20011742 Ver 1_Complete File_20011128

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
. DATE
1041-07
TO: - REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM:
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND. FILE- - ? PER OUR CONVERSATIONS
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
?,PLEASE ANSWER ? `FOR'. YOUR COMMENTS
13 PREPARE REPLY FOR `MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATES AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

;ujz
A ps GROU
fP
1
P
U'? SEGtls5?y t
_?

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy. 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
04-\\%ns,
May 16, 2002
LY?_ nc?'TI
=SEC Y
U
i
/ Gq
Attention: Mr. Bill Arrington
Subject: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 7 over Corey's Ditch on NC 615 in
Currituck County; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-615(1); State Project
8.1040601, TIP No. B-3445, Division 1.
Dear Mr. Arrington:
As you are aware, the initial processing of the original permit application for the
subject project revealed inconsistencies between the listed and mapped impacts to
Coastal Wetlands. Since then, the project design team has broken out Coastal vs. 404
wetland impacts and submitted a revision of the wetland and surface water impact table.
A copy of the revised drawings and impact table are enclosed with this application.
The following table reflects the revisions in wetland impacts:
Table 1. Revisions in wetland impacts.
Station Type Area of Located Distance to Type of Wetland
# of Impact (ac) within 100-yr Nearest Stream
Impact Floodplain (linear feet)
20+50 Fill 0.022 Yes Adjacent CAMA Coastal
Lt- (CAMA), marsh, 404 Coastal
23+28 0.067 (404) marsh
25+08 Fill 0.093 Yes Adjacent CAMA Coastal
Lt- marsh
28+50
Total 0.182
Total* 0.205
* Total in the November 20, 2001 permit application
The following table reflects the revisions in surface water impacts:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
A
Table 2. Revisions in surface water impacts.
Station # Type of Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Impact Impact (ac)
20+50, Rt- Fill 0.064 Back Bay Bay
23+28
25+08 Rt- Fill 0.063 Back Bay Bay
28+50
(potential Bridge 56.7 yd Corey's Ditch Canal joining Back Bay
impacts) demolition and the N. Landing River
Total 0.127
Total* 0.356
* Total in November 20, 2001 permit application
I am enclosing the original permit application that was submitted by Jill Holmes
on November 20, 2001 so that the impacts can be compared between the original
application and the revised drawings. I am also resubmitting a check for $400 to cover
the processing of the major CAMA permit. Under separate cover, I am submitting the.
stormwater plans to Bill Moore with the DWQ Regional Office in Washington.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Matt
Haney at [phone], extension 333.
Sincerely,
W4*4712:?We*l
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/mmh
Enclosures
SEE INSET
BELOW
,i

I I i
BEGIN PROJECT
B-3445
TO US 58
END PROJECT
B-3445
Back
Bay
1 r?
615
SITE 1
7
0
1 x
f
2;A ?Q
KNOT1'S ISLQ.ND
Y
MACKAY ISLAND
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
V- A
t
t
t
t
It
t
615
it
t
-7
:.A, `O Q MAC KAY
?y? ELF ISLAND
i
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGIIiVAYS
.5 0 CURRITUCK COUNTY
SCALE
1 Mile
PROJECT: 8.1040601. (&•5445)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH
SKEET I Or 9 8 / 28 / 0
LEGEND
--•WLB---- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
-- WLB'
ffm DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• • • DENOTES MECHANIZED
• >• • CLEARING
-t E- FLQW DIRECTION
B- TOP OF BANK
-. - WE-- .- EDGE OF WATER
_- C-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
-=' NG.--- NATURAL GROUND
-- Pl---- PROPERTY LINE
-TOE TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE-- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
EAB EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - WATER SURFACE
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGH"WAYS
CURRITUC:Y, COUNTY
PROJECT: 810 40601 (B-344rp)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH
SHEET A OF p L 8/28/0'
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- --- COIR FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN

0

O
G ?-?
P
F M z ?•
Z

o
w
wo
Z x U o
,, ) U

?+ w
het pe,
o ?'-

?„
C)
Ey C)
;D
C6 w

0
O F, c; O
U 1
?7`I
G
M - C^, ?.
Do
z
a ovi
q p U 0.© ?1 ? I
U c.
? x

N
W I
?+• V7
Z Z cr
W
J .J t--
J J Q
LL U-
V)
NO Nul
W Z W U
F- Q F Q
O J O L,
Z? Zcr
W W W D
0 3 0 N

F?
C
0
U)
a
N

z ? o
09+90 3M

O1 bfN rJ3
F
LL
_
La
t
j
4
9 ?
H Z

w ra
N w R
LL 11 '' j N U z
x
U U U

I w
a cz.
L) o?
.112.94

C4 0

a?
4N
i ?' + a
Q C? H
re,
z ?J
, U 0

I
3 I jW
i
U
a. ?
w
n ` vi
^^
A r
a
?i w w j' W N
^ 4
N
0 e oI ° r
0o o° lc? I l ta. N
op
Lt") 6 W
N
z zV)
q0 w
.%
I I-_ W L,
43
N
w Z w U
h- 4 F Q
ji Zr- zLY
LLJ
i jl ( W C) 3-- ON
"
L
i
V
OIL G? w ? I k?
W
;' o o? ` oab
s j o
--
/^? I
T I I o
°?c
C7 ,
N o
Is o
c ;la a ld
I: c!
N ,
I w
liJ 3 ZI ,Z? f
00+ZZ WIS ?3NIIH01bV" i
N

i
:
_
1
a
T
o
N ?-E
V:1
I
i j
i
7' I , Ii
t
W
/co t
;Y
W
r?
4 j
i
It
I
W ? I
!
i
f
I
I
I
I`? r
i

r
i
i
3
W
Ir
W
7 Ir
i •• H
W /
LL i i
I
r+
N W
+ + i
W
4 1 it
I i
09+90 'I'1S i
Al IHO1

V
x
F ;
'
°
O -+
.. ti
? z 54
'?
?. ? Dra W

zx ? ?vv

HO o?
o
?
? W
w r, m o
G ti 0) z ci
R
?y ?J IW
W
©/

z p
,
??
W

U)
N
LL
4 N
Z Z cr

W
J J f--
J J L
4 LL ?
N
N a N W
W Z W U
!-- Q H Q
O J O LL
z i-- z cc
W W to D
p? of aN

k=-1 v=4

Z
r -'+ f-f
Cfoa

--y
It 1 IIS
r.?
K
tM
.i?
_ r .???JJJJ
(1 1

O
N
J LF
I
O
O M LO
O m
• NJ
CO <- w ti
+ p II
v +- ?.
N 4- CC
I1 CO >
Q' m J
Q J J w
f- N N w
In o p
-pOQ
w i- w r` x
C7 4- Cr C5
0 Oil
O U Z
CC M ?R-- 3;::
co = w0
0 Y (r
(,*1 NNl/)U
M ^
lD w
~
11
Q F-
3
J J
w J U Cr
o f- lSJ fw
-
?N Q
a u 3-r
J
J J
LLI:-.
o f""
vi In
0 --
O
O
O
tS1
t?
+
N
t-
>
d
J
I
OI
N
o o
°
f i O) I

CO I
i
I I
'
o
1
' z
o
o
o ' o

! +
lC) ? cD
N
+ I
I O
N >
i >
; o i
>
CL II j J
I

J J
I z
I
i
I
i
I I ??
I I ??
1
I 1 I
1 I I
I 1
1 1 1
1 ;
I ?
1 1 ?
I 0
I F- C)
! w
Z J>
i
I
Q0
D
a
IY uj r
r- O lil CY F-
O 1---
II Q Q 11J
. aJ

I F- ; 0
+

' CV
I N

'
I >
CL

O)
I
Cp I

I I
I
!

O i
O
) i O I
O
N
I
0
O
-F-
N
O
O
Ln
N
O
O
?i-
N
O
O
M
N
O
O
N
N
z '? o
4
F+m A q
M z;H

?' ? o
? p v
zx o?
H 'a 00
O E% E
``
0
E: i 04
Cl: A
ti r4 0
z
A q U a 0
U ?
Q, M
A
I

i 4
®E=4
P f?

w
a
U \w
J
N U
J
C L7
h-
Z J
Q
U V
N ?--
w
o
=
I

Lro)
O G -
tr)
N
I
I

gl u,l of Lnl I
0
i
M
W
W J
N O.
Z
H
Q
J
a
Y
U
cr AEC

N

?
Y I
y
Q I
t

N I
N

~O
W Z
41 J
2
N ,
Li
oI -1 OI n) o)
O wH °
H ? v ? W
Gh ?j •.? W
Z x ? o U
;94 0
O p ?'
? 0
a Ca U a. n c? ?
r, w
? .M
N
l?
O
v
LL. N
O
M
N
o ? ? rr
J II-
J J Q
LL N LL S
O LN C? N W
B LLJ Z W U
I-Q I-
C) zf-- z w
L.Li LL I W ::)
Z w
o 0
F
o
N
-0
M
O W
Q ' J
<[ W ,
U
J L/I
O ? J
Ln z a
p U
N F-
a Cr
o W
C7 C? -
ES
4
a
?• c
r
Project No. 8.1040601 (B-3445)
Property Owner List
Site Parcel Name Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg
United States Department P
BOX 39
O
1 O of the Interior .
.
Knotts Island, NC 27950
Fish and Wildlife
I
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSY-011 fATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CURRITUCK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1040, 01 (B-3445)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH
• $ OF 8/24/01
'
r
sHEr
I

0
m
Z z

o
~ a ?}- " w
O Z m w

o w m
0- L'3
o ?Ua
(d 0
Q =
a
Y a
aw:
F- O
o W >
?
U- Z N .. 0 O

0) CD O O C F- W

w
Cl)

C:
i° Y_

o

F- h Er-L) 0
F LL
LLJ
D
0

't -
? U -3 a
cc 00
0
d a d 0

z
m

F-
cd Cl) co F-
w
U C
.?? , .
_. _ .I
..??.?.

U)

S
I
m

L) 2
?
(n
jL

CL X

a
C
y
r_
ro
Q
v Q
o
v U
`7 N
U V

4 N
U O
O O

4

-
I m

v ?

?
o ?
o
U L v

c U
w
v
? -y

v o

Q U

(.1 .y
v
Q
a
a U?
w

w o

W X
w
U
a -
?
oc u.
'
3 U

o
E
c
°
=
-
a? -
F-

C c0 ?
m G O
O
.. O p
LL

7._

U)

`
? -
N
tC ? O U

O

Q y

? w c
o _ y
a LL
? U
O
A
d ?
? C v

y

C C
v d
?
Cl)

?

N
a
- ? O O
O
U-
N O O
>
9
d W W W W J

.?
2 o Q a ? O
? m m co m F-

O
o a :
co cc
C p N W t
C ) O CO ?
.75 p N LO O t n
O
N
N N
N N
N N
(n
LL O O O O
O O

L Z O
Cl)
co y
f°
?d wpa?
Mw
.Q S-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 16, 2002
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy. 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attention: Mr. Bill Arrington
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 7 over Corey's Ditch on NC 615 in
Currituck County; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-615(1); State Project
8.1040601, TIP No. B-3445, Division 1.
Dear Mr. Arrington:
As you are aware, the initial processing of the original permit application for the
subject project revealed inconsistencies between the listed and mapped impacts to
Coastal Wetlands. Since then, the project design team has broken out Coastal vs. 404
wetland impacts and submitted a revision of the wetland and surface water impact table.
A copy of the revised drawings and impact table are enclosed with this application.
The following table reflects the revisions in wetland impacts:
Table 1. Revisions in wetland impacts.
Station Type Area of Located Distance to Type of Wetland
# of Impact (ac) within 100-yr Nearest Stream
Impact Floodplain (linear feet)
20+50 Fill 0.022 Yes Adjacent CAMA Coastal
Lt- (CAMA), marsh, 404 Coastal
23+28 0.067 (404) marsh
25+08 Fill 0.093 Yes Adjacent CAMA Coastal
Lt- marsh
28+50
Total 0.182
Total* 0.205
* Total in the November 20, 2001 permit application
The following table reflects the revisions in surface water impacts:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NO
!V4
Table 2. Revisions in surface water impacts.
Station # Type of Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Impact Impact (ac)
20+50 Rt- Fill 0.064 Back Bay Bay
23+28
25+08 Rt- Fill 0.063 Back Bay Bay
28+50
(potential Bridge 56.7 yd Corey's Ditch Canal joining Back Bay
impacts) demolition and the N. Landing River
Total 0.127
Total* 0.356
* Total in November 20, 2001 permit application
I am enclosing the original permit application that was submitted by Jill Holmes
on November 20, 2001 so that the impacts can be compared between the original
application and the revised drawings. I am also resubmitting a check for $400 to cover
the processing of the major CAMA permit. Under separate cover, I am submitting the.
stormwater plans to Bill Moore with the DWQ Regional Office in Washington.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Matt
Haney at [phone], extension 333.
Sincerely,
M444712:RWI
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/mmh
Enclosures
is

BEGIN PROJECT
B-3445
SEE INSET
BELON
END PROJECT
B-3445
TO US 58 . _......_.._,._.._.._.._.._,_.
- _.._.;_. _.._.._.._.._,._..._.._ ?\- _.. ;\t Back
, Bay l?
615
SITE 1
7
<O
Z
f
:.A \0
?O?L
q?4 X ,
KNORS ISLAND
Y
_I MACKAY ISLAND
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
VA
.
i
l?
,151
l?
ti
MAC KAY
ISLAND

SCALE
5 0 1 Mile
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CURRITUCK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1040601. (B-3445)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH
SHEET 1 OF 9 8 / 28 / 01

LEGEND ,d
--•WLB ---- WETLAND BOUNDARY d
WETLAND
WLB'
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
fJ!L1111l? DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• •• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
•• • CLEARING
t < FL-OW DIRECTION
TB -- TOP OF BANK
_ WE_.._ EDGE OF WATER
PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
-=' NG--- NATURAL GROUND
- - P4- - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
. EASEMENT
-PDE-- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-•EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-.EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-••- 0 ••-••-••- WATER SURFACE
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIG11`4AYS
CURRITUCK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.10-10501 (B-3445)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH.
SHEET A OF'7 8/28/0'
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT

(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
0 SINGLE TREE
r!?L__r?L_?`Lrr?L WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
a
ROOTWAO
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN

-r
00+ZZ 'diS 3N1*1H01dW
WWI
I ?
LC) ti
01
'r
f ?-
LU

LL!
V
Q3
W
}
l

z
?.
Q
F v? v;
A
*

a
a
",w
41
z z a
0 o WO
Z x U o
.? U U
a ce,
C)
Ey U
5 ° p,
co w
F
O o
V1
Gk; G r, L ,
Q

?-i
04
> i

a C
W
a U ,
a C)
? I.
a. a5 w
w x

(rfl
l?
k
L
K=
41
J J r-
J J Q
N-
V) O V) 41
W Z W U
F Q !- Q
OJ O4.
ZrLa:
w W W =3
0 3 O N
Lr)
?-
N
C.)
-
L11) t
O
N,
TB
ca
M o
o FA."
OS+gZ • z
bI S AlIHO1 V{N
Ilk;
w E-p
' j z M V o e U
+ maw
lp '?
i??- A A 0-, O W
If 3 I ; j ?? Q F
ui w z aka r
3 --
a
I' N
4, w U.
I I ?, L1J LL
Q I ;? ti
© owe ,r LL
L0 j w .
tV
zV)
?0 t i w
-i -J
i ' -- -- 1 LLJ
li
F Vow
in:n i I LL. N LL 3
Z LLIU
w
F- v F- Q
Ii z}- zcr
Ld 'I wW w7
0 V)
I L
w ? j j I ,? ?-J >r=a
V
i
.I j
tt?G`s w i? I i F-
O1 LW l ?OJ
-- - - .?
. °° w
°Qa
ui
09 0
N F O
1 LlJ
. IW
O LL
L o c Li
LL ?
00+ZZ *ViS 3NIIH3IVVLO
N

r
i r
T r 1
E r
i ,i
N t .
?-
LU i
lilt
V t ,0/
?-- •tL r
O? iir r
+ W I
co f a
Ltl ! ?r
LL 1 !
y f t l
W 1
j i
I 1
1 ? r
LU
i ?
4 i r
,
i
,
i
i
1
w
W
I
I
W
Vf r-!J
i
Lij i
-N t2
f ? j•
,
09+90 V1
3NI IHO.1 dW

I
V

0 x
?F
c? ,
F m o
F

x? E.

z
?? z >•
9 x 5 - c
zx u Suu

H

U o ?

rr pC
.a
>

P:. Z ( go

h
I,
a W WO ci
> 00
r
l
U il
?U F
w

N
ILA
z zcr

J J 1-
J
L? 4
V)
Vi0 VIW
W Z W U
F-Q FQ
O J O ti
z?- zct
ww wZ3
o? ova
p_vv
?I F-4

Z

?a
?
A
A
k
0 __;
LO -
C) -"a
r
CV
•
0
N
o to Ln
0 m
. NJ
OD - W ti
+ -p II
N 4- Cr
m >
II Ln LI
Q' m J
Q W
Q &J
I- N N W
In o
-oO )Q
W i- LJ rl- lr
C 7 4- Cr CD
O II
o u Z
CC M 39-- 3i::
co m'= W O
V r
(,>I NNL)U
M ^
.(r
lDLd
II Q
3 _
J J
WJ C!m
. L li
oF-- lL) F-
Q
CD II z
J
J J
o?
LOLn
0-
C)
0
O
lf)
ti
+
N
F-
d
J
I
(D
N

of
o
?
rn

CQ I
I
I 1
1
O
O
i
I z O
O
O I ? O
O j
+
(o
(NJ
+ I
Q0 I

C)
I

u
N >
I
l 0-
? i
I O
> 1
CL II J
I
I r F-
J 1 J
I Z
1
I
I I
i
0 0
<- N
I I
I 1 ??
1 1 ??
I I
1 I I ?
I I I
I 1 r
I i 1
I I 1
1
I I ?i
I ?
I I ?
O
I I F- 0
I Ll
I Z J> ^
I
I QO
10
?? d
cr L.iJ
I
?- t O lil Cr
1 0 F--
11 t 0
< L
1 J Ln
I F-- 0
I? +
I
1 N
U
i >

Ln I I
I r
I

? I
I
? I
I

t

O I ?
O
I i O I i
O
O
9-0
N
O
O
L
N
O
n
Q-
N
O
M
N
O
N
1
O
O
N
N

z wv o
O b
F rn a
•,
?? F MWW

WO
z x U -4
Soo U U
o
H 0 U ai W?

rz
w 0 AA??
o G
0.~
a0z
aA U aoW
U
E+
z
ri

w
? (fj]
P
".
w
a \w
U ?
? U
J
4 N

z
z 4

U v
r

U LU
W
_ > i

LO
r+

i
G G-'

LO
N

gl tnl OI tnl I
I
o t
I WO
W J
N (L
Z
f-
Q
J
a
Y
U o
O N
cc

...J I
C) I

N I
N t

I
r V
W Z
I
V)
N
W
gl tnl of tnl I
O
to
O
v
O
0
N
- O
0
0
0
N
O
M
O
Q
O
to
;r
z w:i L
Ey m L rO Q
E" M 2
yn t ~
v?,0„ U "'pWU
z x ? o
E?-t O U G
w 7
V
v? 4: W W U%t
p
? „ ? O O ?
A Cl U 0. O C9
C; W
ttj 'N
2 Ez N
t!? LL
LLIn
Ln

Z N
Z
Lr
lil
J II-
J
L.t_ Ln LL s.
Ln C) N W
LtJ Z W U
~ Q ~ Q
?
zz zC
WLt I WD
C)s ON
Z
© ?

V/ J
W
J
4

W
L, ,
..
U

Q V)
~
Z Q
U
N

O F-
m
W
2 >

S,

--

? I
r
Project No. 8.1040601 (B-3445)
Property Owner List
Site Parcel Name Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg
United States Department BOX 39
P
O
1 O of the Interior .
.
Knotts Island, NC 27950
Fish and Wildlife
i

N.C. DEF'Y'. OF TRANSY-011Tr' TION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CURRITUCK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1040,501 (B-2445)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH
L 8/24/0:
T L OF
.-
SHEE

N
O

Z z

F
O N O
c
H Q w
O Z m w
w m
U) ? O U
Q
Z = U o J

Y v CL
a
U- Z N °o Q p ?.
OO aC awn
F- U) D LU b LL
Z
O
W U -' O
O D Q O
U d d m
(
m
w

co

LL

Cl)
CL

CL >

cli

G
r
c0> .

v Q

'6
C) U
`i N

U
U
tlf R{
N
U O
O O

4

? ? O Lo ? O t
C) } }

d N

? ?
O O
U L v

c U
w
a
m ?
? o
o co
d L
Q U
?
to c c
_
Y-
O
U .?? ?
E Q
a w U

W o
?
o
a ?
CO

w X
w
U
Q -
lL
v
o
N co
E
I-

?
V 6 0
?
co
C ?

p

O
? O
LL

N
?
L I{1
L O

? m m

? c
W

Q LL ?
U

O
f.' O
. N ?

N d
O
O
lL N v p O

d
? W
0 W
O W
c? W
? J
a
O
? co co m m
J co O co
O CU O CO ?
r O O N LC ) N O N M N
(n LL
.- N
J O N
J O N
J O N
J O
N O

L Z m

011742
?TydAS?Nj'y
J
Vww ?• i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 20, 2001
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy. 24
Hestron Plaza 11
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attention: Mr. Bill Arrington
Subject: CAMA Major Permit Application for Proposed Replacement of Bridge
No. 7 over Corey's Ditch on NC 615 in Currituck County; Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-615(1); State Project 8.104060 1, TIP No. B-3445,
Division 1.
Dear Mr. Arrington:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 7 over Corey's Ditch on NC 615, 2.3 mi north of the intersection of NC 615 and SR 1255, in
Currituck County. The project is located in an Area of Environmental Concern in Currituck
County, a county under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). The
project has been described in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) Action Classification Form signed by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) July 17, 2000. The project is being processed as a
CE in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The let date for this project is August 2002.
Project Description
Bridge No. 7 exists as a 4 span, 95 ft long structure with two 11 ft lanes. There are 4 ft
wide timber sidewalks outside the concrete bridge rail to accommodate pedestrians and fishing
from the bridge. There are also paved parking areas both east and west of the bridge. Currently,
Corey's ditch is not navigable due to the height of the bridge. NCDOT proposes to replace
Bridge No. 7 with a 180 ft long structure with two 12 ft lanes with 6 ft shoulders. A 5 ft wide
pedestrian walkway with railing will be provided on each side of the bridge. The shoulders of
the approaches beyond the guardrail will be paved for 100 ft on all four quadrants to
accommodate vehicle parking. The project length is approximately 900 ft long with approach
work for 450 ft east of the existing bridge and 450 ft west. At the request of Currituck County,
the elevation of the bridge will be raised 2.3 ft to allow small boats to utilize this waterway.
This section of NC 615 is designated a bicycle route. NC 615 is the only roadway access
between the state of Virginia and Knotts Island, the small community located on the southern
end of the peninsula. Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge borders Bridge No. 7 to the south
and Back Bay borders the bridge to the north.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
1
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge in stages. A portion of the existing
bridge will be demolished while maintaining one lane for two-way traffic on the remaining
portion. Once the new structure is sufficient to maintain one lane for two-way traffic, the
remainder of the existing structure will be removed and the remainder of the new structure
constructed. The proposed bridge will be a pre-stressed cored slab bridge and will have 4 bents
with two bents being over the water. The piles will be driven. The bridge will be widened to the
south due to erosion that is occurring to the north on the approaches adjacent to the bay. Other
alternates involving on-site detours were eliminated due to increased environmental impacts and
high construction costs. An off-site detour is not available, as the only other access to Knotts
Island is by ferry. The condition and age of the bridge will not allow Bridge No. 7 to be
rehabilitated. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ), the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Mackay Island National
Wildlife Refuge concur with the alternate chosen by NCDOT.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Bridge No. 7 is composed of timber caps and piles supporting a reinforced concrete slab
on continuous 1-beams. Demolition of the bridge may result in temporary impacts from the
resulting fill of potentially 56.8 yds3. This project falls into the Case 2 category as identified in
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Case 2 specifies
that there is "no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas."
There will be permanent impacts to waters of the United States due to the proposed
project. Permit drawings of the wetland and stream impacts are attached.
The wetland community is a low salinity, brackish marsh complex. The vegetation
consisted of primarily emergent grasses such as black needlerush, (Juncus roemerianus), salt
grass (Distichlis spicata), giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), saltmarsh cordgrass (S.
patens), narrow-leaved cat-tail (Typha angustifolia), giant plumegrass (Erianthus gigantea), and
common reed (Pragmites communis). From Station -L- 20+50 Lt to 23+28 (Sheet 3 of 8 and 4 of
8), south of NC 615 and east of the bridge, 0.07 ac of wetlands will be impacted due to
excavation. From Station -L- 25+08 Lt to 28+50 (Sheet 4 of 8 and 5 of 8), south of NC 615 and
west of the bridge, 0.128 ac of wetlands will be impacted due to excavation. A total of 0.205 ac
of wetlands will be impacted permanently by this project.. Where excavation takes place, fill will
placed so that there are proper materials to construct on. Erosion will be controlled by sheet
pilings and silt fences.
Waters of Back Bay will be permanently impacted due to the proposed project. From
Station -L- 20+50 Lt to 23+28 28 (Sheet 3 of 8 and 4 of 8), north of NC 615 and east of the
bridge, 0.17 ac of surface waters will be impacted due to excavation. From Station -L- 25+08 Lt
to 28+50 (Sheet 4 of 8 and 5 of 8), located north of NC 615 and west of the bridge, 0.186 ac of
surface waters will be impacted due to excavation. A total of 0.356 ac of the bay will be
impacted permanently by this project. Where excavation takes place, fill will placed so that there
are proper materials to construct on. Erosion will be controlled by sheet pilings and silt fences.
The excavation is necessary in order to stabilize the slopes on the bay-side of the bridge.
Stormwater Management
Bridge deck drains will not be installed with the replacement of the bridge, therefore,
water will not be directly discharged into the stream. Instead, boxes off of each end of the bridge

will discharge water onto the installed rip rap which will dissipate the energy of the water. Sheet
flow is the primary form of stormwater management for this project. NCDOT is coordinating
with Bill Moore of DWQ's Stormwater Management Unit in order to obtain Stormwater
Certification if one is necessary.
Section 4(f)
Bridge No. 7 is located within the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge. Since this
project has minor involvement with a wildlife and waterfowl refuge and meets the criteria set
forth in the Federal Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f). A programmatic Section 4 (f) Evaluation and
correspondence with Mackay National Wildlife Refuge is available in Section XI of the CE
document.
Protected Species
The NCDOT has reviewed the listing of federally-protected species for Currituck
County. No new species have been added since the completion of the CE document. In the CE,
the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris frsheri) was listed as a Threatened
species in Currituck County, however, this species is no longer listed as a protected species in
this county. Therefore, no federally protected species will be impacted as a result of this project.
Environmental Commitments
As part of construction, NCDOT reiterates its environmental commitments that are
detailed in the CE document.
• NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
• NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
• NCDOT will utilize the USFWS construction guidelines regarding manatee habitat.
• To avoid adverse impacts to spawning populations of fish species at this site, no in-water
work will be conducted between March 31 and September 30.
• NCDOT will obtain a Special Use Permit from Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge,
USFWS.
• NCDOT will notify the United States Coast Guard (USCG) prior to construction of the
project.
• NCDOT will ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
• NCDOT will avoid the use of wetlands for borrow/waste areas and prior to the use of these
areas, a 401 Certification will be obtained from DWQ.
Avoidance and Minimization
Bridge No. 7 will be replaced in stages so that no temporary on-site detour will be
necessary in order to avoid greater impacts to wetlands and the bay. The bridge is being raised
in elevation and widened. Therefore, fill slopes will be wider, not allowing further minimization
of wetland impacts. The elevation increase is at the request of Currituck County in order to
allow small boat passage. Most of the widening will be to the south, towards the coastal
wetlands within Mackay National Wildlife Refuge, due to erosion that is occurring to the north
on the approaches adjacent to the bay.

Compensatory Mitigation
There will be 0.205 ac of unavoidable loss of marsh due to the subject project. NCDOT
proposes 0.158 ac of 1:1, "in-kind" on-site mitigation due to the lengthening of the bridge. The
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 7 will lengthen the bridge from 95 ft to 180 ft. Existing
causeway and rip rap will be removed and it will be graded down to an elevation which supports
black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), giant cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides), and saltmarsh cordgrass (S. patens), restoring an area of 0.158 ac of wetlands.
At the October 16, 2001 on-site field meeting, several options for mitigation for the
remaining 0.047 ac of impacts were discussed. These options are listed below.
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge has a long-term plan to place a series of pipes along
the causeway to help restore marsh hydrology, however they are only in the planning phase,
researching the most strategic pipe positions. DCM, USFWS, and the Wildlife Resource
Commission (WRC) all agreed that the placement of equalizer pipes by NCDOT could be
used to make up the remaining mitigation needed. Coordination between Mackey Island
National Wildlife Refuge and NCDOT will determine the feasibility of this option, as well as
cost.
2. The bridge is being lengthened from 95 ft to 180 ft. The bridge could be lengthened an
additional 26 ft approximately, in order to restore an additional 0.047 ac of wetlands by
removal of existing causeway. Lengthening the bridge would require changes to the design
of the bridge replacement and additional cost.
NCDOT can debit from Ballance Farm mitigation site in Currituck County to mitigate for
the remaining 0.047 ac of impacts to wetlands. The site is located on Poyer Road (SR 1232)
north of Sligo, North Carolina and adjacent to Tull Creek. The property was originally a 469
acre site out of which NCDOT purchased 430 acres. The mitigation site consisted of 297
acres of agricultural fields, 50 acres of tidal marsh, 51 acres of forested wetland, 5.3 acres of
forested uplands, and 26 acres of roads and ditches. It was designed to mitigate for the
widening of NC 168 (TIP Project R-2228); the project includes the creation of coastal marsh
wetland and the preservation of forested wetlands and forested upland areas. A ledger of
mitigation at this site has been attached to this letter. Mitigation Activities at the site are
described in a document entitled "Mitigation Plan, Ballance Farm Site, NC 168 Widening,
Currituck County" dated April 1996. Initial construction was completed in late 1998 and the
site was planted and monitoring gauges installed in early 1999. The marsh area was
replanted in June of 2000. NCDOT believes that the coastal marsh wetland creation of this
site offers "in-kind" mitigation.
Permits
Based on the impacts described, NCDOT requests that the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) issue a CAMA Major Permit. The NCDOT believes that a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 23 issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be
applicable for the described impacts. Activities authorized by a CAMA major permits will
require written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality. Because Mackay Island
National Wildlife Refuge is being impacted, a Special Use Permit will need to be acquired from
USFWS as well. A copy of this application serves as an application for 404 and 401 permits.
The subject project will not require an individual permit from the USCG. Corey's Ditch at the
site of the bridge meets the criteria for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, CFR,
Section It 5.70, however, NCDOT is required to notify the USCG when construction begins
(Correspondence from USCG dated June 5, 2000).
A permit application and a check in the amount of $250.00 is enclosed to cover the
CAMA processing fee. The adjacent property owner has been notified of this permit request. A
copy of the letter sent to the property owner and certified mail receipts are attached. The signed
return receipt from this property owner will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. Thank you
for your assistance. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms.
Jill Holmes of my staff at [phone], extension 332.
Sincerely,

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
o Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Doug Huggett, NCDCM
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE, Washington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
Ms. Suzanne Baird, USFWS, Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Northside
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E. FHWA
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. D.R. Conner, P.E., Division I Engineer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 14, 2001
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 39
Knotts Island, N.C. 27950
Attention: Ms. Suzanne Baird, Refuge Manager
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Currituck County, Replacement of Bridge No. 7 on NC 615 over Corey's Ditch, TIP B-
3445; State Project No. 8.1040601; Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-615(1).
Dear Ms. Baird;
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 7
over Corey's Ditch on NC 615 near Knotts Island in Currituck County. The proposed action will involve
replacing the existing 95 ft long bridge with a 180 ft long structure with two 12 ft lanes with 6 ft shoulders.
A 5 ft wide pedestrian walkway with railing will be provided on each side of the bridge. The shoulders of
the approaches beyond the guardrail will be paved for 100 ft on all four quadrants to accommodate vehicle
parking. The elevation of the bridge will be raised 2.3 ft to allow small boats to utilize this waterway.
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge in stages so that an on-site detour will not be required
The new structure will be wider than the existing bridge. To facilitate the wider structure at a
raised elevation, NCDOT proposes to excavate about 0.205 ac in the coastal wetland adjacent to the present
structure and about 0.356 ac of surface water in Back Bay. Permits from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (DCM), the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality, is required for this work. These permits are being obtained by the NCDOT. Because the
refuge is located at the site where these permits are required, a copy of the permit application has been
provided for your review. This letter notifies you of NCDOT's proposed project as required by DCM.
NCDOT will be contacting you concerning a Special Use Permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service for
the proposed project in the future.
If you have any questions, please contact your CAMA representative, or call Jill J. Holmes, with
NCDOT, at [phone] ext. 332.
Sincerely,
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

m
w
c >
n. o

'
m
w
,...Q:
> r-
N LO
rh
a' o
H
0
0
W
Q E c`oo m
O
4 N
N
Q

0 Q
c LO
a CV
N
H N
a.
N
O
w

O)
c
'
m
N
c 00 0 Lo
m
w Ln
m
m 0 O

00
d
U
N
a
rn

m
N

N U')
M
m
O m
(0 U)
O
m Cl)
O
Cl)
C')
N
U
Q
r
c r

d U)
f0
CO
v
o
U7
LO

N

cl > co

oi
M
U
Q

O

LL
C
O

cu C
,O
p

m O
O

f0

m

=

j
SEE INSET
BELOW

BEGIN PROJECT
8-3445
END PROJECT
B-3445
VA
Back ,•.T _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._._. ??-N C
?c,
Bay , '?
_,%_W? •
KNOTTS ISLAND
Y
•
MACKAY ISLAND
615
NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
.
.
I
p MACKAY '
•
ISLAND '-'•
•
SCALE
.5 0 1 Mile .
LEGEND
--•WLB ---- WETLAND BOUNDARY
XXXXX
LIVE STAKES
WETLAND
WLB'
® DEN07ES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • CLEARING
?- E- FLOW DIRECTION
- TB - TOP OF BANK
-••-•WE-••- EDGE OF WATER
C-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
-- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
-= NG--- NATURAL GROUND
-- P?--- PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-.EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
......
••-••-••- WATER SURFACE
CURRITUCK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1040601 (B-3445)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH
SHEET OF ?2 `! 8/ 27 / 01
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
0 SINGLE TREE
-?`ti-r^Lr"ti ?? WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAO
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
00+ZZ 'ViS 3N13H:)1dIN
w? o w
W I I !?
?I !
i In
m !
w I s ?_ I t o w
I II I !
? ! w
O w ( J ! o w
W i ?zl z I e m
w I I w v
! I I i CO
7 I
w ! I w
r !
WI I I
i
y y C) w i w
N
w j? w
1
' I
i
i
1
z?
uo
r-?
W W
u W N W
Lo ON
UJ
W
a as
3
WZ WU
tna Na
W.J WLL
Z3 zV)

O
LO
O
Y J
N
09+92 ?dl S 3NIIHOl dW
W I IJ-w
? ? w
W
I
I w
1
V1 w
I
I
o
W
-? o W
w
V
?
?
•
3 °
w w w
?3
4i W W
} ? o0 0

LO 0
w p o
a
O
N /
I w
'
?
I ; I
Ts /" w I I I I I w

/ I'

I
J
I
? i I

I m
W i?
?
I Y
w Q

DI I I I i w
5
GOR?? ko
E %

w
a°o
Ci
o

o
W W o
o°o

o
I00
° w
00
0 00

,e co
N w

0
CL

I

SI
a
! °-

?

T

Q
?
J-3
w
a w

g
Q

i I w
c`
. w
w j
7
LL
OO+ZZ 'diS 3NIIHOldIN
a
z?
r?
W WN
N
W W
O O N
F ~ ?
a aW
> >Q
U VI U;
W Z W U
N Q N C
W -? W W
Z i Z N
O ? O ?
0
Lf)
0
N
o "
z
O
.. O
N ? .
E- ;w
y
a
ro W,
01, z F 90 00
_ O O a A 0 a.
z
O a o ?, o
>
E w.. U p; W LO
L? ? I 3 v? a a? F
I W
-0/ 0/ W N
W
O W N
O W ? ?i I W W
+
71 co/ z z
N O N
W aW
a
Lfj Y a a a
a U N V 3
r
La z L)
'' ' NQ NQ
J l
a
W ow o?
Z 3 Z N
pz OWZ
LLJ
W
W v
W ;m ) F
m
} ?m
1 1-4
j = 41, W
W W j
S9ZIV
1 S 3N11HO1 dW
0
LO
o
LO
N
x
.,
c °A
E-
aa H Mz
°-I ?I of u,l °I z o e
p o a An
w > v Oa az o
l i d A m Oa w
?I a S
I z a ca
go =
`W Z I W
JI °
v=i a I Ln
v
? w N
r w
Q N
J
a o ?
v \L
u w
U
° 0 N
OD
00 N M O O N
r cr
a aw
a as
/ N X O X W
N Q N Q
I W J W 4
J I @ o w zLA
O_ Z ? Z
' p Z p Z
I
+ ------ - ?- - - o 7-1
N I
N Z
c+i ? ®
10-4
I E=1 Do
\ fV
\ O
M
W
W O W
W
Q J
Q W
U
I N Q
U
J N
r U O Q
w 2 I
Na Ln r J
( o
N r
¢ ¢
O w
S >
I O O
N '-
I
I
I
of NI of ?I oI O O
O LO
? m
U) C v o
L
c
c
W U
v
m ?
io c
m r
cc U
°?
Ul
V c c
'y m a ? o
Q E
w
a u

OC c
0

Q
? m co
Ci
3 X ° o 0
W W
U
Q
c
LL
U
(n E p
d -
H

C p O

LL v
? cE
}
C O ?
m O
Q LL Z

N C L
CO) C
L C
p

U ?
Q
N N
o
CC
L i c
Co 'a P,
, OD
N
Q >
N O
p
N
d X 3 O O O
W c

z

Z
Q N

LL C
J
w (C
n Z c
°
3 )

N
C D
c ? ? O
LL m

N
W
W
W
W
m

_N
s 0 0 0 O Q
2 U) _
Q m ~
m m m m

J co
J 0 OD
(_ 0
O LO C} O } N } CO L}

p +
N co
N +
N o
N +
N °
N
+
N co
N
LL O O O O
J J J "' J
? O
Z
Project No. 8.1040601 (B-3445)
Property Owner List
Site Parcel Name Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg
United States Department
P.O. BOX 39
1 1O of the Interior
Knotts Island, NC 27950
Fish and Wildlife
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CURRITUCK COUNTY
PROJECT: 81040601 (B-3445) .
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO.7 OVER COREYS DITCH
SHEET 4 OF! 8/24/01
FORM DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name N.C Dept. of Transportation
Address 1548 Mail Service Center
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27699-1548 Day Phone [phone]
Fax _(919) 733-9794
b. Authorized Agent:
Name
Address
City State
Zip Day Phone
Fax
C. Project name (if any) TIP. No. B-3445
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Currituck
b. City, town, community or landmark
Knotts Island, NC
C. Street address or secondary road number
NC 615
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
river, creek sound, bay) Back Bay, Core
Ditch
3. DESCRIPTION & PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
and excavation and/or filling activities.
Bridge Construction: Existing; location over
Corey's Ditch
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both?
New Work
C. Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
methods of construction and daily operations
of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages. Purpose: to
replace degrading Bridge No. 7 over Corey's
Ditch at the existing location to provide safer
and more efficient traffic operations.
Methods of construction: Staged construction
Revised 03/95
FORM DCM-MP-1
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
4: LAND AND WATER n/a
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 2.3 ac
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
b. Size of individual lot(s) n/a waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW effluent, "wash down", and residential
or NWL 5.0 discharges.) Surface runoff
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
see pg. 5 of the CE
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
e. Vegetation on tract n/a
Marsh grass (see pg 8&9 of the CE)
f.. Man-made features now on tract Parking_
along roadway, wood foot bridges on both
sides of the bridge 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land In addition to the completed application form, the
use plan.) following items must be submitted:
X Conservation Transitional
Developed _ Community * A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
Rural Other other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
h. How is the tract zoned by local government? claiming to be the owner of said property, then
Agriculture forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the from the owner to carry out the project.
applicable zoning? X Yes _ No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable.) * An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment ink on an 8 1/2" by 1 l" white paper. (Refer to
been done for the tract? X Yes No Coastal Resources Commission Rule 710203 for a
If yes, by whom? SHPO detailed description.)
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes -No
Coastal (marsh) X Other _
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
(Attach documentation, if available)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95
FORM DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
number, landmarks, and the like.
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
* A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name see sheet 8 of 8 of permit drawings
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
* A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
* A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
A statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described
in the application. The project will be subject to
conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
tl
This is the Z° day of /IJD
Print Name -- William D. Gilmore, P.E.
?. L? • ?-Jli?z?!
Signature/ , 4?
Landowner or uthorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
_ DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
- DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-2
EXCAVATION
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average Final
Existing Project
Length Width Depth Depth
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shoreline
stabilization)
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 2170 CY
b. Type of material to be excavated Local material
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? X Yes _ No
d. High ground excavation in cubic yards None
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area upland area
b. Dimensions of disposal area The contractor will be
responsible for the disposal area.
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes No
If yes, where? N/A
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands If yes,.
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands? (1) Amount of material to be placed in the
Yes X No water
(2) Dimensions of fill area same as excavation
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water? 0.356
Yes X No (3) Purpose of fill to fill with proper materials
for road construction where excavated
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION N/A
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead X Riprap
b. Length 500 ft
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
7ft
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
14 ft
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area same as
excavation: 0.205ac
(2) Purpose of fill to fill with proper
materials for road construction where
excavated
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
N/A
(Source of information)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material Rock Plating
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap 390 CY
(2) Bulkhead backfill N/A
h. Type of fill material Rock Plating
i. Source of fill material Contractor will supply if
needed.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
. X Yes No
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? silt fence, sheet piling inlet
protection
b. What type of construction equipment will be used (for
example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
backhoe, bulldozer, crane
c. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
NCDOT - TIP No. B-3445
App 'canto =e
Signature
Date

Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major (4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all removed? (Explain)
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to
this proposed project.
g. Length of proposed bridge 180 ft
1. BRIDGES
h. Width of proposed bridge 40 ft
a. Public X Private
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material) 2.7 ft to 6.7 ft
Concrete deck slab bridge with steel piles and
post and beam bents j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge If yes, explain
Corey's Ditch
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL 17 ft at mean tide level
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? Low chord raised 2.3 ft from existing bridge
_X _ Yes No clearance will vary due to tidal influence
If yes, 1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 96 ft reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 22 ft opening? X Yes No
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing If yes, explain will increase opening allowing
bridge n/a small boat passage.
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) all
Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
M. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? X Yes No
If yes, explain proposed structure will cross
existing wetlands south of the existing location
n. Have you contacted the U. S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
X Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
see Appendix of the CE
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
j. Will the.proposed culvert affect existing navigation
2. CULVERTS potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
b. Number of culverts proposed
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
C. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
X Yes No
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge? If yes,
Yes No (1) Length of area to be excavated 470 ft
If yes, (2) Width of area to be excavated 22 ft
(1) Length of existing bridge (3) Depth of area to be excavated 5.7 ft
(2) Width of existing bridge (4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing yards 2170 CY
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
removed? (Explain) require any excavation within:
X Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 670 ft
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert? (2) Width of area to be excavated 12 ft
Yes No (3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
If yes, yards 2240 CY
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above require any highground excavation?
the MHW or NWL Yes X No
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be If yes,
removed? (Explain) (1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
f. Length of proposed culvert
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
g. Width of proposed culvert any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the (to be determined by contractor)
MHW or NWL (2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
(to be determined by contractor)
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow? (3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes No Yes X No
If yes, explain If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Revised 03/95
PTorm DCM-MP-S
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes - No N/A
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above. n/a
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above. n/a
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? X Yes _ No
If yes, explain in detail telephone, power lines
and fiberoptic lines
Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
_ Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? Yes X No
MHW or NWL? Yes X No If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
-Coastal Wetlands - SAVs - Other Wetlands
If yes, (only where excavated)
(1) Length of area to be filled n/a
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? Yes X
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled _
(2) Width of area to be filled _
(3) Purpose of fill
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
if yes, explain in detail
See attached permit application for details.
No
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Sheet Piling, silt fence;
NCDOT Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Guidelines will be followed.
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? backhoes, bulldozer, crane, and other
necessary equipment to replace bridge
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail
Rock plate for stabilization
NCDOT - TIP No. B-3445
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
/! 2p 7-c1-o /
Date
Revised 03/95

0

Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application Form
QG
For Section 404 and/or Section 10 Nationwide, Regional and General Permits, Section 401
General Water Quality Certifications, and Riparian Buffer and Watershed Buffer Rules
This form is to be used for projects qualifying for any of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
Nationwide, Regional or General Permits as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and for the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(DWQ) associated General 401 Water Quality Certifications. This form is also to be used for any
project requiring approval under any Riparian Buffer Rules implemented by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality. This form should not be used if you are requesting an Individual 404 Permit or Individual 401
Water Quality Certification. The USACE Individual Permit application form is available online at
littp://www.saw.usace.amiy.miI/wetlands/Penn app.htm.
The USACE is the lead regulatory agency. To review the requirements for the use of Nationwide,
Regional or General permits, and to determine which permit applies to your project, please go to the
USACE website at http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/regtour.htm, or contact one of the field
offices listed at the end of this application. The website also lists the responsible project manager for
each county in North Carolina and provides additional information regarding the identification and
regulation of wetlands and waters of the U.S.
The DWQ issues a corresponding Certification (General or Individual), and cannot tell the applicant
which 401 Certification will apply until the 404 Permit type has been determined by the USACE.
Applicants are encouraged to visit DWQ's 401/Wetlands Unit website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands to read about current requirements for the 401 Water Quality
Certification Program and to determine whether or not Riparian Buffer Rules are applicable. The
applicant is also advised to read the full text of the General Certification (GC) matching the specific 404
Permit requested. In some cases, written approval for some General Certifications is not required,
provided that the applicant adheres to all conditions of the GC. Applicants lacking access to the internet
should contact DWQ's Central Office in Raleigh at [phone].
Trout Waters Coordination - Special coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is also required for projects occurring in any of North Carolina's twenty-five
counties that contain trout waters. In such cases, the applicant should contact the appropriate NCWRC
regional coordinator (listed by county on the last page of this application).
Page 1 of 12
CAMA Coordination - If the project occurs in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on
the last page of this application) the applicant should also contact the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) at [phone]. DCM will determine whether or not the project involves a
designated Area of Environmental Concern, in which case DCM will act as the lead permitting agency.
In such cases, DCM will require a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit and will coordinate
the 404/401 Permits.
USACE Permits - Submit one copy of this form, along with supporting narratives, maps, data forms,
photos, etc. to the applicable USACE Regulatory Field Office (addresses are listed at the end of this
application). Upon receipt of an application, the USACE will determine if the application is complete as
soon as possible, not to exceed 30 days. This PCN form is designed for the convenience of the applicant
to address information needs for all USACE Nationwide, Regional or General permits, as well as
information required for State authorizations, certifications, and coordination. Fully providing the
information requested on this form will result in a complete application for any of the USACE
Nationwide, Regional or General permits. To review the minimum amount of information that must be
provided for a complete PCN for each USACE Nationwide permit, see Condition 13, 65 Fed.Reg. 12893
(March 9, 2000), available at http://www.saw.usace.armv.mil/wetlands/nwpfinalFedReg_pdf.
Processing times vary by permit and begin once the application has been determined to be complete.
Please contact the appropriate regulatory field office for specific answers to permit processing periods.
401 Water Quality Certification or Buffer Rules - All information is required unless otherwise stated
as optional. Incomplete applications will be returned. Submit seven collated copies of all USACE
Permit materials to the Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetlands Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. If written approval is required or specifically requested for a 401
Certification, then a non-refundable application fee is required. In brief, if project impacts include less
than one acre of cumulative wetland/water impacts and less than 150 feet cumulative impacts to
streams, then a fee of $200 is required. If either of these thresholds is exceeded, then a fee of $475 is
required. A check made out to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, with the specific name of
the project or applicant identified, should be stapled to the front of the application package. For more
information, see the DWQ website at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/fees.htm1. The fee must be
attached with the application unless the applicant is a federal agency in which case the check may be
issued from a separate office. In such cases, the project must be identifiable on the U.S. Treasury check
so that it can be credited to the appropriate project. If written approval is sought solely for Buffer Rules,
the application fee does not apply, and the applicant should clearly state (in a cover letter) that only
Buffer Rule approval is sought in writing. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. may not be impacted prior to
issuance or waiver of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Upon receipt of a complete application
for a 401 Certification, the Division of Water Quality has 60 days to prepare a written response to the
applicant. This may include a 401 Certification, an on-hold letter pending receipt of additional
requested information, or denial.
Page 2 of 12
Office Use Only: 1 17 4 2 Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: M
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent'has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 12
III. Project Information
5.
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project:
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3445
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Currituck Nearest Town: Knotts Island, NC
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From the fem from Currituck to
Knotts Island, go north on NC 615 heading towards the Virginia state line Bridge No 7 is
located over Corey's Ditch with the north side of the bridge bordering Back Bav The south
side of the bridge borders Mackay National Wildlife Refuge
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N36° 32.43' W750 58.36'
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
lists the
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
State highway, wooden foot bridges on both sides of the bridge, paved parking area for
fishing off the bridge, Back Bay, coastal marsh
7. Property size (acres): Approximately 2.3 ac
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Corey's Ditch, Back Bay
9. River Basin: Pasauotank
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://112o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work:_ Bridge replacement (public transportation
project)
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: construction equipment
to replace bridge including backhoe, bulldozer, crane
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project:_ National Wildlife Refuge: coastal
marsh
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the OSACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application:
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 5 of 12
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
20+50 Lt - 23+28 excavation 0.077 yes adjacent Coastal marsh
25+08 Lt - 28+50 excavation 0.128 yes adjacent Coastal marsh

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at I-800-358-9616, or
online at http://N%,x%x%.fema.eoN.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 5.4 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.205
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.2ov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., '.vww.topozone.com,
wxyNy.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
Page 6 of 12
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

(acres)
(if Name p Waterbody
applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
20+50Rt - 23+28 excavation 0.17 Back bay bay
25+08Rt - 28+50 excavation 0.186 Back bay bay

(potential impacts) bridge demolition 56.7yd3 Corey's Ditch canal joining Back Bay and
(temporary) the N. Landing River

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding. drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream F? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g.,. livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Bridge No. 7 will be replaced in stapes so that no temporarv on-site detour will be necessarv
in order to minimize impacts to wetlands and the bay. The bridge is being raised in elevation
and widened and therefore fill slopes will be wider. The elevation increase is at the request of
Currituck County in order to allow small boat passage. Most of the widening will be to the
south, towards the coastal wetlands within Mackay National Wildlife Refugee due to erosion that
is occurring to the north on the approaches adjacent to the bay.
Page 7 of 12
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
See attached cover letter under "Compensato Mitigation"
Page 8 of 12
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No El
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No F
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 9 of 12
Identify the square feet
mitigation is required
multipliers.
and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
-alculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Lone ? extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Impervious area will slightly increase due to increasing the paved parkin areas provided for
fishing off the pedestrian bridge and from widening the bridge Impervious surfaces will
increase approximately 0.02 ac. NCDOT BMP's for the protection of surface waters will be
followed throughout project construction. Bridge deck drains will not be installed so that water
is not directly discharged into the stream.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Page 10 of 12
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
NCDOT has committed to conducting no in-water work between March 31 and September 30 in
order to avoid negative impacts to spawning populations of fish species at this project site.
C.
Applicant/Agent's Agnature / Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
1") . ??•
20L:1 /
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page 11 of 12
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
US Fish and Wildlife Service / National Marine Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh Field Office Asheville Field Office Habitat Conservation Division
Post Office Box 33726 160 Zillicoa Street Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Asheville, NC 28801 Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 12 of 12

NC 615 ®> 1742
Currituck County
Bridge No. 7 over Corey's Ditch
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-615(1)
State Project 8.1040601
T.I.P. No. B-3445
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
And
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date 'N Williai D. Gilm , P.E., Manager
V Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
0-
71ig1&)W
Date ' holas L. Graf, P.E.
,vision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
..
. 4

NC 615
Currituck County
Bridge No. 7 over Corey's Ditch
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-615(1)
State Project 8.1040601
T.I.P. No. B-3445
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
And
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
July 2000
Documentation Prepared by Carter & Burgess, Inc.
Wesley . Staffor .
Senior ransporta ion Engineer
Thomas K. Go in, P.E.
Transportation nit Manager
CAROB "''•,?
ip'oOaSSIpN
q SEAL
: 19007
s •. 01 Nt •FkO:
. ray •......••• •
vii
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stacy B. Harris, P.E.
Project Manger
Consulting Engineering Unit
? t
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
t Nov? 8
NC 615
Currituck County
Bridge No. 7 over Corey's Ditch
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-615(1)
State Project 8.1040601
T.I.P. No. B-3445
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the
following special. commitments have been agreed to. by NCDOT:
Division
• in order to avoid negative impacts to spawning populations of fish species at this project
site, no in-water work will be conducted between March 31 and September 30.
• NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
• NCDOT will utilize the USFWS construction guidelines regarding manatee habitat.
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet
July 2000

NC 615
Currituck County
Bridge No. 7 over Corey's Ditch
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-615(1)
State Project 8.1040601
T.I.P. No. B-3445
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 7 is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 31.5 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge has an estimated remaining life of five
(5) years. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 615 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector on the Statewide Functional
Classification System. This section of NC 615 is a designated bicycle route, NC
Bicycling Highway-North Line Trace, Map G-10. The speed limit along NC 615 is posted
at 45 miles (72.5 kilometers) per hour.
Bridge No. 7 is located on NC 615 approximately 2.3 miles (3.7 kilometers) north of
the junction of NC 615 with SR 1255. NC 615 provides the only roadway access
between the state of Virginia and Knotts Island, a small community located on the
southern end of the peninsula. Mackay Island Natural Wildlife Refuge borders the
bridge to the south and Back Bay borders the bridge to the north.
Bridge No. 7 is a two-lane structure, built in 1936 (Figures 3 and 4), with timber caps
and piles supporting a reinforced concrete slab on continuous I-beams. The bridge
consists of four spans totaling 95 feet (29 meters) in length. The deck width is 25.2 feet
(7.7 meters) with a clear roadway width of 22 feet (6.7 meters). A raised curb width of
five inches (0.1 meters) is located at the edge of the 11-foot (3.4-meter) lane on both
sides of the bridge. A concrete bridge rail runs along both sides of the bridge. The
current posted weight limit is 15 tons (13.6 metric tons) for single vehicles and 22 tons
(20 metric tons) for truck-tractors and semi-trailers.
In 1980, timber sidewalks, four feet (1.2 meters) wide with timber railings, were
constructed outside the concrete bridge rail. The public uses the walkways primarily for
fishing from the bridge. A fishing notice (for fishing in the Mackay Island National
Wildlife Refuge), warning of the need for a permit, allowable limits and maximum fine, is
posted at the northeast approach.
, i , .
Near the bridge, NC 615 is a two-lane facility with 19 feet (5.7 meters) of pavement. The
shoulders of the roadway, on the east and west sides of the bridge, are paved to
accommodate parked vehicles near the bridge. Existing right of way is 50 feet (15
meters) wide with no control of access.
The bridge inspection report indicates a serious problem with erosion on the northern
bank, which runs along an expanse of open water. Corey's Ditch, which flows under
the bridge is tidal and is currently not navigational with a clearance of 0.5 feet (0.15
meters) under the bridge at high tide.
The eastbound approach to the bridge has a mild reverse curve. The westbound
approach is tangent. The roadway grade on NC 615 is relatively flat on both sides of
the bridge. The height of the bridge above the canal bed measured from the top of the
rail is 16 feet (4.9 meters) with a canal depth of nine feet (2.7 meters).
The 1999 traffic volume was approximately 1,400 vehicles per day (vpd) on NC 615.
The traffic volumes are expected to increase to 2,100 vpd by the year 2025. The
projected volume includes one-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two-
percent dual-tired vehicles (Duals).
Multiple utility lines, both aerial and underground, parallel NC 615 along both sides of
the bridge. Aerial cables include telephone and electrical power lines. A buried phone
cable with conduit is attached to the structure on the north side.
During the period of January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997, there were no accidents in
the project area.
Four (4) school buses cross Bridge No. 7 four times daily, for a total of 16 school bus
trips per day. Bridge No. 7 is also used for school-related activity trips and serves as
the evacuation route for residents of Knotts Island and students at the elementary
school.
ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure will provide a 24-foot (7.2-meter) travel way with six-foot (1.8
meter) shoulders for a clear roadway width of 36 feet (11 meters) (see Figure 2). A 7.5-
foot (2.2-meter) wide walkway with a 54-inch (1.4-meter) high outside rail will be
provided on each side of the bridge. A jersey type barrier, with a 22-inch (0.6 meter)
two-bar metal rail mounted on top will separate the roadway and walkways. The total
height of the inside railing will be 54-inches (1.4 meters) also to increase safety for
pedestrians and accommodate bicycle traffic. The proposed roadway approaches
consist of two, 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with eight-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders, including
four feet (1.2 meters) full depth paved. The shoulders of the roadway, on the east and
west sides of the bridge, beyond the guardrail, will be paved for 100 feet (30.5 meters)
to accommodate vehicles parking near the bridge. Required right-of-way is 60 feet (18.2
meters) with additional temporary construction easements as required.
2
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 170 feet (51.8 meters). The elevation of the new structure will
be approximately two feet (0.6 meters) higher than the existing structure. The length
and opening size of the proposed bridge may be increased or decreased as necessary
to accommodate peak flows as determined from a more detailed analysis during the
final design phase of the project.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
One (1) reasonable and feasible alternative was studied for this project (Figure 5)
Alternative A - consists of replacing the bridge at the existing location in stages. A
portion of the existing bridge will be demolished while maintaining, one-lane, two-way
traffic on the remaining portion. This will allow the new structure to be partially
constructed. Once the new structure is sufficient to allow one-lane, two-way traffic, the
remainder of the existing structure will be removed and the remainder of the new
structure constructed. Temporary traffic control signals will be required on both
approaches to the bridge during construction to control the one-lane, two-way traffic.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Studv
A "do-nothing" alternate would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge due to its
poor condition.. The "do-nothing" alternate is not prudent due to the essential traffic
service provided by NC 615 to Knotts Island.
Alternative N - consists of replacing the bridge at the existing location with an on-site
detour to the north. During construction, traffic would be maintained on a two-lane
temporary detour just north of the existing bridge. The temporary detour would be
approximately 700 feet (213.4 meters) in length and include a 24-foot (7.2-meter) wide,
95-foot (29-meter) long bridge. Embankment would be required in the waters of Back
Bay. Once the new bridge and approaches are completed and opened to traffic, the
detour would be removed and the area returned to its natural conditions. This alternative
was eliminated from further consideration because of the high cost of embankment and
bridge required for the detour of traffic.
Alternative S - consists of replacing the bridge at the existing location with an on-site
detour to the south. During construction, traffic would be maintained on a two-lane
temporary detour just south of the existing bridge. The temporary detour would be
approximately 700 feet (213.4 meters) in length and include a 24-foot (7.2-meter) wide,
95-foot (29-meter) long bridge. Embankment would be required in the marsh area,
which falls within the boundaries of the Mackay Island Wildlife Refuge. Once the new
bridge and approaches are completed and opened to traffic, the detour would be
removed and the area returned to its natural conditions. This alternative was eliminated
from further consideration because of increased environmental impacts to the marsh
area.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
3
,a
An off-site roadway detour is not available. The only other available access to Knotts
Island is by ferry, which operates across the Currituck Sound between a dock at the
south end of the island and the Town of Currituck.
D. Preferred Alternate
Bridge No. 7 will be replaced at its current location (Figure 5). Alternate A is
recommended because it minimizes impacts to the environment. The Division 1
Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternative A as the Preferred Alternative. The
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division
of Coastal Management, and the United States Department on the Interior, ` Fish and
Wild Life Service, MacKay Island National Wildlife Refuge, concur with the selection of
Alternative A as the Preferred also.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternate A
Preferred
New Bridge Structure $ 563,550.00
Bridge Removal 21,802.00
Roadway & Approaches 87,611.20
Mobilization &Miscellaneous 241,000.00
Engineering & Contingencies 136,036.80
Total Construction $1,050,000.00
Right of Way 18,150.00
Total Costs $1,068,150.00
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2000-2006 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) is $584,000. This cost was based on an estimated right of
way cost of $44,000 and a construction cost of $540,000. The project is scheduled for
right-of-way acquisition in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2001 and construction in FFY 2002.
No relocations are anticipated as a result of this project.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodoloqv
The site was visited on December 29, 1998. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for important features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was
assumed to measure approximately 1,110 feet (338 meters) in length and 200 feet (61
meters) in width. Impact calculations for each alignment are based on a corridor width of
80 feet (24 meters) for each alternative. Special concerns evaluated in the field include
potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Cory's
Ditch and Back Bay.
Currituck County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The
bridge is located in a detailed study area and the base (100 year) flood elevation is 6
feet (1.8 meters). Since Bridge No. 7 crosses a canal with 100-year flood elevations that
4

are determined from coastal storm surge, no floodways are defined. Since the proposed
bridge is an in-kind replacement, it is anticipated that this project will not have any
adverse effect or impact on the existing floodplain or the adjacent properties and
existing structures.
Materials and research data referenced in support of this investigation have been
derived from a number of sources including: applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic mapping (Knott's Island, NCNA and Creeds, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping (7.5 minute quadrangles), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping (USDA 1982), and recent aerial
photography.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
,appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et aL (1968). Jurisdictional
areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) wetland
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to
a classification scheme established by Cowardin et aL (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial
wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive
documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et aL 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992,
Rohde et al. 1994, Potter et al. 1980, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Hamel 1992, Robins et
aL 1986, Parnell et al. 1991, Fussell 1994, Wiegert and Freeman 1990, Linzey 1998,
Gosner 1978, and Odum et al. 1984). Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 1997, DWQ 1998). Quantitative
sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges, which extend
into Currituck County was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition,
NHP records documenting presence of federal- or state-listed species were consulted
before commencing the field investigation.
B. Physiology and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Outer Coastal Plain or Tidewater physiographic
province of North Carolina. Regional topography is generally flat, and consists primarily
of emergent shrub/marsh grass complex and scattered mixed forest transected by
natural streams and man-made canals. The landscape elevation does not exceed 5 feet
(1.5 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
the study corridor. The highest elevation within the study corridor is approximately 3 feet
(0.9 meters) NGVD at the road facility surface (Knott's Island, NCNA 7.5-minute
quadrangle).
The entire study corridor is mapped as Currituck mucky peat (Terric Medisaprists). This
soil series is listed as hydric within Currituck County (NRCS 1996). Currituck mucky peat
is characterized as a very poorly drained soil with moderate to moderately rapid
permeability. Currituck soils are frequently flooded for very long periods and typically
occur on broad, flat marshes along margins of the Currituck and Albemarle Sounds.
5
,>
C. Water Resources
1. Stream Crossing
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-01-54 of the Pasquotank River Basin
(DEM 1997). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03010205 of the South Atlantic-
Gulf Region. Corey's Ditch has not been assigned a Stream Index Number by the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ); however, Corey's Ditch is an extension of North
Landing River, which has a Stream Index Number of 30-1-2 (DWQ 1998). The bridge
proposed for replacement crosses Corey's Ditch at its confluence with Back Bay
approximately 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers) north of its confluence with North Landing
River. The hydrological source of water within Corey's Ditch and the adjacent marshes
is a combination of 1) wind-blown tides moving between Back Bay and North Landing
River; 2) inland runoff; and 3) direct precipitation. A result of the unpredictability of these
hydrological forces is that project corridor marshes are characterized by irregular
flooding.
2. Stream Characteristics
Corey's Ditch is a linear, man-made canal that connects the waters of Back Bay and
North Landing River. The canal is approximately 105 feet (32 meters) wide and 4 feet
(1.2 meters) deep. The canal is typically characterized by low-velocity flow over an
unconsolidated substrate. Little or no rooted aquatic vegetation is apparent, nor is there
evidence of accumulation of organic debris (wrack) in the canal. The banks of the canal
and Back Bay support a complex of emergent brackish marsh grasses and scattered
shrub vegetation. Corey's Ditch is approached by the highway causeway at right angles
(on a northwest/southeast axis) and makes a perpendicular bridge crossing. During the
field survey, water in Corey's Ditch was flowing at a moderate velocity from north to
south. Water-column turbidity was high during the visit, possibly due to runoff from an
extended rainfall event that had been in progress for several days prior to the visit.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams within a
basin. As a channeled extension of North Landing River, Corey's Ditch is assumed to
have a best usage classification of SC, the same classification as North Landing River
(DWQ 1998). The designation SC denotes tidal salt waters suitable for uses such as
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to any activity in which bodily contact with water
occurs on an infrequent or incidental basis (DWQ 1998).
No waters designated High Quality Waters (HOW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), Water Supply I (WS-11), or Water Supply II (WS-II) occur within one mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor. No North Carolina Natural and Scenic Rivers or
national Wild and Scenic Rivers are located within the vicinity of the project area.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of
Environmental Management [DEM], Water Quality Section) has initiated a whole-basin
approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed project area is summarized in Pasquotank River Basinwide
6
Water Quality Management Plan (DWQ 1997). The proposed project area is located in
Subbasin 54 of the Pasquotank River Basin. No major dischargers reside in this
subbasin. Non-point source discharges in the vicinity of the project can be characterized
as primarily agricultural runoff. Sediments and nutrients are a major problem associated
with non-point source discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil
from roads, and increased nutrient levels in surface waters. Benthos samples collected
within the basin have provided inconclusive water quality results because "saline
conditions and natural swamp conditions (low flow and low dissolved oxygen) make an
interpretation of benthic macro-invertebrate results difficult" (DWQ 1997). As a result of
the difficulties inherent to the region in describing water quality through interpretation of
benthos sampling, DWQ (1997) states that "water chemistry data in low flow-low
dissolved oxygen conditions have been used to determine water quality." User-support
information concerning water quality indicates that Corey's Ditch is Support-
Threatened for its intended uses.
3. Anticipated Impacts
a. General Impacts
Alternate A will not result in the loss of open water habitat; however, short-term impacts
to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. The contractor will follow contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article
107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for
Roads and Structures). These measures include: the use of dikes, berms, silt basins,
and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging
areas in the marsh and adjacent waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on
disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into
the canal or bay by catch basins and roadside vegetation, as applicable.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present canal flows,
thereby protecting system integrity. Long-term impacts to the canal and adjacent waters
are expected to.be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, the
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs) will be
strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
b. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Bridge No. 7 is located on NC 615 over a canal (Corey's Ditch) in Currituck County. The
substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. Bridge demolition calculations
were completed for the project. It was determined that 56.8 cubic yards (43.4 cubic
meters) of concrete fill material could potentially be dropped in the water during the
removal of the existing structure. Corey's Ditch is classified as High Quality Water, this
project fall into the Case 2 category as identified in NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR), where there is no work at all
in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and
where larval recruitment into nursery areas occurs (see project commitments).
7
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: brackish marsh
emergent, and roadside/disturbed land. These plant communities are described below.
Brackish Marsh Complex - This community occurs on relatively flat landscapes at
approximate sea level near the upper (landward) extent of estuaries, where fresh water
runoff from inland dilutes saline waters from the ocean. Salinities within the brackish
marsh complex may vary from less than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) to greater than 30
ppt; however, salinities within this community are typically low (approximately 0.5 to 5.0
ppt; considered an oligohaline environment). Plant species occurring within the project
corridor marsh indicate a generally low-salinity environment. This community is very
similar to that described as Brackish Marsh by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The
brackish marsh complex consists primarily of emergent grasses and also contains
herbs. Scattered shrubs and stunted trees occur on mounds and along upland fringes.
Extensive brackish marsh occurs southeast and southwest of the bridge crossing and as
a narrow fringe along the shoreline of Back Bay northeast and northwest of the bridge
crossing.
Species diversity is low in this community, and species are generally distributed in
homogeneous bands or zones within the marsh. No single species dominates the marsh
in the project corridor. Common grasses and herbs include black needlerush (Juncus
roemerianus), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides),
saltmarsh cordgrass (S. patens), narrow-leaved cat-tail (Typha angustifolia), giant plume
grass (Erianthus gigantea), and common reed (Phragmites communes). Scattered
shrubs include red maple (Acer rubrum), red mulberry (Morus rubra), wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), and marsh mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos).
One species of seagrass was noted within Corey's Ditch, Eurasian water milfoil
(Myriophyllum heterophyllum). Eurasian water milfoil is a common submersed rooted
vascular (SRV) plant of this region that fluctuates annually in abundance and may form
dense beds. The Back Bay shoreline appeared to be barren of SRVs, possibly due to
periodic high-energy wave action. The abrasive action of sands and silts and water
column turbidity resulting from erosion of the marsh face likely reduces habitat suitability
for seagrasses within the project corridor.
Roadside/Disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed land consists of paved highway and
associated road shoulders. This community has established on fill material placed in the
marsh to build a road causeway. The road shoulders support low herbs and grasses,
which are maintained by regular mowing. Some stunted trees and shrubs have also
established near the high tide line.
Invasive grasses and herbs dominate roadside/disturbed land. Common species include
vasy grass (Paspalum urvillei), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), foxtail grass (Setaria
geniculata), spiny-leaved sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), seaside goldenrod (Solidago
sempervirens), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), Carolina cranesbill (Geranium
carolinianum), clover (Trifolium repens), and vetch (Vicia angustifolia). Stunted trees and
shrubs on road shoulder. margins include: elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
8

blackberry (Rubus sp.), swamp willow (Salix caroliniana), silverling (Baccharis
halimifolia), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif/ula).
The following table indicates the amount of each plant community present within an
80-foot (24-meter) corridor centered on the existing road facility.
Project Corridor Plant Community

Plant Community Estimated Area
Acres (hectares)
Alternate A
Brackish Marsh Complex 0.75 (0.30)
Roadside/Disturbed Land 1.04 (0.42)
Total 1.79 (0.72) ,
From an ecological perspective, the impacts of bridge replacement in place are minimal
relative to construction on new alignment. Similarly, impacts of replacement utilizing
staged construction while maintaining traffic during construction are substantially less
than replacement utilizing a detour.
Implementation of Alternate A will result in no new fragmentation of plant communities.
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of reconstruction without a detour
are restricted to narrow strips or roadside/disturbed land adjacent to the existing bridge
and causeway approach segments. Approximately 58 percent of Alternate A community
coverage is disturbed and maintained as such (roadside/disturbed land), while 42
percent of community coverage is in a natural state (brackish marsh complex and
maritime forest).
2. Wildlife
Within the brackish marsh complex, only species utilizing the upper levels of marsh
vegetation and air space over the marsh are considered primarily terrestrial. The road
causeway provides a travel corridor for terrestrial mammals and reptiles to access
marsh resources. Mammal signs (tracks, scat, road-kill, etc) were noted for several
primarily-terrestrial species during this investigation. Evidence was found within the
project corridor indicating presence of white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon /otor). Other opportunistic and
characteristic species expected to frequent project corridor habitats include
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), southern bog
lemming (Synaptomys coopen), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), marsh rice rat
(Oryzomys palustris), white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), and bobcat (Felis rufus).
Primarily terrestrial birds observed within or adjacent to the project corridor include:
northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla
cedrorum), yellow-rumped warbler (D, coronata), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis
trichas), fish crow (Corvus ossifragus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus),
European starling (Sternus vulgaris), white-throated sparrow (Zonothrichia leucophrys),
and savannah sparrow .(Passerculus sandwichensis). Other species expected within
9

these habitats include: short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor),
barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), palm warbler (Dendroica palmarum), boat-tailed grackle
(Quiscalus major), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and seaside sparrow
(Ammosdrammus maritimus).
Due to the season in which the field work was conducted, no. terrestrial reptile or
amphibian species were observed within the study corridor; however, reptiles expected
to occur within the project corridor include: yellow rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta
quadrivittata) and rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus). Most reptiles expected
within the project corridor are aquatic oriented.
One primarily aquatic mammal was observed during field surveys, a road-kill muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus). Other mammals expected to utilize the brackish marshes and
open water creeks and canals include: nutria (Myocastor coypus), mink (Mustela vison),
and river otter (Lutra canadensis).
Aquatic-oriented birds observed during field surreys include: pied-billed grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Casmerodius
albus), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), wood duck
(Aix sponsa), American black duck (Anas rubripes), mallard (A. platyrhynchos), gadwall
(A. strepera), clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), common snipe (Gallinago gallinago),
great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis), Boneparte's
gull (L. philadelphia), Forster's tern (Sterna fosten), and belted kingfisher (Ceryle
alcyon). The project corridor is located in an important component of the Atlantic Flyway,
a traditional corridor used by migratory birds. During the spring, and especially during
the fall, large numbers of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and passerines utilize this
region as resting and feeding areas. The local marshes are also utilized by waterfowl as
wintering areas. A short list of other species expected to utilize the local aquatic habitats
include: double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus),
little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (E. thula), tricolor heron (E. tric0106,
cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), least
bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), American coot (Fulica americana), laughing gull (Larus
atricilla), and herring gull (L. argentatus).
Aquatic reptiles expected within the project corridor include: snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), eastern mud turtle
(Kinosternon subrubrum), eastern mud snake (Farancia abacura), rainbow snake
(Farancia erytogramma), red bellied water snake (Nerodia erythrogaste6, brown water
snake (Nerodia taxispilota), and eastern cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Irregularly flooded, oligohaline waters and marshes are characterized by periodic
fluctuations in water level, water chemistry (salinity, dissolved oxygen), and temperature.
For this reason, aquatic species that occur in estuaries either migrate with the
fluctuations or are adapted to the dynamic environment. Fishes expected in, and
adjacent, to the project corridor include permanent resident estuarine or brackish
species, migratory (anadromous, semi-anadromous, and catadromous) species, and
larval forms of marine species, which utilize estuarine and brackish marshes as
nurseries. No sampling was conducted in Corey's Ditch or adjacent waters. Fishes
expected include: largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bowfin (Amia calva),
10
i
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis), Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli),
chain pickerel (Esox niger), banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus), white perch (Morone
americana), bluegill (Lepoms machrochirus), black crappie (Poxomis nigromaculatus),
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and swamp darter (Etheostoma forme).
Aquatic invertebrates observed within the project corridor include blue crab (Ca/linectes
sapidus) and brackish-water fiddler (Uca minx). Other notable invertebrates expected
to occur within the project corridor include blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), Carolina marsh
clam (Polymesoda carolinana), and penaeid and caridean shrimps. These organisms
serve as prey items for fish and other wildlife.
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements
will be restricted to roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances
will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns;
however, long-term impacts are expected to be negligible. Potential impacts to aquatic
habitat will be avoided by bridging Corey's Ditch to maintain regular flow through the
canal. In addition, temporary impacts to adjacent waters from increased sediment during
construction will be minimized by the implementation of the NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within Corey's Ditch and adjacent Back Bay are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States"
(33 CFR 328.3). The waters of both the Bay and the canal exhibit characteristics of
estuarine, sub-tidal, open-water systems that are permanently flooded, with unknown
bottom compositions (E1 OWL) (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 criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
wetland hydrology (DOA 1987). According to these criteria, the brackish marsh complex
is subject to jurisdictional review. The brackish marsh complex exhibits characteristics of
estuarine, intertidal, emergent persistent vegetation that is subject to irregular flooding
(E2EMP) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Vegetative composition of this community was
characterized in Section 3.1.
Jurisdictional totals for Alternate A were calculated from an 80-foot (24-meter) corridor
centered on the existing road facility only. The area (in acres [hectares]) of vegetated
wetlands (brackish marsh complex) and open waters and the linear distance (in feet
[meters]) of open waters (Corey's Ditch) that occur within the 80-foot (24 meter) wide
corridor are depicted in the following table:
11

Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas and
. Total Area in the Right-of-Way
Type of Jurisdictional Area Jurisdictional Totals within Right-of-Way
In acres (hectares) Alternate A
Brackish marsh complex 0.75 (0.30)
Open Water 0.40 (0.16)
Linear distance in ft (m) 81 (25)
Alternate A is expected to have no substantial impact on jurisdictional areas.
Both surface waters and wetlands are considered to be high quality habitat and have
been designated as Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) by the N.C. Coastal
Resources Commission.
2. Permits
The proposed project will require a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit from
the N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) as a result of probable impacts to
AECs. Preliminary comments in a letter from DCM to NCDOT dated November 29,
1999 stated that the bridge would qualify for a CAMA General Permit. However, the
elevation of the bridge was revised and submitted for additional review by DCM. In a
letter dated May 1, 2000 DCM states:
`The revised proposal to elevate the bridge structure an additional two feet will likely
result in the proposed project no longer qualifying for CAMA General Permit 7H.2300
due to the following specific condition of this General permit: "Bridge replacement
projects shall not increase the vertical clearance to more than five feet above normal
water lever (NWL) or normal high water (NWH), or by vertical clearance to more than 25
percent of the existing clearance, whichever is greater. If the proposed project no longer
qualifies for a CAMA General Permit, the DOT will be required to apply for a CAMA
Major Permit." A copy of both DCM memorandums is included in the Appendix.
Areas of Environmental Concern anticipated to be impacted by this project include
coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas, and estuarine shorelines. The
proposed project will also require notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) concerning Section 404 permitting and consultation with the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) concerning Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
A Special Use Permit will be required from the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
for any work conducted outside the existing disturbed areas of the right of way (See
USFWS letter of January 31, 2000).
There is potential that components of the bridge deck may be dropped into Waters of
the United States during construction. Corey's Ditch is classified as High Quality Water,
this project fall into the Case 2 category as identified in the BMP-BDR, where there is no
work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration,
12
spawning, and where
commitments). NCDOT
project development to
addressed.
3. Mitigation
larval recruitment into nursery areas occurs (see project
has coordinated with the various resources agencies during
ensure that concerns regarding bridge demolition have been
Compensatory mitigation is not anticipated to be required for this project due to the
limited nature of jurisdictional impacts. However, a final determination regarding
mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. rests with the Division of Coastal
Management, with input from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Division of Water
Quality.
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed
(P) proposed for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The following federal-protected and FSC species are listed for Currituck
County (December, 1999 FWS list):
Federally Protected Species
For Currituck County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s conacea E
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Manatee Trichechus manatus E***
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T
Piping lover Charadrius melodus T
Dismal Swam southeastern shrew Sorex lon irostris fished T
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus umilus T
North Carolina Status of Federal Species
Of Concern in Currituck County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Virginia least trillium Trillium usillum var. vir inianum FSC
Black rail Laterallus amaicensis FSC
Note:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range)
13
.)
T Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an Endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range)
FSC Denotes Federal Species of Concern (a species that may or may not be listed in
the future, dependent on the information known about the species). FSC species
receive no formal protection under the ESA.
**' Denotes Incidental/Migrant record - Species was observed outside of its normal
range or habitat.
Leatherback sea turtle - The leatherback turtle is distinguished by its large size (46- to
70-inch [1.2 to 1.8 meter]) carapace, 650 to 1,500 pounds (294.8 to 680.4 kilograms)
and a shell of soft, leathery skin. This species is primarily tropical in nature, but the
range may extend to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland (Martof et at 1980). The
leatherback is a powerful swimmer, often seen far from land; however, it has been
known to move into shallow bays, estuaries, and even river mouths. Most living
specimens of leatherback sea turtle in North Carolina were observed off shore of ocean
beaches. Very few individuals have been documented in sounds and estuaries.
Preferred food of the leatherback is jellyfish, although the diet includes other sea
animals and seaweed. The leatherback generally nests on sandy, tropical beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The leatherback is primarily an oceanic species. The project corridor is located
approximately 58 miles (93.4 kilometers) from the nearest ocean inlet (Oregon
Inlet) and up a convoluted series of sounds, bays, and canals, so there is a low
probability of the leatherback traveling to the project corridor. NHP records have
no documentation of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project
corridor. Based on available information, this project will not result in an adverse
impact to leatherback sea turtle.
Red-cockaded woodpecker - This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches [18 to 22 cm]
long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-white barred back.
Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be
absent or difficult to see (Potter et at 1980). Primary habitat consists of mature to over-
mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-leaf (P.
palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971).
Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines (generally older than 70
years) that have been infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in
clusters, which are referred to as colonies (FWS 1985). The woodpecker drills holes into
the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the
entrance, which allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine-
dominated savannas that have been maintained by frequent natural fires serve as ideal
nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may
result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The red-cockaded woodpecker requires pine forest for foraging and reproduction,
and the project corridor contains no pine forest. NHP records have no
documentation of red-cockaded woodpecker within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of
14
the project corridor. Based on available information, this project will not result in
an adverse impact to red-cockaded woodpecker.
Manatee - The manatee is a large, gray or brown aquatic mammal that averages 10 to
13 feet (3 to 4 meters) in length and weighs up to 1,000 Ibs (453.6 kilograms). This
species occurs from Brazil to the West Indies to the east coast of the United States.
During summer months manatees migrate from their Florida wintering areas as far north
as coastal Virginia. These mammals inhabit warm waters, both fresh and salt, where
their diet consists mostly of aquatic vegetation (Linzey 1998, Clark 1987, and Webster
et al. 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The manatee rarely occurs in North Carolina inland waters; although there have
been recent sightings in the Cape Fear and Neuse Rivers. NHP records have no
documentation of manatee within 2.0 miles (3.2 Kilometers) of the project
corridor. Based on available information, this project will not result in an adverse
impact to the manatee. However, NCDOT will utilize the USFWS construction
guidelines regarding manatee habitat.
Loggerhead sea turtle - The loggerhead sea turtle is the most common sea turtle on
the coast of the Carolinas; this species occurs along the coast of North America from
Texas to Nova Scotia. This species averages 31 to 47 inches (0.8 to 1.2 meters) in
length and weighs from 170 to 500 lbs. (77.1 to 226.8 kilograms) (Martof et al. 1980).
The loggerhead is basically temperate or subtropical in nature, and is primarily oceanic,
but may also be found in estuarine bays, sounds, and large coastal rivers. This species
occurs along the coast of North Carolina from late April to October. Preferred nesting
habitat is ocean beaches, generally south of Cape Lookout. Traditionally, the largest
concentration of loggerhead nests each year occurs on Smith Island located at the
mouth of the Cape Fear River (Palmer and Braswell 1995).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The loggerhead primarily occurs south of Cape Lookout in North Carolina;
however, it may also wander into estuarine waters of coastal sounds such as the
Pamlico. The project corridor is located approximately 58 miles (93.4 kilometers)
from the nearest ocean inlet (Oregon Inlet) and up a convoluted series of sounds,
bays, and canals so there is a low probability of the loggerhead traveling to the
project corridor. NHP records have no documentation of this species within 2.0
miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project corridor. Based on available information, this
project will not result in an adverse impact to loggerhead sea turtle.
Piping plover - Piping plovers are the smallest of the plovers found in the Carolinas,
measuring only 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in length (Golder and Parnell 1987). This
species is characterized by a white head and back and white breast and belly, yellow
legs, narrow black neck band, a narrow band above the eyes, and a black bill in the
winter and yellow and black bill in the summer (Potter et al. 1980). These small Nearctic
birds occur along beaches above the high tide line, sand flats at the ends of sand spits
and barrier islands, gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, and
15

washover areas cut into or between dunes (Dyer et al. 1987). Nests most often occur on
open, wide, sandy stretches of beach similar to those associated with inlets and capes.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The piping plover occurs along beaches, sand flats, sand spits, and among
dunes. No plover habitat exists within the project corridor. NHP records have no
documentation of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project
corridor, and no piping plovers were observed during recent field surveys. Based
on available information, this project will not result in an adverse impact to piping
plover.
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew - The southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) is a
small, long-tailed shrew varying from 3.0 to 3.9 inches (7.6 to 9.9 centimeters) in length.
This shrew has a brown back, pale underparts, buff-colored feet, and a shorter, blunter
nose than many shrews. The species occurs throughout all portions of North and South
Carolina. It has been accepted that two subspecies exist: the southeastern shrew (S. L
longirostris) and the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (S. L fishen). The literature
describes the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew as larger (3.7 to 3.9 inches [9.4 to 9.9
centimeters] in total length) than the southeastern shrew (3.0 to 3.1 inches [7.6 to 7.9
centimeters] in total length), and lists the range of the Dismal Swamp subspecies as
confined to the Dismal Swamp region of northeastern North Carolina and southeastern
Virginia (Fed. Reg. 7/16/85, Webster et al. 1985). Recent small-mammal surveys
conducted south of the Albemarle Sound and Pamlico River in the Coastal Plain of
North Carolina have provided specimens whose measurements have generated doubt
as to the existence of separate subspecies. DNA analyses and further fieldwork are
presently being conducted to clarify the classification status. Both subspecies prefer
similar habitats, ranging in structure from old field to mature pine and hardwood forests.
The Dismal Swamp subspecies is expected to be most abundant in moist successional
habitats such as cane stands, regenerating clear cuts, and young forests (Fed. Reg.
7/16/85).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew includes areas
dominated by grasses and sedges near wet areas. This habitat occurs within the
project corridor as a result of the presence of bridge access causeways.
However, due to the routine maintenance of causeway shoulders and irregular
water level fluctuations associated with the adjacent brackish marsh and open
waters, it is highly unlikely that this shrew will occur within the project corridor.
NHP records have no documentation of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2
kilometers) of the project corridor, and this species was not observed during
surveys. Based on available information, this project will not result in an adverse
impact to Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew.
Seabeach amaranth - Seabeach amaranth is a low-growing, fleshy, annual herb. The
spatula-shaped leaves are pink and range from 0.5 to 1.0 inch (1.3 to 2.5 centimeters)
in diameter. The leaves are clustered near the end of the stem and are notched apically.
Flowers and fruits are inconspicuous and occur along the stem. This plant is primarily
16
. f
found on foredunes and sand spits of Atlantic coast barrier beaches and inlets in areas
where periodic overwash eliminates vegetative competition. Some of the largest
remaining populations of this species occur in North Carolina (FWS 1993). This species
has been documented on sand spits and ocean-fronting beaches of the Outer Banks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Seabeach amaranth prefers the open sand of foredunes, overwash fans, and inlet
spits associated with ocean-fronting barrier islands. Potential habitat for
seabeach amaranth does not exist within the project corridor. NHP records
indicate no documentation of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the
project corridor, and this species was not observed during field surveys. Based
on available information, the proposed project will not result in an adverse impact
to seabeach amaranth.
2. Federal Species of Concern
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. Species designated as
FSC are defined as taxa, which may or may not be listed in the future. These species
were formally Candidate 2 (C2) species or species under consideration for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP database of rare plant and
animal species and are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The following
are listed as Federal Species of Concern in Currituck County.
Virginia least trillium - Virginia least trillium is a low, rhizomatous perennial with erect
stems topped by three leaves and a solitary flower which grows 4 to 12 inches (10.2 to
30.5 centimeters) high. This variety of least trillium occurs in low, alluvial woodlands of
tidewater Virginia (Kral 1983) and possibly northeastern North Carolina. The project
corridor does not support appropriate habitat for this species. NHP records have no
documentation of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project corridor,
and the species was not observed during site surveys. Based on available information,
the proposed project will not adversely affect Virginia least trillium.
Black rail - The black rail is a rare, permanent resident of coastal North Carolina. This
species requires dense, herbaceous cover characteristic of marshes and wet meadows
where it nests and feeds on small invertebrates, seeds, and vegetation (Hamel 1992).
The project corridor supports appropriate habitat for this species; however, NHP records
have no documentation of this species within 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) of the project
corridor. Due to the mobility of this species, and the extensive marshes in the project
vicinity, the proposed project will not result in an adverse impact to black rail.
3. Rare and Unique Natural Areas
The proposed project is located along the northern margin of the Mackay Island National
Wildlife Refuge, which comprises approximately 8,646 acres (3,499 hectares) in
northeastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. This National Wildlife Refuge
includes areas that are important to migratory waterfowl and sport fisheries resources.
17
.k
The brackish marsh area in the vicinity of the bridge crossing has been- designated a
State Listed Identified Priority Area (IPA) by the NHP. This IPA is known as Great
Marsh. An IPA receives no formal protection, but is recognized as a unique area and
may come under protection in the future. Potential impacts due to the proposed project
will be short-lived and localized to the immediate vicinity of the bridge, and are therefore
not expected to adversely affect the Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge or the Great
Marsh IPA.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects
having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to
comment.
B. Historic Architecture
In a memorandum dated January 13, 1999, the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) recommended further review of Bridge No. 7 by NCDOT. All structures within
the Area of Potential Effect (APE), including Bridge No. 7, were photographed. In a
meeting between NCDOT and SHPO on August 6, 1999 all parties agreed that there are
no historic architectural properties, including Bridge No. 7, that are listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places in the APE. A copy of the concurrence
form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated January 13,
1999 stated that "it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. 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. SECTION 4(f)
This project consists of the replacement of Bridge No. 7 over Corey's Ditch along NC
615 in Currituck County. Bridge No. 7 is located within the Mackay Island National
Wildlife Refuge. This refuge was established on Knotts Island in 1960 as a winter
haven for migratory birds. In the winter, the refuge focuses on marsh and water
management to provide food for thousand of swans, ducks, and geese inhabitants. In
the spring, the refuge opens its trail systems for visitors to view the huge variety of
waterbirds and songbirds.
18

Since this project has minor involvement with a wildlife and waterfowl refuge and meets
the criteria set forth in the Federal Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the wildlife and waterfowl refuge, have
been fully evaluated: (a) do nothing; (2) improve the highway without using the adjacent
wildlife and water refuge; and (3) build an improved facility on new location without using
the wildlife and waterfowl refuge. These alternatives were not found to be feasible and
prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the wildlife and waterfowl refuge has been
incorporated into this project. The officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f)
property have agreed, in writing, with the assessment of impacts resulting from the use
of the Section 4(f) property and with the minimization measures to be provided.
Measures to minimize impacts include the following:
1. Replacement of fishing walks on each side of the bridge.
2. Replacement of the bridge in place with staged construction, maintaining traffic
during construction within the existing right-of-way.
3. Bridge will be elevated and additional two feet from its existing elevation to allow
for small boats to travel between Back Bay and Currituck Sound.
A programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for the impacts of the proposed project on the
MacKay Island National Wildlife Refuge is presented in Section XI of this Categorical
Exclusion.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive effect. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited
scope and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement 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 does not conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation and
no change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project. Therefore,
no secondary impacts are anticipated.
The proposed project will require right of way acquisition and construction easements
from the MacKay Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is protected under Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources
Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land
19

IX.
acquisition and construction projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or
having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will
not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional
reports are required.
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 or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Currituck County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The
bridge is located in a detailed study area and the base (100 year) flood elevation is 6
feet (1.8 meters) (see Figure 6).
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. No embankment fills will be
placed within the regulatory floodway. No floodway modifications are anticipated.
The project is not anticipated to increase the level or extent of upstream flood hazard.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of this project.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Throughout the project development process, citizen and agency participation was
encouraged. A scoping letter was mailed in December 1998, to the Chair of the
Currituck County Commission, the Currituck County Manager, the Superintendent of
Currituck County schools, and to state and Federal environmental regulatory and
resource agencies to request input into the project development process. A copy of the
responses are included in the Appendix. No interagency meetings were held as part of
this project.
A newsletter describing the history of the project, the project team and the progress of
the study, as well as upcoming events was distributed in June 1999.
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on July 13, 1999 from 4:30 PM to 7:30 PM
at the Knott's Island Elementary School, located at 413 Woodleigh Road in Knott's
Island, N. C. Approximately 14 citizens attended this meeting. Several citizens
requested that the bridge be raised 1.5 to 2 feet (0.5 to 0.6 meters) in order to allow
small boats to pass under the structure. Another major area of concern raised by the
20
. ,t
citizens present was pedestrian safety associated with the fishing currently allowed from
the bridge. Comments received at the workshop requested consideration is given to
eliminating fishing or including safety features in the design to protect pedestrians.
X. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following comments were received:
1. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality
Comment - "Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
Reply - Use of wetlands for borrow/waste areas will be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. Prior to use of these areas for borrow/waste, a 401 Water
Certification will be obtained from DWQ.
Comment - "DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts."
Reply -See Environmental Effects section (page 19) of this report.
2. County of Currituck County, County Manager -
Comment - "...comments from Knotts Island residents concerning a need to have
the above bridge elevated when replaced to allow for small boats to travel between
Back Bay and Currituck Sound.... assistance in elevating this bridge to meet the
need of our citizens..."
Reply - The Bridge will be elevated two (2) feet.
3. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission -
Comment - "Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream."
Reply - if possible, bridge deck drains will not discharge directly into the canal. This
will be determined during the final design phase of the project.
21
TO US 58 VIRGINIA BEACH VA
NC
_. `_.._.._.._..\
-••- - - „\ \ ?`` 1255 335
I• `, _ I 615 1 1299 ' .U\` I
i J n
!
4.g O
615 KNOTTS ISLAND
1256
Woodleigh ) 1257
c?'` 4
'`.'• `\; ?~ MACKAY ISLAND 128 u, ?( `` }?)t; x
P NATIONAL WILDLIFE
i REFUGE 1256. 4S \? xr"j
B-3445?? -
?, -
Knotts Island
z %Q 1259 ,
MAOKAY 1261" 2I t
= -? ?1SLAND 2 1
1265 1370 I
615
1260 i
?\ \\ ,
SOUND
168 ?Currituck
C?
1.
r`?'NDI};•48fAR E 4 °' 1 ua? ? $ak ?ug?B _
?? ?lBs,???ak4" ct . ? ? tau,wa?=, ' _ ,Kau : 11&3Ch
V1 %i
`\ti\,? - * MaYer:R QtbOs,tyts->'' tGiattsm.;r?
a;
sbKa
dsl , s Sh 9N1fs . gnawgeR ?mipck '?
1, b ? X ``^ S Carmta
tg?
!f 58 ?z t
? c* 'At'?-u. la I a 1? t 1 ?
wnaksi / K i? na. y:
„? liMp ieta
8N N tart v ?? I ? r ? w. Sr?.f" {
rtfSr ? t R
4xcarcts NGCk '°? .+. rK"` ? "' MbfAtF q 5 2fc?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
& ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
CURRITUCK COUNTY
BRIDGE NUMBER 7 ON NC 615
OVER NORTHERN CANAL BETWEEN
BACK BAY AND CURRITUCK SOUND
? B-3445 FIGURE 1
1.6 0 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 KILOMETERS
MILES
1 co 1 2 3 1

t w
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GROUP XIX
B-3445 (CURRITUCK COUNTY)
NC 615 OVER CREEK
8 ft 12 ft 12 ft 8 ft 12 ft
(2.4 m) (3.6 m) (3.6 m) (2.4 m) (3.6 m)
Oft
Oft
1.2 m GRADE (1.2 m
FDPS POINT FDPS
0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04
4:1 A
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION FOR ROADWAY APPROACH
1999 ADT - 1,400 vpd (LOS B)
2002 ADT - 1,500 vpd (LOS B)
2025 ADT - 2,100 vpd (LOS B)
7.5 ft 6 ft 12 ft 12 ft E ft 7.5 ft
(2.3 m) (1.8 m) (3.6 m) (3.6 m) (1.8 m) (2.3 m)
1 1
GRADE
POINT
0.02 0.02
TYPICAL SECTION FOR PROPOSED STRUCTURE
FIGURE 2
B-3445
Looking East at West Approach

B-3445
Looking West at East Approach

Figure 3
B-3445
B-3445
Looking Southwest from Northeast Corner
Figure 4
Looking Southeast from Northwest Corner
?z
0
Z -: :
>r)
l
n?
mz
;00
m
-n
c
0
m
y J
z4 "
O
C
ar, y F,.

i .11 c. •r.
` a•.:i
s

,
Y
?_ tt ,{{na y..

??
' Tv
x
r
r
4r

x F
? ?? z?rtW4: ?
r
S .
E ??? ? ?i s mat/

i t rv
/
r.
N?j
T

ov

n

W

IY,t
S

t ? r.
t
T
D
n
D
N
r
D
Z
11 II
11 II 11
77
III I` ---JI ,1 N Z
D O
r .Z] it li
II.,., .I Z --{
litil I
u
S•R. 12.65
. y
6`
I?

O

s O
a
_
O
,p n
rn A
< C

T
m

0 o
mm v
Op<Z
D
a?.
W a z0,,
m p

o HTW
° ?z
-4
o O
O
C:
m
114=

?O Z
0 - ? ?? > 0 _4
H rn
m
0%
ZnO N
y
3:

3 A O O <D

cAiloa? ??
3
z
n O
........
OP4
N
v 1
D
r P ?.

N II
N II
1
.I II
h I it
STATE
1=J s
^\
ll?\
-a :•;::::
0
n
m :•:
m .•. Z
/ HIGH lV
G
0
O
r
m_
G?
.2
7
Z
O
N
N
r
D.
Z
v:
II
II
II? r 11
615?i 11 I
I u
n u
I 11

S.R. )255
•. l
11

i
t
v
r?
1
C7
O
C
Z
1O
Z
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4 (F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BRZ-615(1)
State Project 8.1040601
T. I. P. No. B-3445
Description: NC 615, Replacement of Bridge No. 7 over Canal (CorvsDitch) - Currituck Countv.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the operational
characteristics, safety and/or physical condition of existing highway
facilities on essentially the same location? X
2. Is the project on new location? ? X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park, recreation
land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge located adjacent to the ?
existing highway? X
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used impair the use
of the remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or in part, for its
intended purpose?
(See chart below) X
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
Less than 10 acres 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres 1 acre
greater than 100 acres 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise, air and water
pollution, wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic values) on the
remaining Section 4(f) land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose? ? X
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) land agree,
in writing, with the assessment of the impacts of the proposed
project on, and the proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands? X
Yes No
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or improved with
funds under the Land and Water Conservation Act (Section 6(f)),
the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise encumbered with a Federal Interest
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)? X
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7 above, does the
appropriate Federal Agency object to the land conversion or
transfer? X
9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do-nothing. X ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X
Or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ? X
Or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
And (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts of extraordinary
measure?
X
2. Improvement of the highway without using the adjacent public park,
recreational land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge? X ?
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic management measures been
evaluated?
X
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs (Alternative N)
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation, maintenance, or safety
problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or economic impacts (Alternative N)
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location without using the public
park, recreational land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge. (This ?
would be a localized "run around".) X
(a) An alternative on new location would result in: (circle, as
appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental, or economic impacts (Alternative N)
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost or engineering difficulties (Alternative N)
or (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties of truly unusual or unique
or extraordinary magnitude
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following: (Circle those
which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least comparable
value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project including
sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, tress and other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and habitat features, where
necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the Section 4(f)
property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken or improvements to the remaining Section
4(f) site equal to the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation measures as determined
necessary based on consultation with the officials having
jurisdiction over the parkland, recreation area, or wildlife on
waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as
follows:
The preferred alternative (Alternate A) replaces the bridge in
its existing location using staged construction, which
minimizes impacts to the environment.
Yes No
x
COORDINATION
The proposed has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) Land Yes
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies Yes
c. US Coast Guard (for bridges requiring permits) Yes
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved Yes
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The vroiect meets all criterial included in the programmatic Wn evaluation approved on
December 23. 1986,
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this project.
There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project included all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the measures
to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
0 , d0
Date
Q
Date
Project ge elopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
Division Administration, FHWA
?MgNT OF Th
O R?
N A
? S
tsa
H 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge
P. O. Box 39
Knotts Island, NC 27950
[phone]
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
January 31, 2000
Dear Mr. Gilmore: 3
This is a response to your request for comments on the replacement of bridge nutn7 on
NC 615 over Corey's Ditch in Currituck County. We are sorry it has taken us past your due date
to respond. Internal coordination was necessary to insure an appropriate response. In addition,
the bad weather postponed things for a few days.
This response is divided into two sections, one with comments directly related to the
proposed bridge replacement and another with comments indirectly related to this specific project.
As noted below, recommended measures in the second section are to be considered necessary
mitigation measures if an alternative other than "A" is selected.
A. Comments Directly Related to the Proposed Project.
The refuge definitely prefers Alternative A, which would not require construction of any
temporary on-site detours. Although it is not specified in the documentation sent to this office, it
is my understanding that the new bridge will include railings for fishing access, parallel parking
areas adjacent to the bridge in the shoulders, and that the bridge will be raised two feet. The
refuge supports these actions a nd would object if the first two items were not included in the
replacement project.
Should one of the alternatives other than A (i.e., Alternatives N or S) be selected, then
those comments provided in the section below (i.e., B.) would apply directly to this proposed
project. That is, the culverts we are recommending would be part of the mitigation measures
needed for the project.
The following comments apply if either Alternative N or S is selected:
1. We need a better description of the disturbances required in Barleys Bay and the Great
Marsh. For example, how much and what type of temporary fill is needed and what type of
Gilmore
"managed re-vegetation" is envisioned? Coordination with our Fisheries personnel may be
necessary to ensure these disturbances do not have significant negative impacts on aquatic
resources.
2. We would need assurance that any changes in habitats created by the alternatives will
be mitigated. For example, what specific measures will be taken to ensure common reed does not
become established in the impacted area(s)? What type of monitoring plan will be followed to
guarantee the area(s) revert to a natural state after construction? What additional steps (e.g.,
common reed control) will be taken to assure this natural state is achieved if initial procedures
fail?
3. Is an Environmental Assessment needed if either Alternative N or S is selected due to
projected wetland and other impacts?
B. Comments Indirectly Related to the Proposed Project
Prior to the construction of the Marsh Causeway (i.e., NC 615 across the marsh from the
mainland to Knotts Island), wind driven tides created a sheet flow of water across the Great
Marsh. When the road was constructed, it restricted this surface flow of water. Since the
construction of Corey's Ditch, the water is forced through this one opening in the roadway (i.e.,
where the bridge is located). This water flushes rapidly through this opening during
northeasterlies and hurricanes. All this (including normal, wind driven tides) is widening Corey's
Ditch and eroding away the support for the bridge. For example, during Hurricane Bonnie in
1998 a sink hole formed at the northeastern edge of the bridge. The water rushing through
Corey's Ditch eroded the soil around the bridge foundation and the road fell into the hole. The
ultimate results of this restriction of water flow to Corey's Ditch are the bridge needs constant
repair and periodic replacement, the ditch is widening and fragmenting the Great Marsh and the
hydrology of the marsh has changed and continues to change. Our suggestion for mitigating these
effects is to place a series of culverts at strategic locations along the Marsh Causeway. This will
allow water to flow under the road in several places relieving the pressure of the water being
forced under the bridge and through Corey's Ditch. Erosion around the bridge and Corey's Ditch
will lessen, reducing bridge maintenance and replacement costs and the rate in which Corey's
Ditch is widening and fragmenting the marsh. It will also help restore marsh hydrology to a more
natural state. Perhaps North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) experts have
other suggestions for alleviating the hydrological and related problems noted above.
The same effect has occurred at another road on the refuge. Mackay Island Road restricts
the sheet flow of water to a portion of the Great Marsh. The refuge has a project planned for the
immediate future to place several culverts under this road to restore the hydrology to a more
natural state.
If Alternative A is chosen, we recommend the NCDOT consider our recommendation as a
separate project. If Alternative N or S is chosen, then this needs to be considered a mitigation
Gilmore
-3-
project for the disturbance which will occur to wetlands on the refuge. The refuge is willing to
work with NCDOT in this effort.
In answer to your question about the source of funding to purchase the refuge, the
majority was acquired pia moneys made available by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Please keep us up-to-date regarding decisions about the choice among alternatives and
how and when the project will proceed. NCDOT will.need to contact the refuge for a Special
Use Permit a month or two before construction if any type of work is to be conducted outside the
existing disturbed areas of the right-of-way (i.e., beyond the pavement and grassy road shoulders).
Please contact :assistant Refuge Manager Bill Gates at [phone] if you have any questions,
need a Special Use permit and/or would like to discuss restoration of more natural water flow
under NC 615 and other related improvements.
Sincerely,
Refuge Manager
cc: T. McCartney
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
4405 Bland Rd.
Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
U,*JUA `.
1 tom' ,` ? `
/77
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E. Manager •' G ??
Planning and Environmental Branch '
NCDOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
December 18, 1998
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Group = Bridge Replacement Projects:
1. B-3348, Hyde County, Bridge No. 54 on US 264 over Canal on Pamlico Sound,
2. B-3349, Hyde County, Bridge No. 32 on US 264 over Rose Bay Canal,
3. B-3442, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 224 on SR 1006 (Person Street) over Locks Creek,
4. B-3443, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 219 on SR 1006 (Person Street) over the Cape Fear
River,
5. B-3445, Currituck County, Bridge No. 7. on NC 615 over northern canal between Back Bay
and Currituck Sound,
6. B-3524, Wake County, Bridge No. 259 on SR 1370 (Tryon Road) over Norfolk Southern
Railroad,
7. B-3537, Wayne County, Bridge No. 62 on NC 581 over the Little River.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
t
Mary T. Kollste
State Conservationist
The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand-in-hand with the
American people to conserve natural resources on private land AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726•
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
December 29, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-520
Attention: Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
i?
- ,. ,- Cosa •
Thank you for your letter of December 8, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
following proposed bridge replacement projects:
B-3348. Hvde County, Bridge No. 54 on US 264 over Canal on Pamlico Sound;
2. B-3349. Hyde County, Bridge No. 32 on US 264 over Rose Bay Canal:
3. B-3442. Cumberland County. Brid?_e No. 224 on SR 1006 (Person Street) over Locks
Creek,
4. B-3443, Cumberland County. Bride No. 219 on SR 1006 (Person Street) over the Cape
Fear River,
5. B-3445, Currituck County, Bridge No. 7 on NC 615 over northern canal between Back Bay
and Currituck Sound,
6. B-3524. Wake County, Bride No. 359 on SR 1370 (Tryon Road) over Norfolk Southern
Railroad; and,
7. B-3537, Wayne County, Bridge No. 62 on NC 581 over the Little River.
This report provides scoping information and is provided 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. 153) 1-1543). This report also
serves as initial scopinu comments to federal and state resoilrce agencies for use in their .
permitting and/or certification processes for these projects.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with detailed site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and till areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the appropriate 7.5 Minute Quadrangles for
each site should be consulted to determine if wetlands may be impacted by the respective projects.
However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should
not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an
acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits that may be required for these
projects at the public notice stake. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for
modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency
coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise
and minimize delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for each
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for each proposed project, including a discussion of
the projects's independent utility,
Z. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgradim, ofexistinu brid=es, new brides on existing alignments, new
bridges on new alignments, and a "no action" alternative;
1)
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact areas that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or drairling. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps),
*The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects:
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the traumentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value,
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be ::jade to
iuentir}- 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.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened. and candidate species that
are known to occur in the respective counties. Habitat requirements for any federally-listed
species that occur in the project impact areas should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If Suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. Note that a listed species, the sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene
virg-inica), is known to occur in the vicinity of bridges 13-3348 and B-3349 in Hyde Counr:.
Habitat for sensitive joint-vetch is a rare and specialized community known as a freshwater tidal
marsh. These communities are close enouuh to the coast to be influenced by tidal fluctuations.
yet far enough upstream to consist of fresh or only slightly brackish water.
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected
species:
l . A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and__
cumulative impacts,
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
?. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and CL1mUlative impacts area;
C. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur,
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation,
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
4
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient =
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that z1ay destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid any
adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to ad"ise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
V John M. Heiner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
FWS/R4:TmcCartney:TM:12/28/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\7-bridge:rep
cc:
Michael Bell. COE, Washinuton. NC
Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh, NC:
Scott McLendon, COE, Wilmington, NC
David Cox, DNR, Creedmoor, NC
Cyndi Bell, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA. Raleigh, NC
Ted Bisterfield, EPA, Atlanta, GA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Rol BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1800
IN F NY REFER TO February 24, 1999
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear. Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to a letter from your office dated December 8, 1998, to
Mr. Mike Bell of our Washington Regulatory Field Office, subject: "Request for
Comments for Group XIX Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge replacement
projects are located in Hyde, Currituck, and Wayne Counties.
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
bridge replacements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation
project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
February 24, 1999
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON.
Request for Comments for Group XIX Bridge Replacement Projects" in Hyde,
Currituck, and Wayne Counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC • Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section, at
910 251-4728
All of the bridges are within counties which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), it
appears that detail study streams or waterways are involved. For Hyde and Currituck
Counties, the bridges cross canals with 100-year flood elevations determined from
coastal storm surge but no floodways defined. For the Little River crossing in Wayne
County, this stream has both 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway
defined. A summary of flood plain information pertaining to the bridges is contained in
the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream BFE* Firm
32 US 264 Hyde Rose Bay Canal 9 2/87
54 US 264 Hyde Canal 5 2/87
7 NC 615 Currituck Northern Canal 5 11/84
62 NC 581 Wayne Little River 94 3/98
* Base (100-year) Flood Elevation in feet N.G.V.D.
For the Little River crossing, we refer you to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for ' No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments
in Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished previously to your
office. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP,
administered by FEMA, and be in compliance with all local ordinances. Specific
questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments should be
referred to the local building official.
February 24, 1999
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Michael Sell, Project Manager, Washington
Field Office, Regulatory Division, at [phone] Extension 26
The bridge replacements in Hyde and Currituck Counties appear to impact CAMA
designated coastal marsh. The Little River bridge replacement in Wayne County could
impact a high quality riverine system.
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or:fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on
design of the projects, extent of fill work within waters of the United States, including
wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, in order for the
proposal to be considered for authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project
planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed
activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the
aquatic environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts
often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than
minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following Items need to
be addressed in the project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Offsite detours are always preferable to onsite (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an onsite detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-the-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting
is necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be
used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation, including trees,
if appropriate.

February 24, 1999
Page 3 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life, including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation.
g. In addition, to be considered for authorization, discharge of demolition material
into waters and wetlands and associated impacts must be disclosed and discussed in
the project planning report.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the'
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity
to review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Bell.
U.S. Department Commander 431 Crawford Street
of Transportation United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
United States Atlantic Area Staff Symbol: (Aowb)
Phone: [phone]
Coast Guard

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201,
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
16590
OS June
?O
rJimf 9 2000
This is in response to your application letter dated June 3, 1999, requesting a Coast` it
for a project to replace the bridge (B-3445) over Corey's Ditch Canal between the Back and
Currituck Sound in Currituck County, North Carolina.
Since this stream is subject to tidal influence, it is considered legally navigable for Bridge
Administration purposes. This stream at the crossing site also meets the criteria for advance
approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 115.70. Advance
approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than
small boats. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his advance approval to the
construction of bridges across such waterways; therefore, an individual permit will not be
required for this project as long as our office is notified when construction begins.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Terrance Knowles, at the
phone number or address shown above.
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
Copy: NOAA
+- - vaa.aav v. • •Val 1 V{..avnIaA Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NC DENR
January 15, 1999 C
MEMORANDUM `
z
19
TO: William D. Gilmore Manager 99
Planning and Environmental Branch =!
?.p r
FROM: Gloria Putnam, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping Sheets, DWQ# 12307
Group = Bridge Replacement Projects
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental review document (s):
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Andrea Leslie - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 577
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated
C. Identify the number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate fok habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-land
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J. The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full
control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland
mitigation.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General
Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek:\12307; NCDOT Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
. .-t . -
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources CommissionE
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 25, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Group MX Bridge Replacement Projects. TIP Nos. B-3348,
B-3349, B-33442, B-3443, B-3445, B-3524, and B-3537.
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.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are 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.
ullu,4a 1WJJla"111c111 lvlclltu
Julluk y LJ, 1777
s
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'x10'.
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 sturdps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (Rprap 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. Tim Savidge 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 (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfreld
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
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 so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
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
tsnage tcepiacement iviemo J January 25, 1999
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 that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation.for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed. '
Project specific comments:
B-3348 - Hyde County - Bridge # 54 is located on an unnamed canal
connected to Pamlico Sound. The shallow water habitat in this canal is used by
numerous species of anadromous and resident fish as spawning, rearing,
feeding, and escape areas. This location likely supports migrating populations
of blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus).
Populations of these species in northeastern North Carolina are currently
classified as depressed. Increased turbidity in these areas results in the
destruction of spawning habitat, and greatly diminishes egg and fry survival.
To avoid adverse impacts to spawning populations of fish species at the project
site, NCDOT should follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage". We specifically request that this structure be replaces with a
spanning structure. No in-water work should be conducted between March 1
and September 30.
2. B-3349 - Hyde County - Bridge # 54 is located over Rose Bay Canal. The
shallow water habitat in Rose Bay Canal is used by numerous species of
anadromous and resident fish as spawning, rearing, feeding, and escape areas.
This location is especially important for migrating populations of blueback
herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) into Lake
Mattamuskeet. Populations of these species in northeastern North Carolina
are currently classified as depressed. Increased turbidity in these areas results
in the destruction of spawning habitat, and greatly diminishes egg and fry
survival. To avoid adverse impacts to spawning populations of fish species at
the project site, NCDOT should follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage". We specifically request that this structure be
replaces with a spanning structure. No in-water work should be conducted
between March 1 and September 30.
3. B-3442 & B-3443 - Bridge # 224 is located over Locks Creek and Bridge #
219 is over the Cape Fear River. Both of these projects cross in locations
known to support anadromous fish. Therefore, we recommend NCDOT
follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
Coffer dams or turbidity curtains may be required to reduce sediment during
construction of in-stream bridge supports. No in-water work should be
performed from February 1 to June 15. Any work involving utility lines
should be restricted to the north or upstream side of the bridge as there is a
cleared construction corridor on this side of the bridge.
4. B-3445 - Currituck County - Bridge # 7 is located over Northern Canal which
runs between Currituck Sound and Back Bay. Tributaries and cnals of
Currituck Sound and Back Bay provide important spawning refugia for many
freshwater fish species especially during periods of high salinity. The shallow
uiiuge iwpiauemem memo
4 January 25, 1999 ,
water habitat in this canal also provides, rearing, feeding, and escape areas for _
many fish species. Increased turbidity in these areas results in the destruction
of spawning habitat, and greatly diminishes egg and fry survival. To avoid
adverse impacts to spawning populations of fish species at the project site, no
in-water work should be conducted between March 31 and September 30.
5. B-3524 - Wake County - No specific concerns.
6. B-3537 - Wayne County - Bridge # 62 is located over the Little River. The
Little River is known to support populations of anadromous fish at this site.
We request that this bridge be replaced with a spanning structure. NCDOT
should follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage". No in-water work should be conducted between February 15 and
June 15.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The 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, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
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 comment on these projects.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESC'URCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
November 29, 1999
41/??YNE MGDEVITT
SECRETARY '
DIRECTOR
:_? R
4•'•-

Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Ms. Baldwin:
SUBJECT: Request for Comments on NC DOT Bridge Replacement Project B-
3445, Replace Bridge No. 7 on NC 615 over the Corey's Ditch Canal
between Back Bay and Currituck Sour -
Regulatory staff at the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) have reviewed the
Department of Transportation's request for comments on the 1)roiect reference'
above. We have consid°-_d the potential impact of the proposed project's
alternatives upon Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) near the project, and we
concur with the recommended Alternate A. Alternate A replaces the bridge with a
two-lane struc:.:: ° - is ^- - - --mate eXlSLing iocation using staged construction.
Affected AEC's would be Estuarine Shorelines, Estuarine Waters, Public Trus-
Areas and possibly Coastal Wetlands.
Based on the NCDOT's current proposal to narrow their study to a singie alten,_
Alternate A, DCM staff agree that this project can proceed as a Categorical
Exclusion. However, the letter DCM received on June 3, 1999 notes that DOT may
consider an additional alternate based on a request from the County Manager for an
alternate which would elevate the bridge to allow small boats to travel between Baci:
Bay and Currituck Sound. If the DOT modifies its study to include alternates other
than Alternate A, DCM will need to reconsider the potential impact of the proposed
project's alternatives upon Areas of Environmental Concern near the project.
In accordance with the Coastal Area Management Act, this project will require a
permit from the Division of Coastal Management prior to construction. A complete
assessment of the permit requirements will be made when a CAMA permit
application is received from the NC DOT. It is possible that the proposed bridge
replacement project will qualify for a CAMA General Permit for replacement of
existing bridges and culverts in estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines, public trust
areas and coastal wetlands (7H .2300). This will be dependent upon the project
meeting all of the conditions outlined in the General Permit. Some of the relevant
conditions are as follows:
1638 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1638
2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVr %r-'ON EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER riPER

• The total area of public trust area, estuarine waters, and wetlands to be
excavated or filled shall not exceed 2,500 square feet except that the
wetland component shall not exceed 500 square feet.
• The general permit shall not be applicable to proposed construction
where DENR determines, after any necessary investigations, that the
proposed activity would adversely affect areas which possess historic,
cultural, scenic, conservation, fisheries, water quality or recreational
values. DCM believes it is possible that Bridge No. 7 might be a
historic structure. Review and approval from the NC Division of
Archives & History will be required before any CAMA permit is
issued. Review and approval for adverse affects to fisheries values
will also be required from the NC Division of Marine Fisheries .
• Confirmation must be provided that -the adjacent riparian property
owners have been notified by certified mail of the proposed work.
During the permitting process. we may have additional comments on the project's
environtnentai impacts, ana may place conditions on the permit to minimize any
environmental impacts. The concurrence :n this letter shall not preclude us from
requesting additional information throughout the permitting process. and following
normai permitting procedures.
Please contact me at [phone] x 238 or via e-mail at
[e-mail] if you have any questions or concerns.
SSiincce.{rjeiy,
Cathy BAinglham ?J.
i ransportatio?? Project Coordinator
cc: Nancy Horne, Carter & Burgess, Inc.
Ed Harrell, NC Division of Coastal Management

DENR
JAMES. B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
May 1, 2000
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Ms. Harris:
SUBJECT: NC DOT proposal to replace Bridge No. 7 on NC 615 over the Corey's
Ditch Canal between Back Bay and Currituck Sound, Currituck county.
TIP No. B-3445.
"
A. ' Regulatory staff at the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) have reviewed the
Department of Transportation's (DOT's) request for comments on the project referenced
4: .
Y'N
above in a letter dated 4/18/00.

f '', DOT has revised Alternate A to elevate the bridge structure an additional two feet to

allow small boats to travel between Back B
d C
it
k S
d
Th
li
ay an
urr
uc
oun
.
e a
gnment of
the bridge will remain the same with slight increases to approach fill lengths and widths.

v _ In accordance with the Coastal Area Management Act, this project will require a CAMA
permit from DCM prior to construction. A complete assessment of the permit

:: requirements will be made when a CAMA permit application is received from the NC
.
DOT. During the permitting process, we may have additional comments on the
project's environmental impacts, and may place conditions on the permit to minimize
any environmental impacts.
-? Preliminary comments in a letter from DCM to DOT dated 11/29/99 stated that it is
possible that the proposed bridge replacement project will qualify for a LAMA General
Permit for replacement of existing bridges and culverts in estuari ne waters, estuarine
shorelines, public trust areas and coastal wetlands (7H.2300). However, the revised
proposal to elevate the bridge structure an additional two feet will likely result in the
proposed project no longer qualifying for CAMA General Permit 7H .2300 due to the

7
1
k
?
" following specific condition of this General Permit:
'
3
s
N
.;;
Bridge replacement projects shall not increase the vertical clearance to more than five
feet above normal water level (NWL) or normal high water (NHW), or by vertical
clearance to more than 25 percent over the existing clearance, whichever is greater."

.. MAILING: 1638 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1638
PHYSICAL: 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED / 10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
DENR TOLL FREE HOTLINE: [phone]
h , , .t,
If the proposed project no longer qualifies for a CAMA General Permit, then DOT will
be required to apply for a CAMA Major Permit. Please be aware that the processing
time for a CAMA Major Permit is approximately 75 days, but can take longer
depending on the complexity of the project, magnitude of environmental impacts, and
other factors.
Please contact me at [phone] x 238 or via e-mail at
[e-mail] if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely, n
Cathy Brittingham '
Transportation Project Coordinator
cc: Wes Stafford, Carter & Burgess, Inc.
Ed Harrell, NC Division of Coastal Management
VV,
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 13, 1999
MEMORANDUM
srA1r
M1?
4V ?7 D
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
/- _
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XIX, Bridge 7 on NC 615 over
canal, Currituck County, B-3445, ER 99-7924
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
91-
LC
9
t ^ •. , 1999
V
Thank you for your memorandum of December 8, 1998, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structure
of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Bridge #7. This bridge was built in 1936.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project area so
we can make our survey recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
L. Novick
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 T???
TIP , 13• 3q y Federal Aid ,# QQ / i
JR - (J C 1 County C,ur r i l CIS
CONCURRENCE FOR?IM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
On9 . (0: 1 gC(representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHP&
Othe:
reviewed the subject project at
A sconinQ meetit.
?.- Historic architectural resources photo. ranh review session/consultatiop
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project s area of potentiai eit".
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effeLi
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of eacn property. properties
identified a S, r y (A _ are
considered not etimble tot Elie National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
3ianed:
1 k R, "A k k VM-Q Jitil? ll `l 0 (C(
?-
i
tepresentative, 1 CDOT Date
l
,.
'HwA, fo ' e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency AD to
44
.e esentati e, SHPO Date

tale Historic Preservation Officer Date
p
If a survey report is prepared, a final cope of this form and the attached list will be included.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Gene A. Gregory, Chairman
S. Paul O'Neal, Vice-Chairman
Ernie Bowden
Eldon L. Miller, Jr.
J. Owen Etheridge
COUNTY OF CURRITUCK
Post Office Box 39 .
Currituck, North Carolina 27929-0039
Telephone [phone] / FAX [phone]
State Courier # 10-69-17
May 10, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, Manager T'
Planning and Environmental Branch __0
,
NC Department of Transportation q +
P. O.'Box 25201 `? >=
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201 V
Re: Replacement of Bridge No..7 on NC 615 over northern canal
between Back Bay and Currituck Sound, Currituck County,
TIP No. B-3445
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
WILLIAM S. RICHARDSON
County Manager
JOHN S. MORRISON
County Attorney
GWEN H. TATEM, CMC
Clerk to the Board
r ,
O
dl4Y ,
.o
`4 ?'VAi.YS%S,.i
The County has recently received several comments from Knotts Island
residents concerning a need to have the above bridge elevated when replaced
to allow for small boats to travel between Back Bay and Currituck Sound.
Presently, the bridge is a barrier to small boats utilizing this waterway.
Any assistance you can provide in vating this bridge to meet the
needs of our citizens would be great appreciated. I or the County staff can
provide any assistance, please don't hesitate to co?1
ta? e. Until then, I
remain cer 1 I
illia S. Richardson
ounty - Manager
WSR/mg
cc: Board of Commissioners
Charles H. Ward, Member, Board of Transportation
Don Conner, Division Engineer
Jerry Jennings, District Engineer
(CM:Ltr99:Gi1more/KI Bridge:DOT)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Preston P. Pate, Jr., Director
MEMORANDUM:
NCDENK
NORTH GROUNA MUWRTMPWT of
ENVIRONMENT MID NATURAL RESOURCCS
TO: William D. Gilmore, NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch I ,
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Biologist Supervisor
SUBJEC'T': NCDOT Bridge Replacement , B-3345 Currituck County, Replace Bridge No, 7 on
NC 615 over Corey's Creek
DATE: May 22, 2000
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries reviewed the information provided relative
to the Bridge No. 7 replacement . This agency approves of project as proposed, as long as BMP
measures are enacted during demolition and construction.
E
p. O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action employer 50% recycled/ 10%v post-consumer paper