadside and maintained powerline right-of-way.
• Maintained Residential - The residential areas that are routinely maintained have an
herbaceous species composition including fescue (Festuca obtusa), clover (Trifolium
sp.), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and indian strawberry (Duschesnea
indica).
Maintained Roadside - This community covers the areas along the road shoulders and
fill banks within the project study area and is mowed on a regular basis. The average
width is 15 feet. The roadway is built on fill that drops steeply down from 3 to 6 feet to
the adjacent communities. Species occurring in this area include vetch (Vicia sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle and dayflower (Commelina communis).
Maintained Powerline Right-of-Way - This community extends along the east side of
SR 1843 through the project study area and is mowed or otherwise maintained on a
semi-regular basis. The right-of-way width is approximately 25 feet. The central
portion of the powerline right-of-way within the Dan's Creek and Mill Creek floodplain
is jurisdictional wetlands, while the extreme north and south ends in the project study
area are uplands. Shrub and small trees present include privet (Ligustrum sinense),
elderberry, sweetgum, red maple and bald cypress. Vine species present include
greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox, Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy and trumpet creeper.
2. Wildlife
Wood thrush (Hylocichala mustelina), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), Acadian flycatcher (Eripidonax virescens) and
red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) are likely to occur within the Mixed
Hardwood Forest community. Other inhabitants may include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina carolina), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) and Carolina wren are likely to be observed in the Pine
Woodland community. Other inhabitants may include brown creeper (Certhia familiaris),
white breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), bobcat (Fells rufus), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), ground skink (Scincella
lateralis) and northern black racer (Coluber constrictor).
Bird species observed in the Swamp Forest community include barred owl (Strix varia)
and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Bird species expected to occupy the Swamp
Forest include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria
citrea), Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis
swainsonii) and white-eyed vireo. Herpetofauna that may be encountered here include
eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus), redbelly water snake
12

(Nerodia erythrogaster erythrogaster) snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), yellowbelly
slider (Trachemys scripta scripta), Florida cooter (Pseudemys floridana floridana) and
southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus). Mammal species such as
Virginia opossum, raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat, southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
carolinensis) and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) may be found in the swamp forest.
The animal species present in the Agricultural Land community are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources ranging from vegetation to both living and
dead faunal components. American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mocking bird
(Mimus polyglottus), northern cardinal, common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris) and eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) are expected to occur within this
community. Other inhabitants may include southern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Successional (clear-cut) areas have limited cover and protection for many faunal species,
but have increased habitat for others able to utilize these anthropogenic habitats. Common
bird species expected to occur within this community include Carolina wren, northern
cardinal and the American crow. Other inhabitants tolerant of disturbance likely to occur
within this community include the black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta), gray squirrel
and eastem cottontail.
The animal species present in the Maintained Roadside community are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources ranging from vegetation to both living and
dead faunal components. American crow, European starling and American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are common birds that use these habitats. The area may also be used by the
Virginia opossum, various species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis) and southern toad (Bufo terrestris).
The animals that utilize the Maintained Powerline Right-of-Way community are similar
to those found in the maintained roadside community. Other species may include common
yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Carolina wren, eastern cottontail and black rat snake.
3. Aquatic Communities
Within the project study area, Dan's Creek and Mill Creek are low-gradient, third-order
streams. The bed material consists of mostly sand, silt and organic matter. On the day of
the site visit, the water was opaque. Aquatic vegetation within Mill Creek included coontail
(Ceratophyllum demersum) and spatterdock (Nuphar luteum).
Dan's Creek and Mill Creek are likely to support populations of largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritis), spotted sucker (Minytrema
melanops), chain pickerel (Esox niger), American eel (Anguilla rostrata) and various other
sunfish, suckers, minnows and catfish.
13
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Terrestrial Communities - Potential impacts to plant communities are based on the
approximate area of each plant community within the proposed right of way and temporary
construction limits. Terrestrial communities in the project study area will be impacted
permanently by project construction from clearing and paving. Table 2 describes the
potential impacts to terrestrial communities by habitat type. Plant community mapping has
been provided on an aerial photograph (Figure 7).
Table 2
Potential Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Potential Area of Impact Acres (Hectares)
Community Type
Alternative A
Alternative B Alternative C
pre erred)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.04 (0.02) 0.33 (0.14 0.04 (0.02)
Pine Woodland 0.00 0.00 0.49 (0.20 0.00 0.00
Swam Forest 0.24 (0.98 0.80 (0.33 0.24 (0.98
A 'cultuml/Pasture Land 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.45 0.00 0.00
Successional Land 0.00 (0.00 0.00 0.00) 0.00 (0.00
Maintained/Disturbed Areas
• Residential 0.02 (0.01 0.11 (0.05 0.02 (0.01
• Roadside 0.06 (0.03 0.28 (0.11 0.06 (0.03
Powerline 0.06 (0.03 0.65 0.26 0.06 (0.03
Total Impact 0.42 (0.17) 3.74(1.52) 0.42 (0.17)
Note: Due to changes in the design for Alternatives A and Band the addition of Alternative C since the publication of the
Natural Resources Technical Report in January 2004, the area totals above have been updated to reflect the impacts of the
current alternatives.
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the loss of
foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal
species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some
reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and less
mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction. The
plants and animals that are found in the upland communities are generally common
throughout central North Carolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to moderate
slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a
consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in
which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities.
Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
Aquatic Communities - Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water
temperatures as a result of the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both
in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by
losses in the terrestrial communities. , The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect
terrestrial fauna, which rely on them as a food source.
14

Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream after construction and
recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized.
Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including
the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by
scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry and smothering different
life stages. Increased sedimentation may also cause decreased light penetration through an
increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction.
Potential adverse effects can be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Dan's Creek and Mill Creek are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the
United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The surface waters within Dan's Creek and Mill Creek are
classified as lower perennial riverine systems (R2). R2 systems have no tidal influence
with a low gradient and a well-developed floodplain (Cowardin et al., 1979).
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 of the soil surface for a portion (12.5) percent of
the growing season (DOA 1987).
Wetland Descriptions - Jurisdictional wetlands within the project study area are primarily
palustrine in nature, as defined in Cowardin et al. (1979), and as identified on NWI
mapping (USFWS, Freeman 1989). Palustrine systems include all nontidal wetlands
dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses and all such wetlands
that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5% (Cowardin
et al., 1979). Some wetland systems are defined as palustrine but are hydrologically
influenced by adjacent streams through periodic overbank flooding and are considered
riparian wetlands.
The riparian wetlands are commonly referred to as riverine wetlands, not to be confused
with the Riverine system of Cowardin et al. (1979). Non-riparian wetlands are not
typically influenced by overbank flooding and are commonly referred to as non-riverine
wetlands. The wetlands within the project study area cover a large area and function as
riparian wetlands. These jurisdictional areas are associated with Dan's Creek and Mill
Creek and contain evidence of beaver activity.
Wetland Classifications - Wetland systems vary in vegetative composition, depending in
part on hydrological regime and site-specific disturbances.
15
Three wetland types were identified (palustrine forested, palustrine scrub-shrub, and
palustrine emergent) and are discussed as follows:
Palustrine forested (PFO) - These areas are identified as forested jurisdictional wetlands,
which are palustrine in nature. The PFO community within the project study area is
located within the swamp forest community type. Forested broad-leaved deciduous forests
located within the project study area are defined as palustrine by Cowardin et al. (1979).
These wetlands can potentially act as major receptors of upland runoff and are expected to
have high value for sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant retention, and nutrient
removal/transformation purposes. These systems also act as buffers during times of
flooding by reducing runoff rates, thereby increasing absorption and infiltration (high value
for flood flow alteration). Wildlife habitat value in these deciduous systems is also
expected to be high. Vegetation diversity and aquatic affiliation offer vital components
(food, water, and cover) for high wildlife value.
Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) - These areas are identified as jurisdictional wetlands that
are palustrine in nature and dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height.
PSS areas occupy sections of the successional/clear-cut land within the project study area.
In the project study area, these wetlands were dominated by loblolly pine, elderberry,
American holly, sweetgum, and red maple. These areas receive and process upland runoff
and stream floodwaters, which relates to high values for sediment stabilization,
sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal/transformation, and flood flow alteration.
However, wildlife values are generally considered low because of the density of the shrub
vegetation and the lack of canopy and understory structure.
Palustrine emergent (PEM) - These areas are identified as palustrine emergent wetland
systems. Within the project study area, these systems typically have persistent vegetation
and are found in low landscape depressions or partially excavated areas where woody
shrubs and trees cannot establish or are kept from establishing by routine maintenance or
disturbance. Within the project study area, these emergent communities are limited to the
maintained power line right-of-way. Wetland values such as sediment stabilization,
sediment/toxicant retention, nutrient removal/transformation, and flood flow alteration
have largely been negated by the nature of the community (i.e., disturbed and small size).
Although this wetland type may provide occasional habitat for passerine birds and breeding
habitat for some amphibians, wildlife habitat value is considered minimal.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters - Jurisdictional wetlands occur within
the project study area and will be impacted by project construction. Wetlands are present
on both sides of Dan's Creek and Mill Creek within the project study area (Figure 8).
Dan's Creek and Mill Creek meet the definition of surface waters and are, therefore,
classified as waters of the United States.
2. Potential Impacts to Waters of the United States
Temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and surface waters are estimated based on
the amount of each jurisdictional area within the project limits.
16
Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the construction limits and/or the
proposed right-of-way for the new structure and approaches. Temporary impacts include
those impacts that will result from temporary construction activities outside of the proposed
right-of-way and/or those activities associated with staging areas.
Any construction activities involving the potential use of borrow and waste sites must be
located outside the 400-foot buffer areas established for jurisdictional areas. Temporary
impacts will be restored to their original condition after the project has been completed.
Table 3 provides a summary of jurisdictional areas within the project study area for each
alternative. The locations of wetlands and surface waters are presented in Figure 8.
Table 3
Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Wetlands
Area Potential Impact Acres H ectares
Wetland Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
(Pre erred
W 1 a 0.32 0.13 0.32 (0.13 0.05 0.02
W 1 b 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00
W2 0.100.04 0.470.19 0.100.04
Total Impact: 0.43 (0.17) 0.82 (0.33) 0.16 (0.06)
Streams
Length of Potential Impact Feet Meters
Alternative A

- Alternative B Alternative C
(Preferred)
Dan's Creek 80(24
) 77(23 50(16)
Notes: Mill Creek could not be delineated because of lack of channel and accessibility and therefore the length of potential
impact is unquantifiable.
Due to changes in the design for Alternatives A and B and the addition of Alternative C since the publication of the Natural
Resources Technical Report in January 2004, the area totals above have been updated to reflect the impacts of the current
alternatives.
3. Permits
Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification,
administered through the DWQ, will be required. This certification is issued for any
activity, which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is also required from the USACE for projects of this type
for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of
general permit. Nationwide Pen-nit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions.
This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
17
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included with a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
substantial effect on the environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must
satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular permit. Final determination of permit
applicability lies with the USACE. NCDOT will coordinate with the USACE and the
Division of Water Quality to obtain the necessary permits.
4. Mitigation Evaluation
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the Council on Environmental Quality
to include avoidance, minimization, and compensation. These activities must be
considered in sequential order. Final mitigation decisions will be determined by the
USACE and the NCDWQ.
Avoidance - Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "Waters of the United States". According to a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between EPA and USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures
to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures will be appropriate to the slope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes. It is not feasible to completely avoid Dan's Creek and Mill Creek
and still meet the purpose and need for this project.
Minimization - Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to "Waters of the U.S.". Implementation of these steps will
be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
width, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, creation, or
preservation of wetland and stream function and values that are lost when these systems are
converted to other uses. The USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act when unavoidable impacts
total more than 0.10 acre of wetlands or 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent streams.
The NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act for unavoidable impacts to more than 1.0 acre of wetlands or
more than 150 linear feet of perennial or intermittent streams.
Compensatory wetland mitigation will likely be required by the USACE for all of the
alternatives since more than 0.1 acre of wetland will be impacted.
Compensatory stream mitigation will not be required for any of the alternatives since less
than 150 linear feet of stream will be impacted.
18
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Plant and animal species with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et. seq.)
The USFWS lists 6 species under federal protection for Columbus County as of 11 August
2005 (USFWS, Columbus County 2003). These species are listed in Table 4.
Table 4
Species Under Federal Protection in Columbus County
Common Name
_ Scientific Name
T Federal
Status
I Biological
Conclusion
Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E No Effect
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A) N/A
Waccamaw silverside Menidia extensor T No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
Vascular Plants
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia E No Effect
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E No Effect
E - Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T - Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T (S/A) Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened because of similarity of appearance with other rare species-
* Historic Record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened (Similar Appearance)
Family: Alligatoridae
Federally Listed: 1967
Male alligators may reach lengths of 15 feet while females tend to only reach 6 feet. These
animals have a large, slightly rounded body with thick limbs, a broad head, and a very
powerful tail used for propulsion in the water as well as for defense.
These reptiles frequent wetland areas and are the top predator of the food chain. Alligators
will eat just about anything but prefer fish, turtles, and snails. Small mammals that venture
to the water's edge may also be eaten. Young alligators mostly feed on insects,
crustaceans, snails and fish.
The alligator's greatest value to the wetland is the "gator holes" created by adults as a
resting area. After removing vegetation with its mouth an adult gator will thrash about in
the depression to create a hole that will trap and retain water during rain events. These
holes serve as refugia and watering areas for fish, birds, turtles, snakes and many other
animals.
19
Alligators may expand their holes by digging underneath an overhanging bank up to 20 feet
away from the water body. These areas are then expanded and used by the animals to
survive dry seasons and winters.
A search of the NHP database found no recorded occurrences of American alligator within
the project vicinity. However, Dan's Creek and Mill Creek should be considered potential
habitat. The mobile nature of this species should protect it from any direct impacts but
some habitat may be lost.
Although habitat is present, the federal listing for the alligator is due to "Similarity of
Appearance" and therefore does not afford it any special protection and warrants no
biological conclusion.
Biological Conclusion: N/A
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is federally listed as Endangered. It is a small to medium-
sized bird about 8 inches long, with a wingspan of 13.8 to 14.96 inches. The back and top
of the head are black. The cheek is white. Numerous small white spots arranged in
horizontal rows give a ladder-back appearance. The chest is dull white with small black
spots on the side. Males and females look alike except males have a small red streak above
the cheek.
Among woodpeckers, the red-cockaded has an advanced social system. They live in a
group termed a "clan". The clan may have from two to nine birds, but never more than one
breeding pair. The other adults are usually males and are called helpers. The helpers are
usually the sons of the breeding male and can be from 1 to 3 years old. The helpers assist
in incubating eggs, feeding young, making new cavities and defending the clans' area from
other red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those that are infected with a
fungus producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of cavity trees
called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than 12, but only
one clan uses a cavity. In most colonies, all the cavity trees are within a circle about 1,500
feet wide. Open stands of pines with a minimum age of 80 to 120 years provides suitable
nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most commonly used, but other species of southern
pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines, or stands that have a dense hardwood
understory, are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood stands 30
years or older, with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in diameter. The
woodpeckers diet consists mainly of insects, which include ants, beetles, wood-boring
insects and caterpillars.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
20

A search of the NHP files found no occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker within
3.0 miles of the project study area. The pine woodland within the project study area
contains loblolly pines that are approximately 25 years old. This does not provide nesting
or foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker. Because of a lack of potentially suitable
nesting or foraging habitat, this project will not impact this endangered species.
Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose sturgeon)
Vertebrate Family: Acipenseridae
Federally Listed: 1967
Endangered
The shortnose sturgeon is a medium-sized (17 to 35 inches) fish, with a relatively short
snout and a wide mouth. Its body is somewhat elongate and pentagonal in cross section
and armored with five bony plates (scutes), with dorsal and anal fins far back on the body.
Shortnose sturgeon inhabit rivers, estuaries and the sea, but populations are confined
mostly to natal rivers and estuaries (NMFS, 1998). They typically inhabit lower sections of
larger rivers and coastal waters along the Atlantic Coast. They may spend most of their
year in brackish or salt water and move into fresh water only to spawn in spring or fall
(Gilbert, 1989). The ideal spawning habitat for the shortnose sturgeon is faster-moving
freshwater systems (USFWS, Red Book 1992).
During the fall and winter, an unknown portion of the population appears to leave the
estuaries and move short distances into the Atlantic Ocean, but different patterns of
movement have been found for different populations. Adults are found in deep water (33
to 66 feet) in the winter and shallow water (6 to 33 feet) in summer. Juveniles are
nonmigratory and typically inhabit deep channels of swiftly flowing rivers above the salt
wedge. This species is anadromous, spawning in freshwater at a temperature of 48° to 54°
F from February to mid-May. Shortnose sturgeons are benthic forgers and prefer areas
with soft substrate and vegetated bottoms. Juveniles feed on small crustaceans and insect
larvae. Adults in freshwater feed mostly on crustaceans, insect larvae and mollusks; in
estuaries they mainly eat polychaete worms, crustaceans and mollusks.
According to Menhinik (1991), the closest "stream record" occurrence in proximity to the
project study area is in the Cape Fear River approximately 20 miles downstream.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A search of the NHP files found no occurrence of shortnose sturgeon within 3.0 miles of
the project study area. Because of the size of Dan's Creek and Mill Creek, and their
distance from the Cape Fear River, these creeks are unlikely to serve as habitat for the
shortnose sturgeon. These creeks are not swift moving streams and are unlikely to serve as
spawning habitat. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered
species.
21
Menidia extensa (Waccamaw silverside)
Vertebrate Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: 1987
Threatened
Waccamaw silversides are slender fish 1.2 to 2.6 inches long with a silvery stripe on the
side. The species is endemic to Lake Waccamaw and has only been found outside of the
lake after flooding. In the lake it is abundant and forms large schools near the surface.
Spawning peaks in spring during lake warming and females lay their eggs on the sandy
bottom. Both sexes mature after the first winter and most individuals die after their first
spawning season.
The Waccamaw silverside is listed as threatened because the population's restricted range
and short lifespan make it susceptible to rapid extinction. If nutrient overloading in Lake
Waccamaw disrupted one spawning season, the population would be jeopardized. As
summarized by the USFWS (2003), Critical Habitat has been designated for Lake
Waccamaw "...in its entirety to mean high water level, and Big Creek from its mouth at
Lake Waccamaw upstream approximately 0.4 mile to where the creek is crossed by County
Road 1947. Constituent elements include high quality clear open water, with a neutral pH
and clean substrate."
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A search of the NHP database found no occurrences of Waccamaw silverside within 3.0
miles of the project study area. Since Dan's Creek and Mill Creek generally flow east,
except for the canal at the origin of Dan's Creek, the project study area is not in the
Waccamaw River drainage basin, although tenuously connected. Since the Waccamaw
silverside is endemic to the Waccamaw River basin, it will not be impacted by this project.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue)
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed:
Endangered
Cooley's meadowrue is a perennial herb that grows from 3 to 6 feet tall. In full sun the
stems are erect, while under shady conditions they are leaning or trailing on the ground.
The small linear leaflets are in groups of three. The flowers are few, small and have no
petals. The sepals may be yellow-white or green.
Flowering occurs in June and fruiting occurs in August and September. The fruits are hard,
dry, and small and remain on the plant until October. Preferred habitat is moist to wet bogs
and savannahs kept open by frequent fire or other disturbance. Roadside ditches and
powerline rights-of way are also sometimes utilized when moisture and soil conditions are
appropriate. The plant is often found in association with tulip poplar, cypress, and/or
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides).
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
22

A search of the NHP files found no occurrences of Cooley's meadowrue within 3.0 miles
of the project study area. No bogs or savannahs exist within the project study area that are
suitable habitat for this species. Because of a lack of suitable habitat, this project will not
impact any population of Cooley's meadowrue.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (Rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulacae
Federally Listed: 1987
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems 12 to 24
inches in height. Leaves are unusually sessile, occurring in whorls of 3 or 4. They are
broadest at the base (0.3 to 0.8 inches wide), entire and have three prominent veins. The
yellow, bisexual flowers are borne on a loose, terminal raceme. The inflorescence usually
has five petals with ragged margins near the apex, with dots or streaks. Flowering occurs
from late May to early June and seeds are formed by August.
Despite winter dormancy, the plant is easy to recognize in the fall because of the reddish
color and distinctive leaf patterns.
The habitat for the rough-leaved loosestrife is generally the ecotone between longleaf pine
or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty soils occur and
where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Fire is the main factor
for the suppression of taller vegetation. The rough-leaved loosestrife is associated with six
natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine flatwoods, pine savannah,
streamhead pocosin, and sandhill seep.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A search of the NHP database found no occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife within 3.0
miles of the project study area. The pine woodland within the project study area contains
no longleaf pine nor does any community type. Because of a lack of potentially suitable
habitat for this species, this project will not impact rough-leaved loosestrife.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 5, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC).
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 5 includes FSC species listed for
Columbus County and their state classifications. Organisms, which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state protection under
the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
23
Table 5
Federal Species of Concern in Columbus County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
Present
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Sc No
Eastern Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii susurrans SR Yes
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii SC (PT) No
Carolina pygmy sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T Yes
Waccamaw darter Etheostoma perlongum T No
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamensis Sc No
"Broadtail" madtom Noturus sp. 1 Sc Yes
Mimic lass lizard* Ophisaurus mimicus Sc No
Invertebrates
"Waccamaw lance pearlymussel" Elliptio sp.5 SR No
Waccamaw spike Elliptio waccamawensis T No
Waccamaw fatmucket Lampsilis fullerkati T No
Pee Dee lotic crayfish Procambarus lepidactylus -- No
Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus T (PE) Yes
Cape Fear threetooth Triodopsis soelneri T Yes
Vascular Plants
Savannah indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var, confusa E No
Cha man's three-awn Aristida sim lici ora SR-T No
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula SR-L SC No
Harpers fimb Fimbris lis er usilla T No
Long beach seedbox Ludwigia brevipesi SR-T Yes
Raven's seedbox Ludwi is ravenh SR-T Yes
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana T Yes
Pineland plantain Plantago s arsiora E No
Swam forest beaksed a Rh nchos ora decurrens SR-P Yes
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna SR-L No
Wireleaf dr seed S orobolus tereti olius sensu stricto T No
Carolina asphodel Tofteldia glabra W1 No
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana E
Cha man's sedge Carex cha manii W1
Savannah cowbane Oxypolis ternata W1
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 1999; LeGrand and Hall, eds., 1999
Key. T = Threatened, E = Endangered, SC = Special Concern, C = Candidate, SR = Significantly Rare, PE-Proposed by a Scientific Council as a status
Endangered, PT-Proposed by a Scientific Council as a status Threatened, -L-Limited to North Carolina and adjacent states, W-1=Rare but relatively secure.
" Historic Record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
No FSC species were observed during the site visit. A review at NHP revealed that the
Carolina pigmy sunfish was documented to occur in Livingston Creek at Watertank Road,,
and was last observed in 1998. No other FSC were documented to occur within 2 miles of
the project study area. A review of the NHP rare plant and rare animal files revealed no
recorded occurrences of these species within 2 miles of the project study area and no
federal species of concern were identified during the field survey.
24
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
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 agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a
reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. This project has been
coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in
accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
On September 3, 2002, representatives of NCDOT, FHWA and SHPO met to discuss
historic architectural issues in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The result of that meeting, as documented on the "Concurrence Form for
Properties Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places", is agreement by the
attending parties that the bridges are not eligible for listing on the National Register, and
that there are no historic properties affected by the project. A copy of the Concurrence
Form is included in the Appendix.
In a memorandum dated March 12, 2003, the SHPO stated, "We have conducted a review
of the project area and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed." A copy of the
SHPO memorandum is also included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated March 22, 2002,
stated, "There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on
our knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be
eligible for conclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project. We therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the
Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
25
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" because of its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The replacement of Bridge No. 280 and Bridge No. 281 will not have an adverse effect on
the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina
Department of Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the 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 expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic or religious opportunities in the area.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether minority or low-income populations might experience
disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of this
project. The investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any
minority or low-income populations.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated
bicycle route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this
project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all
federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland
for all land acquisition and construction projects. Since the proposed project involves
replacement of the bridges in their existing locations, no impacts to prime or locally
important farmland are anticipated.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or
historic sites of national, state or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project
will be impacted.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected to result from this project. This project is an
air quality "neutral" project and therefore, is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis (if applicable), nor is a project level CO analysis required. Since the
project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable.
26
If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality, and no additional
reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this
increase will be only temporary and is usually confined to daylight hours. There should be
no notable change in traffic volumes after this project is completed. Therefore, this project
will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. Noise receptors in the project area will
not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks (UST) or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
There will be some inconvenience to local travel because of the construction of an offsite
temporary detour. Columbus County Emergency Services Department indicates that this
project will not substantially impact their response time. No adverse effect on the overall
public is expected.
Columbus County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. As shown in
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Columbus County (panel 200 of 350), the
proposed project is located in an area within the 100-year flood (Zone A), and where base
flood elevations have not been determined (see Figure 9). There are no detailed flood
studies in the project area on Dan's Creek or adjoining streams.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will be necessary.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from the replacement of Bridge Nos. 280 and 281.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process (January 31, 2003) to contact local
officials to involve them in the project development with scoping letters and newsletters.
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on April 27, 2004 at the Acme Delco
Volunteer Fire Department to present the studied alternatives and to solicit public
comments. Alternatives A, B and C were presented. Ten people attended the workshop.
Three citizens indicated that Alternative A was the preferred alternative for replacing the
bridges.
27
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Letters from the commenting agencies are included in the Appendix.
28
REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. "The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds,
Seventh Edition." http://www.aou.org/aou/birdlist.html#tina (9 July 2001).
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1998. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
USFWS/OBS 79/31.I U. S. Department of Interior. 131 pp.
[DEM] Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. 1993.
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Cape Fear River
Basin. N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR),
Raleigh. 46 pp.
[DEM] Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. 1996.
Classification and Water Quality Standards. N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DENHR), Raleigh. 36 pp
[DOA] Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
[DWQ] Division of Water Quality. 2004. Basin-Wide Assessment Report of the Cape Fear
River Basin. -N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 137 pp +
appendices.
[DWQ] Division of Water Quality. 2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 274 pp + appendices.
[DWQ] Division of Water Quality. 2002. Basin-Wide Assessment Report of the Lumber
River Basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 137 pp +
appendices.
[DWQ] Division of Water Quality. 2005. 303(d) List.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 303 d.htm.
[DWQ] Division of Water Quality. 2005. Basinwide Information Management System
(BIMS): Stream Classification. August 2005.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reportsibasins and waterbodies/hydroCapeFear.pdf.
29
[DWQ] Division of Water Quality. 2005. Active NPDES Permits.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documentsBIMS 052705.xls
Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profile: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight) - Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.122). U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 28 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose
Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team
for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pp.
[NHP] North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2003. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program Database County Search: Columbus County, North Carolina.
http://www.ncparks.net/nhp/clements2.fm. December 2003.
North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning, and Management. "State Demographics."
http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/demog/ (24 June 2001).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division
of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Thorpe, James H. and Alan P. Covich. 1991. Ecology and Classification of North
American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Soil Survey of Columbus County, North
Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 137 pp + maps.
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004. Hydric Soils: Columbus County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service Technical Guide Section II-A-1. 2pp.
30

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. NWI for Freeman, N.C. 7.5-Minute
Topographic Quadrangle.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species of
Southeastern United States (The Red Book). U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina: Columbus County.
29 January 2003. Asheville, NC.
[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 1986. Freeman, N.C. 7.5-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle.
[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map.
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, North
Carolina.
31
\ 1831
?. i
1843 1
Bridge No. 281
U
Dan's Creeks
\ / n
?? Im
x
N.T.S. Bridge No. 280
L,
1888
C•?
1835 / '4a
.,rlnaa, Y a04Wtaau7, Cla,k,On „ "?,'f ,,a';?
.a w ?, ?, I.Iry k ,? .
r, m cYf«e
onalf Sam '? ? yr. trt i -
u ?
~`?.?? • rrk n a
earnariza n... ? E«n.« a ? ' c
• rt 1! -bi
- '?? ? , ? •V East p
i
I I r r ? ° !?: wuerrn Id ,S ? z A!I aemaf nr
a
T tuns
S 8ortww k F msn?
;ro naem watts o?^
1 Cr00 ? ? &umw'ek t ?. k '.
Yat. ?
0 ` / k
Cherry Ir Wosra.rn.
ankle c 0 L u B u j h
Crakfnaoa' 9 r - vw. j „'r
f S.a« ' Bn
a Ora ?oct ;? z
Town C
M GR -?'?R'
Hakim f W-b..
B R U N S W I;
P,.e v r AI 5_.o.f e
re k
, Sm.f
f
Gn 1. ?? ift Sunfe?
7 "af?ge
CsNI
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
COLUMBUS COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 280 OVER DAN'S CREEK &
BRIDGE NO. 281 OVER MILL CREEK
ON SR 1843
TIP NO. B-4082
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
s. Y
4
NO TI-? CAROLINA
DEP TMEN7 O i ?Z NS PTF?1 -
PROJECT DEVELOPIVENT d.
aIRONNEN T . ANALYSIS BRANCH=
COLUMBUS COUNTY
BPJDGE 280 OVER 7 ?? " TC T
1843
'SIP ° Ta -4082
F OT02,
NOT TO SCALE
G 2
WEST SIDE OF BRIDGE O. 281
FROM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
FROM SOUTH APPROACH

j
se ^ ?

m: H
' `k"
,*wt 4
..

--STBOUND T IWA D DRHVEVk/Af
3E WEE N BRIDGE 1",,'0. 280
AN BRIDGE NO. 281
. is .: ?k.s tt
WETLANDS EASE" F
BRIDGE NO. 281
DEP TM[E. °T CAE TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
EPA/lR0N-N4EN'I'AL ANALYSIS BRANCH
COLUMBUS CGUNriff
E --NO, 280 9 DANT' CREEK
NO. 2'si IYULL CREEK
ON184.E
TL O. B-4082

l

x H GUAR'RA;C
DESIGN DATA
A DT 2007 9, 30
N ED 2^v 3;i 3,525
DUAL 2%
TTST 1%
DESIGN SPEED 55 mph
POSTE-: SPEEID 55 Ear;
It "1,' ?L N Lo-al
NORTH CAR4 UNA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT-10 N
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
HNIVIIRON?f NTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
}
CC U U C 7 '
-)GE ch OVER
Ir Z 2281 Ci\,T-R CREEK
Ste. 1843
TH, . -4082
, f-77- S

w
?
fi?MM[[ V ? y
r

,
Y n"t 1? '. 'f
A

t
Y?; ter,
r
I®
FEEr ME A.
ALTMNA

E

i
9
?t
C -t
n
sS?R
Rjk
n3 z. >I
f7
41, 1
gt .,err « ..
I O' V
c-, +? s cF ?? ?.
y
?? ? ?t 5
F J}i ?; !
? 1 y Jay, ? ., ' ?
? y i ii{{p{{{p
x *i i
wa w
i
y .
wm'
f' ?. « «n.s'i a t :, to ':4 K{ r ?fi
} a
x ?}w
w 3 i ??"E 1„ ? rte ' '+t+R.gt?Fk' } :
y a sI .
µ.is? I y' r
r
MIMI,
r_
? s ? ?I it r y .
r ;Y 1 II i
1 +' i R?. ?? ?a ry ?
k
t Pvaadias Right-of--Way
Acrl,., f AAa .. amad/Diab rbad A..
Ma; w. dRoadside
.Sw %.. _ ?• < f5C 3W 41Fee1
F
IMIM4 ins y $ MY ?{[,' ?__ iC? 1Fs: bMter+
CCAAEADDUUNA
i
PRWOMBECT gf?K
nillEN ggg??
6 wffi
!4t
? f

Mot

rb

f'

w
?F
y;

Y5a
gect Stx?y Area
lanedicticnal Wetland?
Stream .'
r ?
AppmM.Mste Str , 4. '
}{ 650 FSm
a
fo e __.
1w -IC
N.T.S.
FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
COMMUNITY - PANEL NUMBER
370305 0200 B
PANEL 200 OF 350
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
COLUMBUS COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 280 OVER DAN'S CREEK &
BRIDGE NO. 281 OVER MILL CREEK
ON SR 1843
TIP NO. B-4082
NOT TO SCALE I FEMA RATE MAP
FIGURE 9
APPENDIX
1
Q?¢?MENT oFTy'y? United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
9 Post Office Box 33726
?4RCH 9 1a? Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 12, 2002
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Planning
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
This responds to your letters of March 1 and March 18, 2002, providing the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with Natural Resources Technical Reports (NRTR) on 26 bridges
proposed for replacement in Construction Fiscal Year (CFY) 2005. Your letters requested the
Service to review these reports and determine the level of concerns we might have for trust
resources under our jurisdiction. 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.
Th-e bridges scheduled for replacement are:
1. B-3611, Bridge No. 77 on NC 99 over Pantego Creek,. Beaufort County,
2. B-4024, Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 over Pantego Creek [Canal?], Beaufort County
3. B-4026, Bridge 45 on SR 1110 over Choowatic Creek, Bertie County;
4. B=4028, Bridges 1 Tos.' I2 and 18 over the Cape Fear River, Bladen County,
5. B-4031, Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch, Brunswick County, _
6. B-4077, Bridge No. 25 on NC 130 over Waccamaw River outflow, Columbus County
7 ?B_,;?,$2,,Bridge 280 on SR 1843 over Dan's Creek, Columbus County;
8. B-4086, Bridge No. 10 on SR 1111 over Brices Creek, Craven County;
9. B-4090 - Bridge No. 125 on NC 24 over Cross Creek, Cumberland County;
10. B-4125, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1091 over-Wheat Swamp Creek, Greene County;
11. B-4126, Bridge No. 49 on SR 1434 over Wheat Swamp Creek, Greene and Lenoir Counties;
12. B-4127, Bridge No. 43 on SR-1438 over Rainbow Creek, Green County,
13. B-4150, Bridge No. 67'011 SR 1118 over Ahoskie Creek, Herford County,
14. B-4154, Bridge No. 108 on SR 1340 over Old State Canal, Hyde County;
15. B-4169, Bridge No. 7 on SR 1129 (Free Bridge Road) over Big Chinquapin Branch Jones
CountyT.
.r
2
16. B-4187, Bridge No. 5 on SR 1417 over Conoho Creek, Martin County;
17. B-4214, Bridge No. 24 an US 17 over the New River, Onslow County;
18. B-4213, Bridge No. 19 on NC 210 over Stones Creek, Onslow County;
19. B-4219, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1304 over an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River, Pamlico
county,
20. B- 4221 , Bridge No. 4 on SR 1344 over South Prong Bay River, Pamlico County;
21. B- 4223, Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County;
22. 13-4227, Bridge No. 69 on.SR 1222 over Unnamed tributary to Mill Creek, Perquimans
county,
23. B-4234, Bridge No. 98 on SR 1407 over Conetoe Creek, Pitt County;
24. B-4235, Bridge No. 118 on SR 1538 over Grindel Creek, Pitt County;
25. B-4248, Bridge No. 170 on SR 1101 over Shoe Heel Creek (Gaddy Mill Road), Robeson
county-,
26. B-4272, Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek, Sampson County; and,
General Scoping Comments
Some NRTRs contained only maps of the immediate project site and a verbal description of the
project location. In reviewing our records of known locations for Federally listed species, it
would be beneficial to the Service to have a map showing the location of the project Each
location map should include at least one municipality or sizable community to facilitate locating
the project area.
The title page for B-4024 (Beaufort County) states that Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 is over
"Canal." The body of the report states that this bridge crosses Pantego Creek which appears to
be the correct, designation Title pages should reflect the correct location of the project
General Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands
For each project, we recommend the following conservation measures to avoid or minimiser.
adverse environmentalunpacts toy 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 fiaginentation and encroachment. At the completion of
construction, the entire detour area, including any previous detour from past construction

3
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 min nixed.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern:(FSC) are those plant and animal species forwhich 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 ..
Several NRTRs make detetminations that a project will not affect a particular species, primarily
plants based on surveys in the recent past. The Service believes such detemminations are
premature and that additional surveys will -be required prior to construction in approximately-
2004-2005. It would be more appropriate to note that the species was not found during
preliminary surveys and that results provide 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 audlor climax communities.
Plant species that utilize disturbed communities, e.g., Ivfichaux sumac (Rhus michauxoi and
Cooley's meadowrae (Thaliamm cooleyt), should be done within two years of actual

J
4
construction if vegetation disturbing activities, e.g., regular mowing or timber harvesting, occur
at the project site.
The NCDOT should carefully consider potential impacts 'to the West Indian manatee. (Trichechus
manatus) of bridge replacement projects in coastal counties. Several NRTRs, e.g., B-4235 (Pitt
County), state that manatees require at least five feet of water. Manatees are able to use shallow
channels that may not seem suited for such a large mammal- O'Shea and Ludlow (1992) wrote
that the primary habitat requirements for the species are access to vascular aquatic plants,
freshwater source, and proximity to channel 1-2 meters deep (3.3 -6.6 feet). Therefore, the
NCDOT should only consider reaching a "no effect" determination for the manatee when water
depths at the project site do not rise above one meter. Manatees may become entangled in
erosion control and siltation fences placed in shallow water. Measures to prevent these devices
from harming manatees are addressed in our 1996 guidelines to NCDOT (USFWS 1996).' The
biological conclusion of the NCDOT on impacts to manatees cannot be based on negative visual
surveys of the project area. These mobile animals may not inhabit a given area for extended
periods, and manatees may move into a given project site where the species has never been
reported previously. The best procedure for ensuring the safety of these endangered mammals is
to follow the Service's precautions if the area is suitable manatee habitat
Surveys formussels should extend 100 meters (328 feet) upstream and 300 meters (984 feet)
downstream from the project site. Environmental documentation that includes survey
methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results, should be
provided to this office for review'and comment.
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
In addition to the general comments applicable to all bridge replacement project, we offer the
following project-specific comments:
B-3611, Bridge No. 77 on NC 99 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County - The NRTR states (p.
16) that habitat for the manatee exists in the project area, but that no manatees were seen
during natural resources investigations. The report concludes that the pmj ect would have
`ho effect' on the manatee. The Service does not concur with this determination..
Manatees are seasonal transients in North Carolina from (primarily June through .
October). As noted, potential impacts on this species cannot be based on limited field
inspections. The Service recommends that future project documentation include

5
commitments to follow procedures given in "Precautions for General Construction in
Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian. Manatee in North Carolina" that the
Service provided the NCDOT in 1996. A copy is provided with this letter.
Intertidal zones and marsh edges preferred by Federally threatened sensitive jointvetch
(Aeschynomene vhTinica) are present in the project area, but the species was not
observed during natural resources investigation. The NRTR provided a biological
conclusion of "no effect." The Service will require additional surveys closer to the time
of actual construction and greater details of survey methodology, including time of year
and the intensity of the survey, before we can concur that the project will have no effect
on the species.
The NRTR states that "margirial habitat exists for "rough-leaved loosestrife. [Lysimachia
asperulaefolia] in the form of shallow organic soils adjacent to a forest community" in'
the project area. While the NRTR states that no plants were seen, the Service requires
greater details of survey methodology before we can concur with the determination that
the prof ect-will have no effect on rough leaved loosestrife.
B-4024, Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County - The NRTR states (p.
3) that the average depth of Pantego Creek is 4.5 feet, but concludes (p. 14) that the
necessary water depth for the manatee is not present. The Service disagrees and
recommends that project plans should incorporates measures given in "Precautions for'
General Construction in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North
Carolina" that the Service provided the NCDOT in 1996.. Suitable habitat for sensitive
jointvetch exists in the project area (p. 17), but the NRTR concludes that the project
would have `?no effect" on the species based, in part, on the fact that no plant were "found
in the project area." The Service cannot concur with this determination. The Service will
require additional surveys closer to the time of actual construction and greater details of
survey methodology, including time of year and the intensity of the survey, before we can
concur that the project will have no effect. on the sensitive joinivetch.
B-4031, Bridge No. 72 'on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch, Brunswick County - The NRTR states (p.
4) that water depths range from two to six feet, and concludes (p. 21) that "vagrant
manatees visiting the lower Lumber river system would not be expected within the
project area." The Service does concur with the biological conclusion of `ono effect' on
the manatee and requests that the project utilize the standard precautions for general
construction in areas which may be used by manatees. The NRTR states that the
biological conclusions for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Federally
endangered wood stork (Myeteria americana) are "unresolved.." Wood storks may
undertake post-breeding season dispersals from June through early autumn in search of
food in swamps, marshes, and mudflats. The NCDOT should seek to determine whether
the project area is used, if even on a temporary basis, by these species. If wood storks do
feed in the project area during a limited portion of the year, the Service would
recommend that this project be scheduled outside this particular period.

6
13-4086, Bridge No. 10 on SR 1111 over Brices Creek, Craven County -With an average depth
of three feet, Brices Creek is not likely to used by manatees. The Service cannot concur
with the determination that the project would have "no effect' on the sensitive jointvetch
based the lack of observation during site survey in 2001 and an absence of historical
occurrence in the project area The NRTR notes that suitable habitat for this species is
present in the project area. The Service will require additional surveys closer to the time
of actual construction and greater details of survey methodology, including time of year
and the intensity of the survey, before we can concur that the project will have no effect
on the sensitive jointvetch..
B-4154, Bridge No. 108 on SR 1340 over Old State Canal, Hyde County - The NRTR notes that
habitat for the sensitive jointvetch is present in the project area, but concludes that the
project will have no impacts on the species, based in part, on a failure to find the species
during surveys. The Service will require additional surveys closer to the time of actual
construction and greater details of survey methodology, including time of year and the
intensity of the survey, before we can concur that the project will have no effect on the
sensitive jointvetch..
B-4219, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1304 over an roamed tributary to the Neuse River, Pamlico
County - The tributary to be crossed has an average depth of approximately four feet and
the NRTR notes (p. 15) that "marginal" habitat for the manatee exists in the project area.
The Service does not concur with the biological conclusion of "no effect" for the manatee
and recommends that future project documentation include commitments to follow
procedures given in "Precautions for General Construction in Areas Which May Be Used
by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina."
B- 4221, Bridge No. 4 on SR 1344'over South Prong Bay River, Pamlico County - The NRTR
(p. 3) notes that the average depth of the water to be bridged-is approximately 3.5 feet and
later concludes (p. 15) that the waterway is not deep enough or contain sufficient
vegetation to provide habitat for the manatee. The Service cannot concur with the stated
conclusion that "no impact to the West Indian manatee will result from project
construction." We recommend that future project documentation include commitments to
follow procedures given in `Trecautions for General Construction in Areas Which May
Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina!'
B- 4223, Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County - The
NRTR notes (p. 20) that manatees could occur in the project area and states that impacts
to the species are "unresolved." The NRTR also recommends that a "follow-up survey"
be conducted. A one time survey will. not determine the presence of this species at a
particular construction site. The species moves through North Carolina coastal waters on
a seasonal basis. If there is any chance that the species could occur at a construction site,
the Service's guidelines (USFWS 1996) should be incorporated into project plans.

8
cc:
Ted Bisterfeld, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta,- GA
Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Michael Bell. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office, Washington,
NC
Eric Alsmeyer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, Raleigh NC
David Timpy, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wihnington Regulatory Field Office,
Wilmington NC
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Northside, NC
*?t?,Er+r oary' United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WIIZUFE SERVICE
Raleigh Feld Office
c ; Pon Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-5726
March 4, 2003
r.?
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director .
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1. 548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
e-- C
.'MAR s 2003
otinston 4F
t ilGt IW?yg t4.ar
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
bridges:
Bridge No. 25 on NC 130 over Waccamaw River Overflow, Columbus County, TIP:No:
B-44077
Bridges No. 280 and 281 on SR 1843 over. Dan's Creek, Columbus County, tip' No.
.B-4082
The Service previously provided scoping comments for these projects in a June 12, 2002 letter.
We would like to emphasize our recommendation to conduct additional surveys for Cooley'
meadowrue (D7iall rum cooleyi) and rough leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia aspema laefolia).
Surveys for these two species should be conducted within two years of actual project
construction and should be conducted at the appropriate time of year for accurate iden#ifcation.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this: roiect. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination ofthe
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary. Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor

cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wihnington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Chris Mlitscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
s
P

Y UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERC
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminletratil
NATIONAL MARNE FISHERIES SERVICE
Habitat Conservation Division
101 fivers Island Road
Reaulort, North Carolina 285
July IS. 2002
William T. Goodw in, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis- Bra rich
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, Nol-th Carolina 27699-1548
Dear hlr' Goodwin
APR 0 1 2003
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMI-S) leas reviewed the Natural Systems "Technical
Reports (NSTR) - Group 3, for 5 bridge replacement projects idemitied'in your March 18. 2002,
letter. These projects are scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2005 By letter dared May 9.
2002, the Wilmin,, on District, U.S. Army Corps of• Engineers identified the lolloNVIn,L, issue.s and
concerns as Being relevant to the proposed bridge rephrcenient projects-
Replacing bridles with culverts
- Permanent and temporary wetland losses
- 02ite versus onsite detours
- Time'of year restrictions on instrearn work - --
- Treatment' of wetland restoration areas
- Existing bridge demolition and removal
- Lentil hening existing bridges as a wetland restoration, measure
The NMPS a-rees that these issiies should he fully addressed with regard to impacts and mitigation.
Section I. Yellow Light Projects (YLPs)
The bridge replacement projects listed below are located in areas that do not support NMPS trust
fishery resources. Otherwise, they have normal envi_ronmental.concerns and, therefore, are idenlif ied
as YLPs.
Bridge Number Project Number Location
Bridge No. i 70 B - 4248 Robeson Countv
Bridge No. 25 B - 4077 _ Columbus CountY
L
l?I 1hinted tilt Retwitu r Patin -
Section 11 - Red Light Projects (RLPs)
Red Light Projects are those that include extraordinary resources-or concerns that will require close
coordination to complete -successfully. These projects involve high quality wetlands, extremely
valuable or rare endangered species habitats, or other limited or.unusual resources. The bridge
replacement projects listed below are located in the Cape Fear River basin which is likely to support
NMFS trust anadromous fishery resources including the threaten shortnose sturgeon and are,
therefore, classified as RLPs.
Bridge Number
Bridge No. 125
Bridge No. 280
Bridge Nos. 12 and 18
Project Number -
B - 4090 Cumberland County
B - 4082 Columbus County
B-4028 Bladen County '
Location
Spawning and nursery habitat for anadromous fishes may be adversely impacted by these lrojects
unless. measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands are included in the project
plans. Accordingly, the NMFS. may recommend against Department of the Army authorization of
these projects under Nationwide Permit 23 unless the following recommendations are incorporated:
1. Following impact avoidance and minimization, unavoidable wetland losses shall be otl'set
throunh implementation ofa compensatory mitigation plan that has been approved by the Corps
of Engineers and-in consultation with the NMFS.
2. All construction related activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to those systems and-their associated flora and fauna.
In order to protect anadrdrnous fishery resources that may trtiu;Zi the project areas a3 spawning
or nursery habitat, work in the waters of the creek shall be restricted to the period October I and
March I of any year unless prior approval is'granted- by the Corps of Engineers following
consultation with-the NMFS.
If these projects are processed under Nationwide 23, they will be carefully reviewed for
incorporation of the pecommendations listed`above and we may elect to provide additional comments
and. recommendations that are intended to avoid; minimize, and offset impacts to living marine
resources. Our recommendations, if any, will be sent to the Wfiniington -District, U:-S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and a copy will be forwarded to you.
Finally, the shortnose sturgeon, a Federally protected species under-the purEriew of the NMFS is
found in the Cape rear and Roanoke Rivers. These comments do not satisfy Federal- agency
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended. .
If any activity "may effect" listed species and habitats under NMFS purview, consultation should be
initiated with our Protected Resources Division at 9721 Executive Center Drive North. SE
Petersburg, Florida 33702.
We appreciate the opportunity for early participation in the review of these bridge replacement
projects. If I can be of farther assistance, please contact me at the letterhead address or at 252-728-
5090.
• Sincerely, '
R6nald S. Sechler
Fishery Biologist
cc:
COE, Wilmington, NC
USFWS, Raleigh; NC
NCDMF, Raleigh
4

habitat Consen?ation Divis-1011
101 Pivers Island Road %
Beaufort. North Carolina 28? 16J)722?
March 7. Z003
GTggory J1_ Thorpe, Ph D.
Environmental Management Director
Prnlect Develops ent and
Envirommcntal Analysis Branch
NC Depannient of Trap sportat-LO11
13=18 Mail Service Center
Raleigh; North Carolina 27699-1:148
Attention. T her cs Etlerbv
Dear Dr. Thorpe-
Thy National \Marine- Fisheries 5er ice (\; IO -k Fisheries) has re%ieweci votir }=ebrUHM- l 1. ''20J( ,
letter requesting cornments ore the alternative planning and emironmental s Udies,(i ateuroVic.at
Exclusions) for the folkorving bridge replacerner t .projects.
Bridge Number Project Number Location
Bridge No. 25 B - 4077 Columbus Count-
Bridge No. 280 B - 4028 Columbus C'ounn•
Bridge 1o. M B - 4028 Columbus c'ounry
NOAA Fisheries supports the decisinn to'reptace the aoove listed bridg-es with ne::= hridgc' ;xt'ec{tt:3t
or longer lengths. By letters dated Julyl8, 2002 (copy enclosed), we previously comment- or? the
Natufal Resources Technical Reports for these projects and provided recO1711.1ie!1d;1tiG:3S t?=r
avoidance and minitnization of adverse impacts to ,anadrornous fishery resources.' Since nee
additional information on these projects is included in ?rourknuaty 2 Ord letter, the re-conimcndaticm;
provided in our July 18" letter remain valid:
:although avoidance of wetland impacts may not be possible in all cases, the enrircnnncnital €Udie4
should identify hitgl?Way and bridge design alterr:atives that would, to the exi:nt practi=_abie. a%-oicl
car miniazize wetland losses. The en-t ironmental studies should also evaluate retnovall
r ?
7 ^

causeways as a means of reducing and offsetting wetland losses. also, since, requircd traffic
diversion May ne essiratetemporaryfillingorotherwetland alteration, the en Aronmenrai document
should identiPy the reast damaging alternative for maintaining tr&tc flow, inclu.iIII?a the us o
existing roads.as alternate routes. NOAA Fisheries is likely to recommend against the Lcse of
temporary onsite till to cs:ablish construction bypass routes.
Adverse impacts to fishery resources in waters affected by these projects can be niininuzed tilrout1il
use of prudent and rmpo%nsible constfuction teclunitlues- and use of seasonal v.ork restrictit?rs
Developnnent of seasonal work restrictions within the project area should be coordinaTed :pith the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. and the results of this effort ;Mould be presClITeJ
in the en-vironalen:al documents.
We appreciate The opportunity to provide these comments. If I may be of further assi: tance_ please
contact the at the letterhead address, or at 252-7Z8-5090.
Sincerely, f
Ronald S. Secltler
Fishery Biologist
Enclo,ure
5

MAR 13 2003
North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 12, 2003
MEMORANDUM
FROM: David Brook ???f. ODI-Ll ? Division of Historical Resources
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Eavroonmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
fi"4c-
KtPEVEL0?
David J. Olson, Director
RFE,CE P.T ,D 11
APR 01 2003
1By k
SUBJECT: Replacement, Bridge Nos. 280 and 281 over Daes Creek, on SR 1843;-B4082
Columbus Countv. ER02-8600
- ? S t S Q-5
Thank you for your memoraildutn of February 11, 2003, concerning the'above project 0- Ve-StAA'?
pu?-
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no histnric resources
which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as l??a
proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act J. ;CWSS
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 Pl l Cjt bi l1?
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and considentson. If you have questions zonzctning the abovc
comment, contact Renee Giedhrll-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number._
cc: Mary Pope Futt Cp UG+UWf`??
www.hvo.dcr.state.nc.us
L=tw Ma fingAdaras TdVhoncJFaz
ADMINLSTRATION 547 N. Biomrt St, Raleigh NC 4617 Mai[ Savic c Cwter, lialeigh TIC 27699.4617 (919) 7334763 •7334653
REST01RA71ON 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4613 Mai! SavI= Center, Rate4ft NC 2769914613 [phone] •715-4801
__._CTTDWV%r o_ nr. 14UTWWJ. 1 -d a ?r ar......r e?. 10.14..h We, .. m,n?.7on_cU[.--ric.Apni.. _..

Ftsclc"rul : I icl # r?j ? ? -- 16q 3 b? TIP # B ' L) O & Z C 01111ty: C D? U bU
JCONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: I:Z-kpl Q.LE_ ?3Yi c4 C_ Z?5 Q 3 2b l p 5Q- IN 3 p VQ r Dar S
On _9 " 3 - ZD02. , representatives of the C_ree
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
AU 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 wbich are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G"within the
project's area of potential effects.
[?j 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 is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no finther evaluation of it is necessary.
Dl? There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects. ZB rl
s
[[? 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
r N t 1 -I 'J' U /
Representati? e, l ?JCDCIT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
f 3}tea
Repres ntative, HPO Dite
?1 n
Start Ffi#jc Preservation Officer Dart
i fl a •.ur+cy repun i; prepweil. a fin7l cups of thi, firrm and the attached li•it will fir4 included
v
?? avowd
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F, Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office ofArchives and History
March 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
a?
Division of Historical Resources
David 1. Olson, Direotor
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch }A 2 $ ?0?
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ??I.UiSs?1v
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 280 and SR 1843 over Dans Creek, Replace Bridge No. 2802nd S4 a
1843 over Dans Creek, B-4082, Columbus County, ER 02-8600 Jh f ??
l? y
Thank you for your memorandum of September: 25, 2001, concerning the above project 11??
There are no known archaeological sites within.the project area. Based on our knowledge of the ar it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources that maybe eligible for conclusion in the National Regis of
Historic Places will be affected by the project We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project
Because the Department of Transportation is in the process of surveying and evaluating the National
Register eligibility of all of its concrete bridges, we are unable to comment on the National Register
eligibility of the subject bridge. Please contact Mary Pope Furr, in the Atchitectl,rat Flistory Section, to
determine if further study of the bridge is needed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 296
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/72929-47629. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Malling Address
Admlu2stradon 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh., NC 4617 Marl Service Curter, Raleigh 276994617
Restratiou 515 N. Blount Sk Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Centrs, Raleigb Z7699-4613
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount SL Rakish NC 4619 Mail Service Caries Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fix
[phone].733-8653
[phone].7154901
[phone].71541101
0tate of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Govemor
Bill Ross; Secretary
Gregory Thorpe, Director
June 18, 2002
NCDENR
NORTH CARouNA DEPARTMENT of
ENVIRONMENT AND NArLmiAL RESOURCE-5
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development ancLEnvironmental Analysis Branch
Through! John Do
NC Divisi o W ?jQuaallity
From: Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water
Quality
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Green Light" Projects: B-4077, B-4M B-4090, B-4152, B-4.248,
B-4036, B-4059,. B-4060, B-4155, B-4158, B-4177, B-4178,
B-4198, B-4197, B-4194, & B-4192.
On all projects, use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed. Sediment and erosion
control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream
This Office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and 150 linear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. While the NCDWQ -
realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring =
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification
For permitting, any project that falls under the Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permits 23 or 33
do not require written concurrence by the NC Division of Water Quality. Notification and
courtesy copies of materials sent to the Corps, including mitigation plans, are required. For
projects that fall under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 or Regional General Bridge
Permit 31,'the formal 401 application process.will be required including appropriate fees and
mitigation plans.
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i.e. the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert
extensions.

Wettm&401 Unit 7321 Crabtree Blvd- Suite 250 Raleigh. North Carolina 27604
Telephone [phone] FAX#[phone]
r '? I
v
Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Additionally,
vegetation should not be removed from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary.
NCDOT should especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut
trees must be removed, then the trunks should be cut and the stumps and root systems left in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
Special Note on projects B-4077 and B-4090: these waters are classified as 303(d) waters.
Special measures for sediment control will be needed
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401-
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost.
,,
: ^p -
APF 0 1 7_003
0 North CarobnaWdbfe Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
1IMEE MORANI )i,JM
TO: Ms. Theresa Ellerby, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Flighway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation-Program cam---? N-
DATE: March 10, 2003
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements Columbus, Harnett, and Cumberland counties.
TIP Nos. B-4090, B-4091, B-4077, B-4082 and B-4137.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S_C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16
U.S.G. 661-667d).
Our. standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope a as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream.channel realignment: The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath.the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • "eigh, NC 27699-17- 1

Bridge Memo
March 10, 2003
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the-N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can.,
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Hal
Bain should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage O&y 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control,
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be usid
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14: Heavy equipmenf should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
. 4
Bridge Memo
March 10, 2003 IN'
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in.a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain.. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted-with
'native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successfiil, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or.
other projects in the.watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4090, Cumberland County, Replace Bridge No. 125 on NC 24 over Cross Creek. A
significant fishery for sunfish exist at this site, we recommend an in water work
moratorium from April 1 to June 30 to rninimi?e impacts to spawning sunfish. Other
standard recommendations apply.
2. B-4091, Cumberland County, Replace bridge No. 85 on 1=95 Business Loop and US 301
over SR 1738, SR 1741, and the Cape Fear River. We recommend replacing this bridge
with a bridge. NCDOT should conduct a mussel survey at this site to determine any

Bridge Memo 4 March 10, 2003
presence of the state listed, endangered, Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa). We
recommend an in-water work moratorium from February 15 - June 30, for sunfish and
anadromous fish. NCDOT should adhere to Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage, Other standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4077, Columbus County, Replace bridge No. 25 on NC 130 over Waccamaw river
Overflow. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery for
sunfish exists at this site, we recommend an to-water work moratorium from April 1 -
June 30 to mi„iml a impacts to spawning sunfish. A mussel survey should be conducted
for the Waccamaw spike (Elliptio waccamawensis) if the project area is inundated.
4. B-4082, Columbus County, Replace Bridge Nos. 280 and 281 over Dan's Creek. We
recommend replacing each bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery for sunfish exists
at this site, we -recommend :an m-water.:work'.moratorium:. from. April J_-,. Jame, 30 . to
minitn e impacts to spawning sunfish Other standard recommendations apply.
5. B4137, Harnett County, Replace bridge No. 35 on NC 42 over the Norfolk and Southern
Railroad. We have no concerns with this'project. '
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements- Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]_ Thank you for the opportunity to review and
continent on these projects. ,
Cc: . Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
? t
-" '+ - ---' vv.rvu.vw vvvasas W1 rrIA av. c1Vutum-ti raU! s
' j
9-1-11 Columbus Central
Addressing
Erne o envy Management
Tune 4, 2001
NC Dept of Transportation
Attn: Davis Moore
Project Development and Enviromental Analysis Bmanch
1549 Mail Service Centor
Raleigh, NC 2.7699-1548
REF: Letters May 24, 2001
RepJacement ofBridge #280 on SR 1843
Replacement oFBrWge # 25 on NC 130
Bridge #280 -road has enough.ac.xss thatwith prior planning and notification
rescue and law enforcement can elukkl r reach both seadons. 13- 4 0
Bridge #25 - only one dwelling i5 located after the bridge. This is a cabin on the
rivet. Q - 4-011 p?
if you need further information, please give me a cats.
:jiriGerely,
UIohn H. Moore, Jr.
DhOtnr
-JI- Vi/skw
Emarge y Selwees 9-141Ca us Cenird Addressing
?eleptutrt:: (911J) 640--6614 Telephone (910) 6¢0.1428 Tdephane: (910) 640-ISIS or
Fax: (9-GTj 60-1241 Fax: (910) 60_2j5 (910) W-001d
Fay (910) 914-¢112
608 Nar& TM01PSOn Street, TWeviUr, NC 26472
r
Columbus County/Whiteville City School Bus Garage
1231 Chadboum Hwy, Whiteville, NC 28472
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
TO. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director,. PDE
FROM: James R. Hewett, Director of Transpo
DATE: February 21, 2003
RE: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Group #39
The following information was determined based on the 2002-2003 school year bus route
information.
Bridge No. 25 on NC 130: There are no buses in Columbus-.County that travel over this
bridge on a daily basis.
-Bridge Nos. 280 & 281 over Dan's Creek: East Columbus High School s1 us that
travels over these bridges twice daily. This bus can be rerouted to; xviiK students in
the area. Acme Delco Elementary School has f buses that travel over these bridges daily.
One bus can be rerouted to service the students-in the area. The other crosses the bridges,
picks up a student then turns around and travels over the bridges again. The parents of
this student will be responsible for providing transportation to the ne rsec
where the bus can then pick therm up. These bridges are traveled a t of 8 times daily.--
If you have any questions please give me a call
g ?M?s