20020670 Ver 1_Complete File_20100727 (2)

micnaei r. tasiey, uovernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 4, 2002
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Permit Application for proposed Replacement of Bridge Number 91 on SR 1509 over Parrot Swamp in
Onslow County
DWQ No. 020670, TIP No. B-3358
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for making
an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
• The project proposes the use of the Clayhill Mitigation Site. At present, the Mitigation Banking Review Team
has not completed the development of the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) for this site. Therefore, no
credits are presently available for use from this site. As soon as the MBI for this site is signed, mitigation
credits will potentially be available for this project.
While the project as proposed does not meet the minimum threshold for the General Certification 3361 to
require written concurrence from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, the DWQ has the option to
require an individual certification if "it is determined that the project is likely to have a significant adverse
effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the wetland or downstream waters are
precluded". The project proposes the placement of temporary fill into SA waters and wetlands immediately
adjacent to SA waters. The NCDWQ requests that DOT please redesign the project to use a temporary work
bridge instead of a temporary fill causeway, or the Division of Water Quality may have to require an individual
certification for this project and condition the certification accordingly.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold until we are
supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC Division of Water
Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on
hold.
NCUEIiI+
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
\ow, , y pG
>
o ?
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
fI
cc: DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
File Copy
C:\ncdot\TIP B-3358\correspondence\020670hid.doc
William G. Rossi;., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
APR 6 POO?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
°"? _? .f .SrCT tl;
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 19, 2002
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources V20V6,
Division of Coastal Management ?'
151-B Hwy 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
ATTENTION
Dear Mr. Tyndall:
Mr. Ted Tyndall
District Manager
Subject: Onslow County, CAMA Major Development Permit Application for the
replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Parrot Swamp on SR 1509, NCDOT
Division 3, Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1509(4), State Project No.
8.2260901, TIP Project No. B-3358.
Please find enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), an Addendum to the CE,
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit application, permit drawings, a letter
from the Coast Guard, a North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stormwater
Exemption letter, and a check for $400.00 for the application fee for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 91 will be replaced on the existing alignment with a new bridge
approximately 60 feet (18.0 meters) in length and 40 feet (12.0 meters) in width. The
new bridge will have two 12.0 foot (3.6 meters) travelways with 8.0 foot (2.4 meters) rail
offsets. The approach roadway will consist of two 12.0-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with
grassed shoulders at least 8.0 foot (2.4 meters) wide. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing bridge. The length of the
temporary detour will be approximately 700 feet (213.0 meters) with a temporary bridge
approximately 60.0 feet (18.2 meters) in length. Impacts to wetlands associated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 91 will include temporary fill and mechanized clearing due to
the temporary detour. Mechanized clearing will be by Method III.
Parrot Swamp is classified as SA waters by the Division of Water Quality and is
designated by North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries as a Primary Nursery Area.
Therefore, NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) (High Quality Water Standards) throughout design and
construction of this project.
Temporary Bridge Information: A temporary bridge will be located west of the existing
bridge. The temporary bridge will consist a concrete deck with Class II riprap on top of
filter fabric. The resulting temporary fill in wetlands associated with the temporary
detour bridge is 0.17 acre (0.07 hectare) and approximately 0.06 acre (0.02 hectare) in
mechanized clearing.
Restoration Plan: Upon completion of the new bridge, the temporary bridge will be
removed. The approach fill will be removed to natural grade (Elevations and contours in
the vicinity are available from field survey notes). The area will be planted with
appropriate native wetland species.
Minimization: The original alternate chosen involved placing the temporary detour
bridge on the eastern side of SR 1509. After evaluation by the NCDOT Natural Systems
Staff, it was concluded that the wetlands on the east are comparatively higher quality than
the wetlands on the western side of SR 1509. Therefore, the decision was made to move
the temporary detour to the west side in order to decrease the amount of higher quality
wetlands impacted. Detour fill slopes have been reduced to 2:1 to reduce roadway fill.
Mitigation: All project impacts are considered permanent since compression of muck
soils may have permanent negative environmental consequences. A total of 0.23 acre
(0.09 ha) of riverine wetland impacts will occur on this project. NCDOT proposes to
debit the Clayhill Farms mitigation bank. This site is located northeast of Jacksonville in
Jones County.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for an October 15, 2002 let date with an availability
date approximately six weeks after. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start
construction of the temporary detour bridge shortly after the availability date. The
temporary bridge will be removed within 90 days upon completion of the project.
Disposal: After the temporary bridge is no longer needed, the contractor will use
roadway building equipment to remove the concrete deck and riprap. All temporary
bridge material will become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be
required to submit a reclamation plan for removal and disposal of all material off-site.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 91 contains two main spans totaling 36 feet (11.0 meters)
and is 26 tet (7.9 meters) wide. The bridge has a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists and the substructure is reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. Both the bridge
rail and substructure will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the
United States. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped into Waters
of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete deck is approximately 10.0 yd3 (7.6 m3). However, it is anticipated that the
bridge will be removed without dropping components into the river. During construction,
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Threatened and Endangered Species: As of February 26, 2001, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists ten federally protected species for Onslow County. On
January 23, 2002 the USFWS determined the endangered status for golden sedge (Carex
lutea); therefore, golden sedge was added to the federally protected species list for
Onslow County. The NCDOT evaluation of the original ten species in November of
1998 and June of 1999 resulted in Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" for all of these
species. A survey has not been conducted for the golden sedge and additional surveys
will be conducted for rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and Cooley's
meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi). Therefore, surveys for goldensedge, rough-leaved
loosestrife, and Cooley's meadowrue will be conducted prior to project construction. The
results of these surveys will be forwarded to the resource agencies as soon as they are
available. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats on January 7, 2002 revealed that no known occurrences of any federally
protected species occur within one mile of the project area.
NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit. A check for $400.00 for the application
fee is enclosed. Copies of the green cards will be forwarded as soon as they are
available. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting issuance of a United States Army
Corps of Engineers NWP 23 and a 401 Water Quality Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith
at [phone], extension 286.
Sincerely,
vc
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Rick Monaghan, NCDMF, Morehead City
Mr. Ron Sechler, DMF, Beaufort
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., NCDOT Program Development, Raleigh
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design, Raleigh
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E., NCDOT PD&EA, Raleigh
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics, Raleigh
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., NCDOT Division 3 Engineer, Wilmington
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer, Wilmington
Mr. Ken Pace, NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit, Raleigh
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name See attached list in permit drawings
Address
City State
Zip Day Phone
Fax
b. Authorized Agent:
Name: N.C. Department of Transportation/
Bill Gilmore
Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
City: Raleigh State: N.C.
Zip: 27699-1548
Day Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
c. Project name (if any): B-3358
NOTE. Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
Revised 03/95
a. County: Onslow
b. City, town, community or landmark:
Near the town of Hubert
c. Street address or secondary road number:
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): Parrot Swamp
3. DESCRIPTION AND 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.
New bridge construction including the use of a
temporary detour bridge
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance - of an
existing project, new work, or both? Both
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. N more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Replace exisiting bridge with a
new bridge over Parrot Swami). Detour bridge will
be in place during construction.
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes_ No
Coastal (marsh) Other Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp & Bottomland Hardwoods
a. Size of entire tract: N/A
b. Size of individual lot(s): N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL:: +/- 11.2 feet
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract:
Muckalee loam, Marvyn loamy fine sand,
Norfolk loamy fine sand.
e. Vegetation on tract Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp, Coastal Plain Perennial Stream, Bottomland
hardwoods, Mesic Pine flatwoods and
Maintained/Disturbed. Ulmus americana,
Liriodendron tulipfera, Fraxinus pennsylvanica,
Pinus taeda, Acer rubrum and Liquidambar
styraciflua.
f. Man-made features now on tract Buildings and
trailer on high ground
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
X Conservation X Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
This area is not zoned
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
Onslow County does not have any zoning in the
vicinity of the bridge.
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? SHPO
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
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
Yes by Dave Timpy (USACE) on March 13, 2001
(Attach documentation, if available)
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, "wash down" and residential
discharges.) Surface runoff
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Water line
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on' an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
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
Form DCM-MP-1
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include highway or - secondary road (SR)
numbers, 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
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
See Attached Sheet 7 of 8 permit drawings
• 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 $400 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.
This is the l day of 19 2-0!:'T,,
Print Name , C.. ? ?+? ?a ? l? ?. ??
Signature I/. • ?- ' &k lk G1 'u-IL
Landowner or Authoriz Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
_ 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.
M
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
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.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
h. Width of proposed bridge 40 feet
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
+/- 9 feet (deck to wetlands)
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water
flow?
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
36" ppc girders
Yes X No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
+/- 10 feet
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Parrot Swamp 1.
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 3 foot
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 36 feet
(2) Width of existing bridge 26 feet
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge +/- 10 feet
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) All. New bridge will
be longer than the existing bridge
f. Will proposed bridge replaced 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
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? X Yes No
If yes, explain Navigation will be increased
because fewer bents will be placed in the stream.
in. Will the proposed bridge cross
containing no navigable waters? _Yes
If yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
X Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed N/A
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
N/A
wetlands
X No
g. Length of proposed bridge 60 feet
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing
bridge?N/A
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
N/A
Yes 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
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert N/A
g. Width of proposed culvert N/A
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above
the MHW or NWL N/A
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water
flow? N/A
Yes No
If yes, explain
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing
navigation potential? N/A Yes
No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any excavation below the MHW
or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any excavation within: N/A
Coastal Wetlands SAVs Other
Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 20 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 70 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards +/- 250 cubic yards (old bridge
fill).
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
Approved upland disposal site.
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Unknown at this time
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission
from the owner.
(4) Will the disposal area be available for
future maintenance? Yes X
No
(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.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area
below the MHW or NWL? _ Yes X
No
If yes, give dimension if different from No.
2 above.
e. 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
below MHW or NWL? Yes X No
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled and erosion controlled? Silt fence, diversion
(3) Purpose of fill ditches and NCDOT Type "B" basins.
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert result in any fill (other than excavated f. What type of construction equipment will be used
material described in Item d. above) to be placed (for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic
within; dredge)? Backhoe, bulldozer, crane.
Coastal Wetlands SAVs X Other
Wetlands If yes, g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting
(1) Length of area to be filled 230 feet equipment to project site? X Yes No
(2) Width of area to be filled 30 feet H yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
(3) Purpose of fill Temporary detour roadway environmental impacts. Minimize fill slopes, use
geotextile matting between layer.
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 h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
on highground? X Yes No culvert require any shoreline stabilization?
If yes, X Yes No
(1) Length of area to be filled 340 feet If yes, explain in detail Class II riprap. See profile
(2) Width of area to be filled 35 feet sheet Nos. 5 and 6 in permit drawings.
(3) Purpose of fill Temporary detour roadway
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail
r 100 -r
Applicant o o,? Name `Z
Signature
4/v' Iu0 1
Date
°V,- Will the proposed project require the relocation
of any existing utility lines? X Yes
\No
If yes, explain in detail Telephone lines, power
lines, etc.
c. Will the proposed project require the
construction of any temporary detour structures?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Detour bridge
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
Revised 03/95 "
NORTH CAROLINA
UQUN I T

V I N I T Y
MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2260901 (B-3358 )
REPLACEMENT OF BRG. ;;91
ON SR 1509 OVER
PARROT SWAMP
SHEET ( OF S 8 / 29 / 2001

'N ,C..DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
I DIVISION; OF. HIGHWAYS

SI
TE ` ONSLOW-. COUNTY
I PR931ECT:8.2260901
(B73358 )
M AP .
REP
LACEMENT OF. BAG. #91
ON SR: 1509 OVER,
PARROT SWAMP
SHEET Z OF?8 i 29/ 29 /2001
LEGEND

--1L6 WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L

WL
WETLAND
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
WETLAND

® DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SURFACE WATER
eAy7 DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND r!?Lr^u^1-r!_ WOODS LINE
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND ¦
DRAINAGE INLET

® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FACE WATERS
ROOTWAO
FILL IN SUR
•
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
+
•" • " • CLEARING y
000po VORTEX ROCK WEIR
E- ? FLOW DIRECTION

T' RIP RAP
- TOP OF BANK
- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
RIP RAP ENERGY
C DISSIPATOR BASIN
PROP.LIMIT OF CUT
F PROP.LIMIT OF FILL
-- A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY VANE
- NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
0 WATER SURFACE
XX
X LIVE STAKES N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
X
X
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
C2D BOULDER
ONSLOW COUNTY
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROJECT: 8.2260901 (B-3358)
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
.
REPLACEMENT OF BRG. 91
ON SR 1509 OVER
PARROT SWAMP
SHEET 3 OF 0
A?
CU
0m
.. W
o „m
• o?
m ., z
z ro .
o r -a
-+ m
rr-in zN
m -r
a3 Cm
.mm m3
C7 -4-0
z = r- C)
Z Z D -??..
N O ?p
m
to
A
?
0 in
c X0 n?
C O ?m I
? I
N Ln
n
r,n
u i
O
1
o ?
x J=
0 to -o /
t33 0
?za F-' 4 tv
0
0 m o
y tJ3 r o
'0?Nz tij ?Opq
c X00 ox>
v-v x
g ?' a -I
Cl)
Ul

1c) o No
N
O
O
D

NO
Un X
+ om (n
O
O ?n Z
?D G7
' nX
D
• -ir
Dg
(/) ' <
I v

Q D
! D
i -I +
?o
t?4 - I o
z ODE
o?-+
o ? I

j
a I i
? ;
O
o K 0

- m
c) * m (n
o
-1
x
D n D
+
i
Z I
p

I
I tD
rv M
m p
'
I
(Ao
m
N OO N
to r- -< Lnn n t? I O
O C I
? I II II G
I
n N I .. C M
z co m cn I A 1 R 4 p cn
m m I Iv I O
C" p t7 < I N 1
Z 0 I

UI
?
z ?3
o
? ? I
0 N I
o z A o ?
o
I
?? o C-4
z " Z
cn O I
z
ro?? 0 ?I

0 Cl)
z ° o
o °
N
O
o
nl
p
r nr II ?/

ZD
MC
N
• •?
D? Q?O
r-Z
-1-+
o O
O
cn
O -?
r
r
_
w rl
or
rnN
\ 1 O
o --q ;VC-)

-
-
N
o 7,
r
OD
m MO
D(/) 1
® _°_
/
in I

® - r -? -
o ,
r
cn ?
o
??y{ rn
Z ;P;z
rn N m
m-A
l C) ::E >
n CO

_ to

n °
o
+
CO
Z,
c m
O O
O
n
o m
r uD
N
+ n
p O
LA
1
to 1
z t

1
„dO;0. m O C m +1

go o z ° ?1

00 cn
?o ?°o

O C 2 ?'
O

Lo
C ~
.. 41 o C`j r -?
ro?
'? ?
w ?
K x
? o II
I I I I `-
? 1
G7 0% ,?
H k,

O'?
z ?

A I . .
D
?TJ
(7
r
:U
O
M
-+

M
U)

D

r

7 O
z

x

co
to

CD

-4 D

z

D m

, m

() m

o m m
N
N

W
Z d
n
?
LO
LO
LO
LO
n

o r
ZZ) ? ° ? n

° Z ?
r O
Z
n ® ,
-3

'v

?0 0 o x

z

C'n
o

o

0
r c
z
O O O O

?1
V
=
D
2
z
m n
D
n
n
C
r
Z
m
.

T1
`
Z
z

-?
=
rn
?
N

m '
-<
?
p =

r-
m K:
z
?
N
?
Z ?

? p
m ?
:U m S N
W p
m ?
:U m S N
W p
m ?
? m S?
W N
m N
? D
Z N
C7 n
N
v, m
w.? Z N
("7 n

u, m
w ? Z N
C7 0

v, m
w ? Z?
C7 0
N O
u,
w ?

0

0

0

m
.0
70
m

T
O

X
o :4

fD
CL
w
N
N
O
Cl) CD

2) ID 3 z
A
co =
N

z
X (7

O vm
°
C
CO nZ cn?
CD
n. ?
0
O Z
m co
C
N < 0 -1 m
OD 0 n =

+n (A
0 O C ?

ao a
o D X
w
w v>
v,
O
z x
.
5
i
= -4
CO)

a

CL

D ? o
?
r
V
t
O
?
w

Cl)
O
o
? o o ?

C p ? O
77 ? ?
(D
TI
N
O _
n = -_
s
N m

N
O ?
V V - Q
n
O.
o m
3 m ?

?o
a y 3
?
N
.v

p O
S
(1)
rn ? ? a?•3 CO)
= co m C
.- a 3
3
z „ D
o ? c ?
w ?
TI
'0 =
?
D
n

N
7
p n fA 'd
? m ?

3

z
s

m

Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on STS 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department Of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department Of Transportation
Division Of Highways
+-ZS-0o
Date
f "V,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SIB 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
C R94
?,.••oFESS/o ••.;yy
Q-
?• ? SEAL 9r •
0; 24925 ;LU
- 151
4 Z'f DU gNDRE`N
*1000001
Date Robert Andrew J ner, P. E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
z?
Date
Con hia D. Sharer, P. E., Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
¢-25-aa G1/I
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Proi ed Commitments
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91, on S 1509
Over Parrot Swam
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901 -
TIP No. B-3358
Highway Division 3, Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit
NCDOT's' Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to
preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will
also be strictly enforced.
Roadway Design Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Roadside Environmental Unit, Highway Division 3
Upon completion of the new bridge, the existing bridge will be removed.
The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project. Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, Highway Division 3
Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without dropping
them into Waters of the United States. There is potential for components of the
deck to be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction. The
resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is approximately 7.6
m3 (10 yd3).
. Categorical Exclusion
April 2000,
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridge No. 91 in Onslow County (see Figure 1). This bridge carries SR
1509 over Parrot Swamp. This project is included in NCDOT's 2000-2006
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project.
NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this project
as a Categorical Exclusion. No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a
bridge on new alignment approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing
structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be a approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. The clear roadway width of the bridge will be 12 meters (40 feet)
to accommodate two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) rail offsets.
The roadway approaching the bridge will consist of two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes
with 2.4-meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders. The new bridge will be at
approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Based on preliminary
design, the design speed will be 100 km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be detoured on
the existing alignment during construction.
.. The estimated cost of the project is $1,018,000 including $950,000 in
construction costs and $68,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in
the 2000-2006 TIP is $325,000. The current estimated cost of the proposed
improvements exceeds the TIP funding by $693,000. Right of way acquisition for
the project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2001 and construction is scheduled
to begin in fiscal year 2002.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There are no design exceptions currently associated with this project. A
final determination on design exceptions will be made during the design phase
for the project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1509 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is located approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) south
of Swansboro, N. C. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 90
km/h (55 mph). There were four reported accidents in the vicinity of the bridge
during the three-year period from August 1, 1994, to July 31, 1997.
The existing bridge was built in 1959. The bridge includes two main spans
totaling 11.0 meters (36 feet) in length and is 7.9 meters (26 feet) wide. It has a
reinforced concrete floor on timber joists and the substructure has reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic and has a
7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway width. The approach roadway is 6.1 meter (20 feet)
wide with grass shoulders. It is approximately 3.6 meters (12 feet)-above the
streambed. Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without
dropping them into Waters of the United States. There is potential for
components of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the United States during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is
approximately 7.6 m3(10 yd3).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of
the bridge is 46.5 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with
weight restrictions of 18 tons for single vehicles and 25 tons for truck-tractor
semi-trailers.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 91, SR
1509 carries 6,200 vehicles per day in the year 2000. This figure is expected to
increase to 12,100 vehicles per day by the year 2025. These traffic figures include
3% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and 1% truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The
design hourly volume [DHV] is 10%.
The Onslow County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that
25 school buses each cross this bridge as many as 6 times per day during the
school year.
IV. STUDIED ALTERNATES
A. Alternative 1
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of
the existing bridge during construction. Two residences will be relocated as a
2
result of construction of this alternate.
B. Alternative 2
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour east of
the existing bridge during construction. One business will be relocated as a
result of construction of this alternate.
C. Alternative 3 (Recommended)
Replace Bridge No. 91 on new alignment to the east of the existing bridge
with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Two residences will be
relocated as a result of construction of this alternate.
D. Other Alternatives
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical; requiring the eventual
closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation
of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
An alternative with an off-site detour is not reasonable. The shortest
detour route is more than 19 kilometers (12 miles) in length (see Figure 1). This
would generate a much greater cost to the average road user during the course of
construction than an on-site detour. An off-site detour is also undesirable due to
the resulting community impacts. Two schools have recently been constructed in
the area. As mentioned above, 25 school buses each cross the bridge as many as 6
times per day during the school year. Closing the bridge during construction
would cause substantial delays for these buses and would be an obstacle to
school bus operations.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows:
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Recommended
.A. a .
p ; w I+ ' (f

O,
_
BO,O 4..
w n
Roadwa A roaches $304,360 $304,054 $415,200
681
Detour, Approaches,
& Removal $475,632 $461,038 $0
Si 21
1 6-1 Mlt
Engineering & -
Contingencies $210,000 $175,000 $135,000

Total Construttion;<-.$
' ; ;3aQ 000.
. <. X 1 00.
-Da
Right of Wa & Utilities $54,700 $56,600 $68,000
OTAL'1+C? COST = 1 x{1400 's 155,'DOF{ $
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a
bridge on new alignment approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing
structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be a approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. The clear roadway width of the bridge will be 12 meters (40 feet)
to accommodate two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) rail offsets.
The roadway approaching the bridge will consist of two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes
with 2.4-meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders. The new bridge will be at
approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Based on preliminary
design, the design speed will be 100 km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be detoured on
the existing alignment during construction.
Upon completion of the new bridge, the existing bridge will be removed.
The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Alternate 3 is recommended because it has the lowest cost of the alternates
considered. Also, there is a relatively small difference in environmental impacts
between the alternatives. The Division concurs with the recommendation.
4
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement
of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited
scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment by implementing the project
commitments listed in the front of this document, and by using current NCDOT
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this.
project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited. Two residences will be relocated as a result of
construction of the project.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is
not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in
the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the
project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood
levels or have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility conflicts will be medium for the project. There is a water line along
the east side of SR 1509. There are aerial telephone and power lines along the
west side of SR 1509. There is a fiber-optic cable on the west side of SR 1509,
which is above ground across the swamp.
5
B. Air And Noise
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.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP
for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it
will not have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may
occur during construction.
C. Land Use & Farmland Effects
In the vicinity of this project, Onslow County has no zoning. This project
will impact no soils considered to be prime or important farmland.
D. . Historical Effects & Archaeological Effects
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are
no known historic architectural resources in the project area. Therefore, SHPO
has recommended that no historic architectural survey be conducted for the
project (see letter dated November 1Z 1997, in the appendix).
The State Historic. Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are
no known archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown sites are likely
to be found. Therefore, SHPO has recommended that no archaeological
investigation be conducted for the project (see letter dated November 12,1997, in
the appendix).
E. Natural Resources
1. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information
sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Hubert), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (Hubert),
6
Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service) soil maps (Onslow
County), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200). Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR,1997) and from the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Onslow County, 1995). Information concerning
the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species
and species of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Susan Brady and Logan Williams on 2
November 1998. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or
more of the following observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Additional surveys for federally-protected species
were conducted by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Jim Hauser on 22
June 1999.
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources occurring in the study area are discussed
below. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The topography in this section of Onslow County is nearly flat
to gently sloping, dissected by floodplains. Topography in the project
area is somewhat sloping since it is located in the stream valley and
floodplain area associated with Parrot Swamp. Project elevation is
approximately 4.6 m (15.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
a. Soils
Three soil phases occur within project boundaries: Muckalee loam,
Marvyn loamy fine sand 6-15% slope, and Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6%
slope. Muckalee loam is a poorly drained soil occurring on flood plains.
Permeability is moderate, surface runoff is slow, and the seasonal high
7
water table is located at 0.1-0.5 m (0.5-1.5 ft) below the surface. Flooding
occurs frequently for brief periods, and water may pond in the wider
floodplains for long periods in winter. Muckalee loam is -listed as hydric.
Marvyn loamy sand 6-15% slope is a well-drained soil occurring
short side slopes near large drainageways on uplands. Permeability is
moderate, surface runoff is medium, and the seasonal high water table is
located 0.9-1.5 m (3.0-5.0 ft) below the surface. This soil is subject to
erosion if not protected by vegetation. Marvyn loamy fine sand 6-15%
slope is listed as non-hydric, but may contain hydric inclusions of the
Muckalee soil type.
Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6% slope is a well-drained soil occurring
on uplands. Permeability is moderate, surface runoff is medium, and the
seasonal high water table is located 1.1-1.8 m (3.5-6.0 ft) below the surface.
Norfolk loamy fine sand is subject to erosion if not protected by cover
vegetation, and is listed as non-hydric.
Muckalee loam is difficult to manage for croplands and timber due
to wetness and flooding, however, woodland productivity is rated as
excellent. Wetness, periodic flooding, bank instability, and seepage are
the major limitations for this soil. Marvyn loamy fine sand 6-15% slope is
mainly used as woodland, with the major limitations for this soil being the
slope and risk of erosion. Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6% slope is used
mainly for cropland. The major limitations of this soil are erosion where
vegetation has been removed and, in areas used for building or sanitary
facilities, high water table during wet periods.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils
with a sandy/ silty texture. The soils did exhibit hydric conditions, such
as low chroma colors, in low areas of the flood plain. Therefore, hydric
soil indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual", 1987, were observed within the project study area.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources
likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information
encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major
water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
8
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Parrot Swamp will be the only surface water resource directly
impacted by the proposed project. Parrot Swamp is located in sub-basin
030501 of the White Oak River Basin. Parrot Swamp is a tributary to Queen Creek, and -has its confluence with the creek approximately 3.2 km
°"
(2.0 mi stream channel distance) downstream of Bridge No. 91. Queen
Creek is a 3.1 km (10.1 mi) long coastal stream flowing into the White Oak
River estuary in the vicinity of the town of Swansboro and Bogue Inlet.
Parrot Swamp, at Bridge No. 91, is approximately 3.0 m (10.0 ft) wide and
has an average depth of 0.6-0.9 m (2.0-3.0 ft) at this location. The substrate
is composed of silt, sand and gravel. Parrot Swamp is a blackwater
stream, with a visibility of less than 0.6 m (2.0 ft).
Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best
usage classification. The classification of Parrot Swamp [index no. 19-41-
16-4] is SA. The SA classification denotes waters suitable for shellfishing
for market purposes, primary recreation, aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, and secondary recreation. The classification of
SA automatically includes Parrott Swamp in the supplemental
classification of High Quality Waters (HQW).
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
Water ality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this
goal the DWQ, formerly known as the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM), collects biological, chemical and physical data that
can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are
reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites throughout the state. Some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality. A benthic
9
macroinvertebrate collection site is located at the mouth of Queen Creek
in Onslow County, approximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi stream channel distance)
from the project study area. This station was sampled once in August
1994 and received a taxa richness rating of 103, a Biotic Index value of 2.3,
and a bioclassification of Estuarine (DWQ, 1997).
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream,
lake and estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located
for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data. The type of
water quality data or parameters that are collected is determined by the
waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification and corresponding
water quality standards (DWQ 1997). Data collected at an AMS
monitoring site at the mouth of the White Oak River (NC 24 at
Swansboro) between January 1990 and December 1994 show no
excursions from NC Water Quality Criteria for all tested parameters
except copper (DWQ 1997). The increased levels of copper are seen
throughout the whole basin, and are therefore probably not due to a point
source. Parrot Swamp is, however, listed as a partially supporting
impaired water due to fecal coliform contamination, and shellfishing in
this area has been prohibited or restricted (DWQ 1997).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. In
June 1998, DWQ issued a NPDES permit to NCDOT authorizing it to
discharge stormwater into Waters of the United States. No other point
source dischargers are located within a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) radius of the
project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a
temporary detour during construction is almost always preferred to
relocating the road entirely. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms
and other natural resources, whereas bridge replacement on a new
location usually results in more severe impacts. Alternates 1 and 2 involve
the current right of way and a temporary detour. Utilizing the full
existing right of way width of 18.3 m (60.0 ft) and temporary detour width
of 30.5 m (100.0 ft), anticipated impacts to Parrot Swamp for Alternate 1
will be 48.8 m (160.0 ft) and Alternate 2 will be 39.6 m (130.0 ft). Alternate
3 calls for relocation of the bridge, using the existing bridge as a detour
during construction. Utilizing the full existing right of way width of 18.3
m (60.0 ft) and new right of way width of 30.5 m (100.0 ft), anticipated
impacts to Parrot Swamp for Alternate 3 will be 48.8 m (160.0 ft). Usually,
10
project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
Project construction for any of the three alternates may result in the
following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or
erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/ additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation
removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources
in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines in
Sensitive Watersheds will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval will also be strictly
enforced.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This
section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well
as the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems.
Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past
and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed.
11
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy
generally follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof,
et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al.
(1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used
in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
a. Biotic Communities
Five communities are identified in the project study area: Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype), Bottomland Hardwoods
(Blackwater Subtype), Coastal Plain Perennial Stream, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, and maintained/ disturbed. Community boundaries within
the study area are well defined without a significant transition zone
between them, except in the case of the Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp, which merges into the Bottomland Hardwoods. Faunal species
likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors, except those
fauna restricted. to the aquatic environment.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtyye)
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp is present along the Parrot
Swamp corridor on both sides of SR 1509. The hydrology of this .
community type is driven by intermittent flooding during high flow
periods. Periodic flooding provides nutrient input through sediment
deposition making this system very productive. However, periodic
flooding can also be a destructive factor during large storm events by
undercutting banks and eroding soils.
The canopy is composed of American elm (Ulmus americana), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Acer rubrum), red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
water oak (Quercus nigra) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The
shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees, Virginia willow (Itea
virginica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), common waxmyrtle (Myrica
cerifera) and tag alder (Alnus serrulata). Flowering dogwood (Corpus
florida) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) were occasionally found on
isolated hummocks within the floodplain. Herbs within this community
include net-veined chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), sedges (Carex spp.),
and smartweed (Polygonum lapathifolium). The vine layer is composed of
12
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), climbing hempweed (Mikania
scandens), climbing hydrangea (Decumeria Barbara) and greenbrier (Smilax
bona-nox).
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype)
Bottomland hardwoods are present on both sides of the project
area, adjacent to the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The hydrology
of this community is also driven by seasonal or intermittent flooding;
however, this community tends to be farther from the stream channel than
the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
The canopy layer in this community consists of loblolly pine, red
maple and sweetgum. The shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy
trees, American holly (Ilex opaca), and Virginia willow. The herb layer
includes smartweed and net-veined chain fern. The vine layer is
composed of Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu (Peuraria lobata), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and greenbrier.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
The Mesic Pine Flatwoods area is confined to the extreme northern
and southern ends of the project, on both sides of the road. This area has
sandy soils and is higher in elevation than the rest of the project. This
community appears to be disturbed by human activity.
The canopy layer in this community consists of loblolly pine and
sweetgum. The shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees,
persimmon, and occasional flowering dogwoods. The herb layer includes
aster (Aster spp.) and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). The vine layer is
composed of Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, poison ivy and greenbrier.
Maintained/ Disturbed
The maintained/ disturbed community is restricted to road
shoulders along SR 1509 and the area around the bridge and is present
along the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically
maintained community includes: fescue (Festuca spp.), goldenrod, dock
(Rumex spp.), paspalum (Paspalum spp.), beggar-ticks (Bidens spp.),
snumtweed, ragweed (Ambrosia artemesiifolia), and calico aster (Aster
lateriflorus). The area immediately around the bridge, which is less
intensively maintained, also contains black willow (Salix nigra). Eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), is occasionally seen in the woods along the
edge of this community.
13
Coastal Plain Perennial Stream
This area of Parrot Swamp is a small blackwater.stream. The only
vegetation associated with the stream itself in this area is smartweed and
beggar-ticks, both of which were growing into the stream channel in the
vicinity of the bridge. There is no visible submerged aquatic vegetation.
b. Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic
communities in an area will affect the fauna that are present and use the
area. This section addresses the fauna likely to be found in the project
study area.
Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes
Carolina anole* (Anolis carolinensis), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) will use these
forest communities for cover and will forage on twigs and leaves as well
as mast.
Avian species utilizing these areas include the prothonotary
warbler (Protonotaria citrea), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Eastern
bluebird* (Sialla stalls), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata),
yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), and turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura).
Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various
invertebrate and vertebrate species. Prey fish including mosquitofish*
(Gambusia affinis) provide foraging opportunities for pumpkinseed
sunfish* (Lepomis gibbosus), pirate perch* (Aphredoderus sayanus) and chain
pickerel (Esox niger). Invertebrates that are present include crayfish
(family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies* and damselflies*
(Order Odonata), whirligig beetles* (family Gyrinidae) and shrimp*
(Palaemonetes spp.). The southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
auriculatus), green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina) and brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota) are common
permanent residents in this community. Anadromous fish such as-alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) use coastal
14
streams as spawning habitat.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms
of area impacted and ecosystems affected, for each of the three project
alternates. Temporary and permanent impacts are also considered here.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present within the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of
way width. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right
of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community type Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
hectares(acres) (acres)
r
es
be
cta hectares(acres)
a?ta? mallVl1 GCll1L
iO7
?a?V??? m
??
i{
.
SSSS

?2

^6
# TTTT.
lyA
Y t
f
? _1
Coastal Plain Bottomland
0.22 (0.54) .
F
0.07 (0.17)
0.22 (0.54)
Hardwoods

Mesic'PzAe?Flatwc?o s tr. -?
?? ? 0- y 0 2 -q Yi J /
Maintained/ Disturbed 0.76 (1.88 0.88 (2.19 0.87 (2.15)
Total r
X,?n Y28 175 ? '
:1;7 .2. 82
1 9i 342 '7"
It should be noted that the anticipated impacts for Alternates 1 and
2 are mainly temporary impacts from the detour during construction,
whereas Alternate 3 is a permanent relocation of the road.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge NQ.
91 and its associated improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species,
thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope
of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
15
shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace
some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by
the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the
species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their
environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation
and erosion from construction-related work will affect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream
construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation,
which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms
(sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic*organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment.
These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material
at the construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank
enhances the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation
stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and
sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into
aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and
downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation.
Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to
elevations of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
Anadromous fish are a valuable resource and their migration must
not be adversely impacted. The Draft Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage provides guidance to the NCDOT to ensure
that replacement of existing stream crossing structures will not impede
the movement of anadromous fish. These guidelines should be used in
projects located in the coastal plain. The draft guidelines are given in the
appendix.
4. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
16
pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare
and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three
parameter approach is used, where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area
to be considered a wetland.
Two types of wetlands are present within the project area, and are
associated with the alluvial forest. The wetlands can be described as
palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous/ needle-leaved evergreen
seasonally flooded (PF01/4C, Cowardin, et al), and palustrine forested
broad-leaved deciduous/ needle-leaved evergreen temporarily flooded
(PFO1/4A, Cowardin, et al). These wetlands can also be described as
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) and Bottomland
Hardwoods, respectively (Schafale and Weakley,1990). Soils within the
wetland areas have a silty texture and a Munsell color notation of 25Y
5/2. Hydrological indicators include saturated soil, the presence of
oxidized rhizospheres and drift lines. Vegetation within the wetlands
include green ash, red maple, Virginia willow, net-veined chain fern,
climbing hempweed and climbing hydrangea.
Parrot Swamp is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological,
physical and water quality aspects of Parrot Swamp are presented in
previous sections of this report.
17
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Table 3 summarizes anticipated impacts to wetland and surface
water areas in the project area for each alternate. Anticipated impacts to
these areas are determined by using the entire project right of way width;
including right of way for the temporary detours. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
wetland and surface water impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters

?, -
hk
?.
{
:xf, *?? Al -'ate
,
a
z,
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.07 (0.16) 0.18 (0.45) 0.07 (0.16)
hectares acres
Bottomland Hardwoods 0.22 (0.54) 0.07 (0.17) 0.22 (0.54)
hectares (acres)
e?
I'otal?Wetlands;?
L" ` 1 0). x, (1}:62): :9{0:70)
l
k
; s
4??h
r F ?
1 ty}
?c X.. 'l
? e+ctares" acres cl4vt; ` _
»,h its sS3.,

jj _ Tta?I .r9urface<Waters, ?;,p ..?.??Y'; -
? .ice' w < . '=? r =
?
'i^'• 1?arrotswam ^'"r F .:y '
r Pr
?
?48 8(160) ° T30) X8.8 (160)
1
f
ers.
???.? ? ., T3 ?.. ?:??? , _ . ? -
Again, it should be noted that Alternates 1 and 2 present mainly
temporary impacts, while Alternate 3 is a permanent relocation of the
road.
Permits
impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. The subject
project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which is administered by the
Division of Coastal Management (DCM). The DCM is the lead permitting
agency for projects located within its jurisdiction. The DCM will not issue
a CAMA Major Development Permit unless NCDOT receives a
Stormwater Management Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ).
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to
identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in which
18
uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to property,
public health, and the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit
if the project meets all of the following conditions:
- it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by LAMA;
- it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC;
- it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act, and;
- it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by the CRC.
This project may require a CAMA permit. The CAMA major
development permit application form serves as an application for three
other state permits and for permits from the Corps of Engineers (COE)
required by section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. The state permits include:
(1) Permit to excavate and/or fill;
(2) Easement in lands covered by water, and;
(3) 401 Water Quality Certification.
AEC information:
(1) Estuarine waters are an AEC which CAMA defines as all the waters of the
Atlantic Ocean within the boundaries of North Carolina and all the waters
of the bays, sounds, rivers and tributaries there to seaward of the dividing
line between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters. This
definition of estuarine waters was also set forth in an agreement adopted
by the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development.
(2) A Public Trust AEC includes all waters and submerged lands in the
coastal region where the public has the rights of use and/or ownership,
including rights of navigation and recreation. This AEC also covers all
lands under these waterways and the submerged minerals and biological
resources that these submerged lands contain.
(3) A Coastal Wetland AEC is defined as any marsh subject to occasional
flooding by tides (including wind tides). Tidal waters may reach the
marsh by either natural or artificial watercourses. Coastal Wetland AEC's,
by definition, must contain certain plant species listed in the CAMA
regulations.
(4) An Estuarine Shoreline AEC includes all shorelines within 23.0 m (75.0 ft)
landward of the mean high water level, or normal water level, of the
estuarine waters.
19
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that
pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act;
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency' or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted
for the duration of the construction or other land manipulations.
ag tion
Miti
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of
"no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. A 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states that in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
20
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics
in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United
States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right of way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder
widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the
United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement
of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/ elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious
pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/ debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net
loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide
Permit # 23.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species
21
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of 28 February
2000, the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Onslow
County (see Table 4). A brief description of each species' characteristics
and habitat follows.
Table 4. Federally-Protected Species for Onslow County
c Name Common Name Status
E cai
77

retta
Careetta Loggerhead turtle T
L z{ 1677
Chelonia m das Green sea turtle T

Felis concolor cougar Eastern cou ar E

Amaranthus umilus Seabeach amaranth T
"I?at
MIMEN
.
Thalictrum coole Coole 's meadowrue E
;.. A-pr of nvfinrfinn thrmliab mlt all or a sianiflcant
L' UeIIULCb r tUCULrCICU ?a aYCa.aco uIUL
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened la species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/ A)" denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These
species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.)
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened due to Similarity
Animal Family: Crocodylidae of Appearance
Date Listed: 6/4/87
The American alligator is a large roughbacked reptile with a broad
rounded snout. Most adults range in size from 6 to 12 feet. Habitat for the
alligator includes river systems, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal
marshes. The alligator will eat almost anything of suitable size including
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and crustaceans.
Species that have the federal classification of Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance are not biologically endangered or threatened
22
and do not receive protection under Section 7. However, due to its
similarity of appearance to other protected crocodilians, federal
regulations, such as hide tagging requirements, are maintained on the
commercial trade to help control illegal taking of the protected species.
The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no record
of American alligator within the study area.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/ 28/ 78
Loggerhead turtles can be distinguished from other sea turtles by its
unique reddish-brown color. The loggerhead is characterized by a large
head and blunt jaws. Additionally, they have 5 or more costal plates with
the first touching the nuchal and 3 to 4 bridge scutes.
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke Inlet,
North Carolina through Florida and on a small scale off of the Gulf States.
There are also major nesting grounds on the eastern coast of Australia. It
lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters. Loggerheads nest
nocturnally between May and September on isolated beaches that are
characterized by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous, feeding
on small marine animals.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Nesting beaches are not present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of loggerhead
turtles in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not
affect the loggerhead turtle.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) Threatened
Animal Family: Charadriidae
Date Listed: 12/11/85
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a
sandpiper. It can be identified by the orange legs and black band around
the base of its neck. During the winter the plover loses its black band, its
legs fade to pale yellow, and the bill fades to black. Breeding birds are
characterized by white underparts, a single black breastband, and a black
bar across the forehead.
23
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. In North Carolina,
nesting occurs in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and
pebbles. They nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation,
but some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow
depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The
presence of people can cause the plover to abandon its nest and quit
feeding.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat in the form of beaches with fine sand and
mixtures of sand and pebbles is present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of piping plover in
the project vicinity. This species is known only from outer barrier
beaches. Therefore, project construction will not affect the piping plover.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/ 28/ 78
The distinguishing factors found in the green sea turtle are the single
clawed flippers and a single pair of elongated scales between the eyes. This
sea turtle has a small head and a strong, serrate, lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and
seas. Nesting in North America is limited to small communities on the east
coast of Florida, requiring beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping
platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC). The green sea turtle can be
found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays,
mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses, the
principal food source of the green turtle, can be found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Nesting beaches are not present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of green turtles in
the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the
green turtle.
24
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Dermochelydae
Date Listed: 6/2/72
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the marine turtles. Unlike
other marine turtles, the leatherback has a shell composed of tough leathery
skin. The carapace has 7 longitudinal ridges and the plastron has 5 ridges.
The leatherback is black to dark brown in color and may have white
blotches on the head and limbs.
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and
are often found near the edge of the continental shelf. In northern waters
they are reported to enter bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of water.
Leatherback nesting requirements are very specific, they need sandy
beaches backed with vegetation in the proximity of deep water and
generally with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable slope and a suitable
depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Major
nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the only nesting population in
the United States is found in Martin County, Florida. Leatherback nesting
occurs from April to August.
Artificial light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away
from the sea. Leatherbacks feed mainly on jellyfish. They are also known to
feed on sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks, tunicates, and floating
seaweed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Nesting beaches are not present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of leatherback
turtles in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not
affect the leatherback turtle.
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) Endangered
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/4/73
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle, the
backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black. In North Carolina
the cougar is thought to occur in only a few scattered areas, possibly
25
including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian Mountains. The
eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an
abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will
usually occupy a range of 25.0 miles and they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of large remote wilderness does not exist within
the project area. The project area is located close to the moderately
developed areas of Swansboro and Jacksonville, and it is not likely that
cougars would use this area. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program database
of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records
of eastern cougars in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction
will not affect the eastern cougar.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the
nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal
stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with
streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat.
A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory,
and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of
the RCW is up to 200.0 hectares (500.0 acres). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually
in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease.
Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the
ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by
a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays
its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days
later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
26
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for
the RCW are not present within the project vicinity. There are no old
growth stands of southern pine in vicinity of the project. Additionally,
forested areas in the project vicinity consist of mixed pine/hardwood
forests, which are less than fifty percent pine and generally have a dense
understory of hardwood saplings and shrubs. The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the
presence of the RCW within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to
the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project construction.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Date Listed: 4/ 7/ 93
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps
containing 5 to 20 branches and which are often over a foot across. The
trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish in color. Seabeach
amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-spatulate,
emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach green in color,
cluster towards the end of a stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow
in axillary fascicles and the legume has smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds
are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are relatively inconspicuous and
borne along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches.
Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches
functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural manner. Seabeach
amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands and
the lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary
populations often form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and
beach replenishment. ' This species is very intolerant to competition and is
not usually found in association with other species. Threats to seabeach
amaranth include beach stabilization projects, all terrain vehicles (ATV's),
herbivory by insects and animals, beach grooming, and beach erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of barrier island beaches functioning in
a relatively dynamic and natural manner does not exist within the project
area. The project area is located in the upper reaches of the estuary and
does not contain beach habitat. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data
base of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no
27
records of seabeach amaranth in the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect the seabeach amaranth.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 6/ 12/ 87
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems
and whorled leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers, usually occurring
in threes or fours. Fruits are present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and
sandhills of North and South Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones
or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of
dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil),
on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low .
shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained
depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained.
Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands
and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved loosestrife habitat in the form of ecotones or edges
between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins is not present in
the project study area. The study area contains bottomland hardwoods
and small stream swamp forest. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data
base, of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no
records of rough-leaved loosestrife in the project vicinity.
During a second site visit on 22 June 1999, areas of suitable habitat
within the project study area were surveyed by NCDOT biologists Dale
Suiter and Jim Hauser. A plant by plant survey was unsuccessful. No
rough-leaved loosestrife plants were located. The NCNHP records were
checked via ArcView that was last updated in January 1999. At that time,
no populations of rough-leaved loosestrife were known from the project
study area. This project will not affect rough-leaved loosestrife.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: 2/7/89
Flowers Present: late June July (best mid July)
28
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems
that grow to one meter in length. Stems are usually erect in direct
sunlight but are lax and may lean on other plants or trail along the ground
in shady areas. Leaves are usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobed,
some two or three lobed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack petals.
Fruits mature from August to September.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs, savannas and
savanna-like openings, sandy roadsides, rights-of-ways, and old clearcuts.
This plant is dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain its
habitat. All known populations are on circumneutral, poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils of the Grifton series. Cooley's meadowrue only
grows well in areas with full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
The project area does contain open sandy roadsides that could
potentially support Cooley's meadowrue. The N.C. Natural Heritage
Program data base of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and
revealed no records of rough-leaved loosestrife in the project vicinity. No
individuals were observed during the initial site visit.
During a second site visit on 22 June 1999, areas of suitable habitat
within the project study area were surveyed by NCDOT biologists Dale
Suiter and Jim Hauser. A plant by plant survey was unsuccessful. No
Cooley's meadowrue plants were located. The NCNHP records were
checked via ArcView that was last updated in January 1999. At that time,
no populations of Cooley's meadowrue were known from the project
study area. This project will not affect Cooley's meadowrue.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 22 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Onslow
County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection
under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally, proposed or listed As Threatened or
Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms
29
which, are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare
(SR), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists-Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table S. Federal Species of Concern in Onslow County
Scientific Name Common Name State Habitat
Status
Ainiptivalis ahxnan's s arro + u

Ammodramus licns10Z1,11 Henslow's s arrow SR No

Laterallus Jamaicensis black rail SR No
Pp grW
Passerina ciris this Eastern aintedbunting SR* Yes

Procambarus lumimanus Croatan cra fish SR Yes

Carex c manii Cha mans sedge W1 No

Dionea musci ula Venus fl tra C/SC No

Lobelia b kinii Bo kin's lobelia C No

JrOp l urt n
,M
O olis ternata Savannah cowbane W1 No
P>?rrsssd.ar?lna
i ' ... s-c? `??
r3
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T No
1 flror=nei 'sY "
iijksd e . s
r°:G I'E ?....
NaRI'h
Soli da o ulchra Carolina goldenrod E No
Solidugcverna r? ASpru?g='fiou?ering.t? r f P'T No>
enro
r ',S
Tot eldia labra Carolina asphodel. C No
"E"-An Endangered species is defined as one whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State s flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T "-A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
30
"SC"-A Special Concern species is defined as one which requires monitoring but may be collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act.
"C"-A Candidate species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). The species is also either
rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a maul range in a different part
of the country or the world.
"SR "-A Significantly Rare species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 po ulations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). The species is generally
more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"Wl"-A Watch Category 1 species is defined as a rare species whose status in North Carolina is
relatively well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
"/P_"-denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
"""-Nos unen found in Onslow county in fifty years.
(NHP,19947
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the
project study area.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial
adverse environmental effects will result from the implementation of the project.
The proposed project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" as defined by
the Federal Highway Administrations environmental guidelines (23 CFR
771.117).
31
FIGURES
? }:.a
?r: ;?`?
??
? ?
t ..,.
?,. -,
h? ,. `
r `,
'?£`` . ? ?
??..., k?
'?
t '' ?? _
s`

APPENDIX
arw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 21, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 91 on SR 1509 over Parrott
Swamp, Onslow County, State Project
8.2260901, Federal Aid Project MABRZ-
1509(4), B-3358, ER 98-7733
Dear Mr. Graf:
On November 12, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The. above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
non
Nicholas L. Graf
11121/97, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, 41'*
iav Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: r F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
At V.
W
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?21G.
D to ,E,, WilliarrU. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environments alysis Branch, NCDOT
818l0f Ge, --
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
u Division Administrator, FHWA
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509.
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2001
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
7
*a ca L-?
Robert Andrew yner, P. E. Date
Project Development Engineer
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP, Unit "Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
L CAR/?/?/-
°0oF000
ESSio -f
= SEAL =
' 24925 J9r=
%
?'%?gNDRE`p ?°?
Project Commitments
Onslow County
Bridge No. ,91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Highway Division 3, Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Construction Unit
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly
enforced.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Highway Division 3, Construction Unit
Upon completion of the new bridge, the temporary bridge will be removed. The
approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be planted with native
grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Highway Division 3, Construction Unit
Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without dropping them into
Waters of the United States. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped
into Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete deck is approximately 7.6 m3 (10 yd3).
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
August 2001 Page 1 of 1
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on April 27, 2000.
A vicinity map for this project is shown in Figure 1. The original recommended
alternative (Alternate 3) was to replace Bridge No. 91 on new alignment to the east of the
existing bridge with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. The U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers preferred a temporary on-site detour, rather than a permanent
relocation of the bridge. The temporary on-site detours in Alternates 1 and 2 are the same
length, have the same design speed (100 km/h [60 mph]), and are in the same location as
a permanent relocation of the road. To minimize impacts, a new alternative was studied
with a shorter temporary detour. This alternative, Alternate 4, is now the recommended
alternative. Alternate 4 is shown in Figure 2.
Changes to the proposed project are described in this Addendum to Categorical
Exclusion. All other information presented in the Categorical Exclusion for this project
is valid.
II. DISCUSSION
Three alternatives were considered in the Categorical Exclusion. A fourth
alternative was studied at the request of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. All four
alternatives are listed below.
Alternate 1
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing
bridge during construction. The on-site detour will be approximately 420 meters (1380
feet) in length. Two residences will be relocated as a result of construction of this
alternative. The design speeds of the temporary detour and the proposed roadway will be
100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour east of the existing
bridge during construction. The on-site detour will be approximately 420 meters (1380
feet) in length. One business will be relocated as a result of construction of this
alternative. The design speeds of the temporary detour and the proposed roadway will be
100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 3 (Recommended in the CE)
. Replace Bridge No. 91 on new alignment to the east of the existing bridge with a
bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. Two residences will be relocated as a result of
construction of this alternative. The design speed of the proposed roadway will be 100
km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 4 (New Recommended)
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in
length. The on-site detour will be approximately 213 meters (700 feet) in length. Traffic
will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing bridge during
construction. No residences or businesses will be relocated as a result of construction of
this alternative. The design speed of the temporary detour will be 70 km/h (45 mph).
The design speed of the proposed roadway will be 100 km/h (60 mph). Alternate 4 is
shown in Figure 2.
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
(Recommended
in the CE) Alternate 4
(New
Recommended)
Bridge $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000
RoadNN ay Approaches 5304.360 $ 304.054 S415,20C) 5271.167
Structure Removal $7;768 $7,768 $7,768 $6,880
Detour, Approaches,
& Removal
$475,632
$461,038
$0
$92,600
Misc. & Mobilization $172,240 $172,140 $212,032 $194,353
Engineering &
Contingencies
$210,000
$175,000
$135,000
$105,000
Total Construction $1.350,000 $1-^300.000 $950,000 $850,000
Right of Way &
Utilities $54,700 $56,600 $68,000 $44,000
'AL PRO CT
COST $1,404,700 $1,356,600 $1,018,000 $894.000
2
l'
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the NCDOT 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program is $1,018,000, including $68,000 for right of way
acquisition and $950,000 for construction.
Calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
project plan sheets provided by NCDOT's Roadway Design Unit. Table 2 summarizes
potential quantitative losses due to project construction for each alternate studied. The
paved roadway width has been excluded from the impact calculations. Wetland impacts
occurring due to the construction of the detour bridge may be considered permanent
impacts due to the design of the temporary bridge. Therefore, all impacts occurring from
project construction will be considered permanent impacts. All wetland areas impacted by
the temporary detour bridge will be restored to their original elevation prior to project
construction and will be replanted with the appropriate wetland vegetation.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Comm.unities,,
Community type Alternate 1

hectares(acres) Alternate 2

hectares(acres) Alternate 3

hectares(acres), Alternate 4
(Recommended)
hectares(acres)
Coastal Plaid Small Stream
Swamp 0.07 (0.16) 0.18 (0.45) 0.0JO.1,6) 0.09 (0.21)
Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods 0.22 (0.54) 0.07 (0.17) 0.22 (0.54) 0.0 (0.0)
Mesic Pine Flatwoods 0. 2 3 (0.57) 0.01 (0.02) 0.23 (0.57) 0.0 (0.0)
MaMtained Disturbed 0.76 (1.88) 0.88 (1 N) 0.87 (--'.1 ?) (-).-"4
Total W etland Impacts 0.29 (0.70) 0.25 (0.62) 0.29 (0.70) 0.09 (0.21)
Total Community Impacts 1.28 (3.15) 1.1-5(2.82) 1.39(3. -
42)
0.-13 (1.04)

meters (feet) meters (feet) meters (feet) meters (feet)
Total Surface Water Impacts 48.8 (160) 39.6 (130) 48.8 (160)
0)
36.6( 12
Surface waters present in the project area include Parrot Swamp. Estimated linear
impacts are derived using the cut and fill lines for the detour and replacement bridges
located on the design plans. Anticipated impacts to Parrot Swamp will be approximately
120.0 ft (36.6 m) for Alternate 4. However, Parrot Swamp will be bridged, therefore,
actual surface water impacts will be considerably less.
Other environmental consequences of the alternatives are considered to be
approximately equal and are limited in scope. These impacts are accurately described in
the Categorical Exclusion.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 4 in its existing
location with a new structure approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. The clear
roadway width of the bridge will be 12 meters (40 feet) to accommodate two 3.6-meter
(12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) rail offsets. The roadway approaching the bridge
will consist of two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (84oot) grassed shoulders.
The new bridge will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Based
on preliminary design, the design speed of the proposed roadway will be 100 km/h (60
mph). Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing
bridge during construction. The length of the temporary detour will be approximately
213 meters (700 feet). The design speed of the temporary detour will be 70 km/h (45
mph).
4
FIGURES

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
( ,f DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

l .lJ
h
n
N`L ??
I
O f
0
r
0
\ , A '
----------------------------- --
-----------------
?W LU
ry ,f?
' S
Jr

'N
S

-?rCONC.
?o
(f ,
? r^
tl Z
rio
W
,y
\ \ 1? o
_ o
n
- 1 A-???\ \ ------?
0
0
0
a
a
a
1
j
?c
.7
IrTl

j
?
`
o o

rn ?.
1
O
<O
N
rT o
g4 z;°QO'
~ 000=
3vZN?
`. Cp O
r++ O ?o
O
CD ? 0,
$ ?. 0 0 o n Ao=?z
Cb 3:
N>^
,

0
0
y
w
l)
?i
}
f?
J' ? ,.
J_
1
r
m y
,
m ?
N rn
?f o
?N

? I I
0
I 1?
? U1I fi P'
l (on l
I ?
? c
/ c
I I 4`?. 4
1
O
I ?
i
m
o
o m
r ?r
0
m .
_. AT 7- a
U.S. Department Commander 431 Crawford Street
of Transportation United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 23704x5Q04
Atlantic Area Staff Symbol: (Aowb) Fe
United States Phone: [phone]
Coast Guard
16590
30 JAN 02 ?r'S1 v
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch FFG r?EQ 5 or
North Carolina Department of Transportation=
?4
1548 Mail Service Center 'O qw` 0'? C?F
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 %p°rv'4A`t
.Ph 7A L No
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Our Bridge Staff has reviewed your plans and specifications, dated January 9, 2002, for the
replacement of a timber bridge in Onslow County, North Carolina.
The waterway involved in this project is considered a navigable waterway of the United States
for Bridge Administration purposes. It also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways
set forth in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 115.70, at the bridge site. Advance
approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than
small boats. In such cases, the Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his advance approval
to the construction of bridges across such waterways. The North Carolina State project for
Parrot Swamp qualifies for the Advance Approval category. Accordingly, an individual Coast
Guard bridge permit will not be required for the new bridge across this waterway.
The fact that a Coast Guard permit will not be required for this advance approval bridge, does
not relieve you of the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal,
State, or local agency who may have jurisdiction over any aspect of this project.
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
November 28, 2001
Mr. Paul F. Fisher, P.E.
NC Department Of Transportation
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Subject: EXEMPTION from Stormwater
Management Permit Regulations
Stormwater Project No. SW8 011115
Dear Mr. Fisher: b
l1e?`.jr q,a.l?err..tti;; +Y? "Apl . ..a }G3Ci.
The Wilmington Regional Office received a copy of your application for the project known as B-3358
Onslow County Bridge #91 Replacement. Staff of the Wilmington Regional Office have reviewed the application
for the applicability of the Stormwator Management rules to the proposed activity at this project. Based on our
review, you do not appear to be proposing a development activity on this site at this point in time that would be
subject to the stormwater requirements as provided for in 15A NCAC 214.1000. Please be advised that tither
regulations will potentially apply to your proposed activities.
If your project disturbs five acres or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater runoff, then it is
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge requirements. You
are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from projects meeting these criteria.
This exemption applies only to the Coastal Stormwater Management Permit for the currently proposed
activity. If at any time in the future, development of any part of this site is planned, as defined in NCAC 2H.1000,
or if the proposed activities differ in any manner from what is shown on the plans on file with the Division, you
must submit the project for review of the applicability of the stormwater management rules. If you have any
questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
c.. V
Rick Shiver
-"Water Quality Regional Supervisor
RSSlarl: S:1WQSIST0RMWATIEXENVIPTI
cc; Mitchell Parker, Onslow County Building Inspections
Jim Gregson, CAMA
Linda Lewis
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
N.C. Diy1510n of Water Quefity 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, N.C. 28405 [phone] . Fax(910)3W2004 Customer Sorvive
800.623.7748
TOTAL P.02
d ?Q?u ry?9 v I? t3
APR 2 6 2002
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ftfi' UM SCcPr.,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 19, 2002
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management 020670,
151-B Hwy 24 Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
ATTENTION:
Dear' Mr. Tyndall:
Mr. Ted Tyndall
District Manager
Subject: Onslow County, CAMA Major Development Permit Application for the
replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Parrot Swamp on SR 1509, NCDOT
Division 3, Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1509(4), State Project No.
8.2260901, TIP Project No. B-3358.
Please find enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), an Addendum to the CE,
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit application, permit drawings, a letter
from the Coast Guard, a North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stormwater
Exemption letter, and a check for $400.00 for the application fee for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 91 will be replaced on the existing alignment with a new bridge
approximately 60 feet (18.0 meters) in length and 40 feet (12.0 meters) in width. The
new bridge will have two 12.0 foot (3.6 meters) travelways with 8.0 foot (2.4 meters) rail
offsets. The approach roadway will consist of two 12.0-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with
grassed shoulders at leapt 8.0 foot (2.4 meters) wide. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing bridge. The length of the
temporary detour will be approximately 700 feet (213.0 meters) with a temporary bridge
approximately 60.0 feet (18.2 meters) in length. Impacts to wetlands associated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 91 will include temporary fill and mechanized clearing due to
the temporary detour. Mechanized clearing will be by Method III.
Parrot Swamp is classified as SA waters by the Division of Water Quality and is
designated by North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries as a Primary Nursery Area.
Therefore, NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) (High Quality Water Standards) throughout design and
construction of this project.
7
Temporary Bridge Information: A temporary bridge will be located west of the existing
bridge. The temporary bridge will consist a concrete deck with Class II riprap on top of
filter fabric. The resulting temporary fill in wetlands associated with the temporary
detour bridge is 017 acre (0.07 hectare) and approximately 0.06 acre (0.02 hectare) in
mechanized clearing.
Restoration Plan: Upon completion of the new bridge, the temporary bridge will be
removed. The approach fill will be removed to natural grade (Elevations and contours in
the vicinity are available from field survey notes). The area will be planted with
appropriate native wetland species.
Minimization: The original alternate chosen involved placing the temporary detour
bridge on the eastern side of SR 1509. After evaluation by the NCDOT Natural Systems
Staff, it was concluded that the wetlands on the east are comparatively higher quality than
the wetlands on the western side of SR 1509. Therefore, the decision was made to move
the temporary detour to the west side in order to decrease the amount of higher quality
wetlands impacted. Detour fill slopes have been reduced to 2:1 to reduce roadway fill.
Mitigation: All project impacts are considered permanent since compression of muck
soils may have permanent negative environmental consequences. A total of 0.23 acre
(0.09 ha) of riverine wetland impacts will occur on this project. NCDOT proposes to
debit the Clayhill Farms mitigation bank. This site is located northeast of Jacksonville in
Jones County.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for an October 15, 2002 let date with an availability
date approximately six weeks after. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start
construction of the temporary detour bridge shortly after the availability date. The
temporary bridge will be removed within 90 days upon completion of the project.
Disposal: After the temporary bridge is no longer needed, the contractor will use
roadway building equipment to remove the concrete deck and riprap. All temporary
bridge material will become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be
required to submit a reclamation plan for removal and disposal of all material off-site.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 91 contains two main spans totaling 36 feet (11.0 meters)
and is 26 feet (7.9 meters) wide. The bridge has a reinforced concrete floor on timber
joists and the substructure is reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. Both the bridge
rail and substructure will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the
United States. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped into Waters
of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete deck is approximately 10.0 yd3 (7.6 m) . However, it is anticipated that the
bridge will be removed without dropping components into the river. During construction,
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Threatened and Endangered Species: As of February 26, 2001, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists ten federally protected species for Onslow County. On
January 23, 2002 the USFWS determined the endangered status for golden sedge (Carex
lutea); therefore, golden sedge was added to the federally protected species list for
Onslow County. The NCDOT evaluation of the original ten species in November of
1998 and June of 1999 resulted in Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" for all of these
species. A survey has not been conducted for the golden sedge and additional surveys
will be conducted for rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and Cooley's
meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi). Therefore, surveys for goldensedge, rough-leaved
loosestrife, and Cooley's meadowrue will be conducted prior to project construction. The
results of these surveys will be forwarded to the resource agencies as soon as they are
available. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats on January 7, 2002 revealed that no known occurrences of any federally
protected species occur within one mile of the project area.
NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit. A check for $400.00 for the application
fee is enclosed. Copies of the green cards will be forwarded as soon as they are
available. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting issuance of a United States Army
Corps of Engineers NWP 23 and a 401 Water Quality Certification from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith
at [phone], extension 286.
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Domey, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Rick Monaghan, NCDMF, Morehead City
Mr. Ron Sechler, DMF, Beaufort
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.&,,, NCDOT Program Development, Raleigh
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design,. Raleigh
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design, Raleigh
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E., NCDOT PD&EA, Raleigh
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics, Raleigh
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., NCDOT Division 3 Engineer, Wilmington
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer, Wilmington
Mr. Ken Pace, NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit, Raleigh
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name See attached list in permit drawings
Address
City State
Zip Day Phone
Fax
b. Authorized Agent:
Name: N.C. Department of Transportation/
Bill Gilmore
Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
City: Raleigh State: N.C.
Zip: 27699-1548
Day Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
c. Project name (if any): B-3358
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County: Onslow
b. City, town, community or landmark:
Near the town of Hubert
c. Street address or secondary road number:
CD 14110
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): Parrot Swamp
3. DESCRIPTION AND 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.
New bridge construction including the use of a
temporary detour bridge
b. Is the proposed acuity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both? Both
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. N more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Replace exisiting bridge with a
new bridge over Parrot SwamD. Detour bridge will
be in place during construction.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract: N/A
b. Size of individual lot(s): N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL:: +/- 11.2 feet
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract:
Muckalee loam, Marvyn loamy fine sand,
Norfolk loamy fine sand.
e. Vegetation on tract Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp, Coastal Plain Perennial Stream, Bottomland
hardwoods, Mesic Pine flatwoods and
Maintained/Disturbed. Ulmus americana,
Liriodendron tulipfera, Fraxinus pennsylvanica,
Pinus taeda, Acer rubrum and Liquidambar
styraciflua.
f. Man-made features now on tract Buildings and
trailer on high ground
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
X Conservation X Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
TIiis area is not zoned
i.
j•
k.
Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
Onslow County does not have any zoning in the
vicinity of the bridge.
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? SHPO
Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes No
Coastal (marsh) Other Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp & Bottomland Hardwoods
N yes, has a delineation been conducted?
Yes by Dave Timpy (USACE) on March 13, 2001
(Attach documentation, if available)
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, "wash down" and residential
discharges.) Surface runoff
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Water line
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
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
Form DCM-MP-1
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include highway or - secondary road (SR)
numbers, 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 Attached Sheet 7 of 8 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 $400 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.
This is the day of 19 Z.0v'9-,
Print Name , C..
Signature `Y . C- ' .4-L Landowner or Authoriz Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project. \
_ 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-5
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.
h. Width of proposed bridge 40 feet
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
+/- 9 feet (deck to wetlands)
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
36" ppc girders
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Parrot Swamp
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 3 foot
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 36 feet
(2) Width of existing bridge 26 feet
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge +/- 10 feet
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) All. New bridge will
be longer than the existing bridge
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water
flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
+/- 10 feet
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? X Yes No
If yes, explain Navigation will be increased
because fewer bents will be placed in the stream.
in. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands
containing no navigable waters? _Yes X No
If yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
X Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
f. 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
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed N/A
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
N/A
g. Length of proposed bridge 60 feet
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MT-5
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing
bridge?N/A
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
N/A
Yes 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
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert N/A
g. Width of proposed culvert N/A
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above
the NEW or NWL N/A
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water
flow? N/A
Yes No
If yes, explain

Will the proposed
navigation potential?
No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any excavation below the MHW
or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
culvert affect existing
N/A Yes
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any excavation within: N/A
Coastal Wetlands SAVs Other
Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in
, cubic yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 20 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 70 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards +/- 250 cubic yards (old bridge
fill).
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
Approved upland disposal site.
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Unknown at this time
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes X No
if no, attach a letter granting permission
from the owner.
(4) Will the disposal area be available for
future maintenance? Yes X
No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other
wetland-9
Y? X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area
below the MHW or NWL? _ Yes X
No
If yes, give dimension if . different from No.
2 above.
e. 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
below MHW or NWL? Yes X No
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
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 X Other
Wetlands H yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 230 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled 30 feet
(3) Purpose of MI Temporary detour roadway
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? X Yes No
H yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 340 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled 35 feet
(3) Purpose of fill Temporary detour roadway
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation
of any existing utility lines? X Yes
No
If yes, explain in detail Telephone lines, power
lines, etc.
c. Will the proposed project require the
construction of any temporary detour structures?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Detour bridge
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
N yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Silt fence, diversion
ditches and NCDOT Type "B" basins.
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic
dredge)? Backhoe, bulldozer, crane.
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting
equipment to project site? X Yes No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts. Minimize fill slopes, use
geotextile matting between layer.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any shoreline stabilization?
X Yes No
H yes, explain in detail Class II riprap. See profile
sheet Nos. 5 and 6 in permit drawings.
C-100-'
Applicant o oj Name
C-
Signature
4 / I a
Date
Revised 03/95 "
I
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY
VEINITY
MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2260901 (B-3358 )
REPLACEMENT OF BRG. X91
ON SR 1509 OVER
PARROT SWAMP
SHEET ( OF $ 8/29/2001

.._
I N,C;,DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION; OF, HIGHWAYS

S
ITE ONSLOW-. COUNTY
? -
M AP
PROJECT:8.2260901 B-3358 REPLACEMENT OF. BRG.91
ON SR, 15
09 OVER,
PARROT SWAMP

8 s
SHEET 2 OF//2001

LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
WETLAND
WL
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN `
® SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•••'•'• CLEARING
F- F- FLOW DIRECTION
TB TOP OF BANK
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
C PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F PROP.LIMIT OF FILL
--- A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE-- PERMAE SEM DRAINAGE
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
0 WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- - CORE FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
-? PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
W SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VORTEX ROCK WEIR
00000
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
VANE

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2260901 (B-3358)
REPLACEMENT OF BRG. u 91
ON SR 1509 OVER
PARROT SWAMP
SHEET 3 OF g
ca
O
.. w
O L
o mm
m ..Z
o r- -4
-4 _m
rN ZN
D3 Em
Mm m3
..? -4-o
z x r o ?,?--- -
-??.. -
Z
N Z D
o;0 _ --
m
0
--
-
- V1 V
r

II

m

O
O
N

rO cot
I
\ 1
1

r
m y
L? I
? ? I
0
O
?

o ?

m
w\
!
I
rA-
M z l?

x o

to

o ° d
y tj'
> W A
tjj r o 0
x
o X x ?
~ c
8
W p z A 0?
>
b o
z x
I
to

~ C I
x -'

Cl)
?I

C
N
+
O
O
0
It
vd
0
W
+ 0 xc-) Z
0
N
I
Z
O
0
Cni
0
0
z
a oY m
Cpt Z 14
z

O o?'?
z go o
::I °
-3 "
? O
+

H
0
z
N
O
D
'O
-O
m
_
N O
Ln?< \
Om U)
x -I r

W
D
? O
O 00 2
Z

1 I
I
m

D n -' D

I 1-0
m
o C
+
z
o -.
_? I -
°7000
Z O I ?" m o
D Cp

I
o (n
co O
I? \ m ri
-
N O (Nn ?
m - c Ln `i? o I c?j rrn- n o
I
N I rn?o
o m in I I Q
o LA O
M M , N I
m
< 1
Ln \
1
? I
?
Z

lo O ??

0 0
N
0
O
m
D I
Z
oco `
C.?J \
DM ?Np %
rz
--j- 4
0 O
O /
(A
r 1

+ n'N L

O -i
O :UCH
VD 1 N
U1
m (n
D? 1

o _ "I it r N o
b m m
0
"-i ce >
D °c
_ Lo
%:& ;o

0
z ::E m O 0
O C)
in m
xn
?
o m
r (J1 ?D t
1

<

N
N
D
?l
t

+
11 'D_
O O
?
W 1
1
to `
z I + 1

o 1
o? ?.

o z ` ,
? N
o

00
• boo

b
z z

40

o

o
0

N 14

°0
0

w
OD
v z
w
0
o
O
z
x

o
?

?.
H
z
r
?
O O O O

o
=
D

n

N-I
z
m n
O

D
Q
D
c
g

?
z
m
_
C-
m
z

0

z K:
D
--
4
--q

m

N N
r

o
o
:E
(7

m
r-
m
z
?

z N
-4
OD
= cD

co D
m C
x m
? Z -4
Ol
= N

W O
m C
x m
? Z -4
-4
= N

cr) 0
m C
m
-? Z

_
N
co N
m N
D
-? z
z N
n n
N x
00
Ln m
W
LO z N
n n
N x

Ch m
W
LO Z N
n n
r\) :a

00 m
W T` z
c7
j\) O

co m
W
lD
0 0 0
v
D
f7
M
r
X
O
m
O
z
m
Ct
D
m
N
N

0

( CD +
(
D
N
CD
CL
w
N
N
O

r.

N

D
CL o

C) ?
=
r
,

Z_- a ?

Cl)

Z
X C7

O vm
n
Z cn?
Cl)
D
m wp ZO
N ? 00 --I
00 o = Y
oC: =CD
n
Z
0
TI
OD m? D
W
to CD >1
?-
0
Z

03 0

CL

D _' o
m
?
cn
T
o
r- ? o

v ? N
? N
C
1 p ? A

N T
O n N
a
m

? ? D
0 0 „
? ? Z
n
' c
m
X

N ?
N
° y
?
v,
?

? n

? rn Z
° a V1
.
N
=o m C

Z ? ?
v

,n
o ? >
> C
a cn
? ?
n
m
(D

O 7
n 'fl
n f
D
C
< ?

3

D
=r x
o ? n o ? y
Nth
G
.

m

U.S. Department Commander
of Trans pOrtBt1On United States Coast Guard
l
i
A
A 431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth. Va. 237.04
mbol: (Aowb) ?
Staff S
t
ant
c
rea
United States e
y
Phone: [phone]
Coast Guard AGO
2
16590
30 JAN 02 ?GE1V
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch F?c fFEg 5 ox
North Carolina Department of Transportation =
?
1548 Mail Service Center
8 = 10, DI '- A S ??
P
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-154
At
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Our Bridge Staff has reviewed your plans and specifications, dated January 9, 2002, for the
replacement of a timber bridge in Onslow County, North Carolina.
The waterway involved in this project is considered a navigable waterway of the United States
for Bridge Administration purposes. It also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways
set forth in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 115.70, at the bridge site. Advance
approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than
small boats. In such cases, the Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his advance approval
to the construction of bridges. across such waterways. The North Carolina State project for
Parrot Swamp qualifies for the Advance Approval category. Accordingly, an individual Coast
Guard bridge permit will not be required for the new bridge across this waterway.
The fact that a Coast Guard permit will not be required for this advance approval bridge, does
not relieve you of the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal,
State, or local agency who may have jurisdiction over any aspect of this project.
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
.?? North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
p Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
November 28, 2001
Mr. Paul F. Fisher, P.E.
NC Department Of Transportation
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
Subject: EXEMPTION from Stormwater
Management Permit Regulations
Stormwatcr Projcct No. SW8 011115
B-3358, Onslow County Bride, #91 Rt vlacement
-- Onslow County
Dear Mr. Fisher:
¢, ..; ibla; L; ' ? •tii . ik,dt.. b' ..+;ii, 1 _ ,,,i?t?,l? i r ti;„w ,. , . iu,:;,??,?'ia' MdNtriMi. ,;,rd?? I i .k+%u!.
The Wilmington Regional Office received a copy of your application for the project known as B-3358
Onslow County Bridge #91 Replacement. Staff of the Wilmington Regional Office have reviewed the application
for the applicability of the Stormwater Management rules to the proposed activity at this project. Based on our
review, you do not appear to be proposing a development activity on this site at this point in time that would be
subject to the stormwater requirements as provided for in 15A NCAC 2H.1000. Please be advised that other
regulations will potentially apply to your proposed activities.
If your project disturbs five acres or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater runoff, then it is
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge requirements. You
are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from projects meeting these criteria.
This exemption applies only to the Coastal Stormwater Management Permit for the currently proposed
activity. If at any time in the future, development of any part of this site is planned, as defined in NCAC 2H.1000,
or if the proposed activities differ in any manner from what is shown on the plans on file with the Division, you
must submit the project for review of the applicability of the stormwatter management rules. If you have any
questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,

Rick Shiver
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
RSS/arl: SAWQS1ST0RMWATIEXEIVIPTI
cc: Mitchell Parker, Onslow County Building Inspections
Jim Crregson, CAMA
Linda Lewis
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
N.C. Division of Water Quafity 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wllmington, N.C. 28405 [phone] Fax[phone]
RMN
customer service
800.623.7748
TOTAL P.02
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SIB 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department Of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department Of Transportation
Division Of Highways
+-Z r
Date

4-2-1-00
Date
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SIB 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2000
4 z? Do
Date
z5
Date
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
`,`?Illlllllf///
?'CN CAR94
`? •• FESS/p ?. 9
;•e SEAL 9`•?
24925 O
._;
E?cQ:? ?-?
,p'••;-. GIN
%.gNDRE*
'??I/IIIIIINI`
Robert Andrew J ner, P. E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
(2yn1hia D. Sharer, P. E., Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

Project Commitments
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 82260901
TIP No. B-3358
Highway Division 3, Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit
NCDOrs Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to
preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will
also be strictly enforced.
Roadway Design Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Roadside Environmental Unit, Highway Division 3
Upon completion of the new bridge, the existing bridge will be removed.
The existing approach fill will be removed to,natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project.Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, Highway Division 3
Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without drop ing
them into Waters of the United States. There is potential for components ofthe
deck to be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction. The
resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is approximately 7.6
m3 (10 yd3).
Categorical Exclusion
April 2000
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridge No. 91 in Onslow County (see Figure 1). This bridge carries SR
1509 over Parrot Swamp. This project is included in NCDOT's 2000-2006
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project.
NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this project
as a Categorical Exclusion. No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a
bridge on new alignment approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing
structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be a approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. The clear roadway width of the bridge will be 12 meters (40 feet)
to accommodate two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) rail offsets.
The roadway approaching the bridge will consist of two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes
with 2.4-meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders. The new bridge will be at
approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Based on preliminary
design, the design 'speed will be 100 km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be detoured on
the existing alignment during construction.
. - The estimated cost of the project is $1,018,000 including $950,000 in
construction costs and $68,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in
the 2000-2006 TIP is $325,000. The current estimated cost of the proposed
improvements exceeds the TIP funding by $693,000. Right of way acquisition for
the project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2001 and construction is scheduled
to begin in fiscal year 2002.
H. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There are no design exceptions currently associated with this project. A
final determination on design exceptions will be made during the design phase
for the project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1509 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is located approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) south
of Swansboro, N. C. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 90
km/h (55 mph). There were four reported accidents in the vicinity of the bridge
during the three-year period from August 1, 1994, to July 31, 1997.
The existing bridge was built in 1959. The bridge includes two main spans
totaling 11.0 meters (36 feet) in length and is 7.9 meters (26 feet) wide. It has a
reinforced concrete floor on timber joists and the substructure has reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic and has a
7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway width. The approach roadway is 6.1 meter (20 feet)
wide with grass shoulders. It is approximately 3.6 meters (12 feet) above the
streambed. Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without
dropping them into Waters of the United States. There is potential for
components of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the United States during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is
approximately 7.6 m3(10 yd3).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of
the bridge is 46.5 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with
weight restrictions of 18 tons for single vehicles and 25 tons for truck-tractor
semi-trailers.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 91, SR
1509 carries 6,200 vehicles per day in the year 2000. This figure is expected to
increase to 12,100 vehicles per day by the year 2025. These traffic figures include
3 % dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The
design hourly volume [DHV] is 10%.
The Onslow County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that
25 school buses each cross this bridge as many as 6 times per day during the
school year.
IV. STUDIED ALTERNATES
A. Alternative 1
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of
the existing bridge during construction. Two residences will be relocated as a
2
result of construction of this alternate.
B. Alternative 2
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour east of
the existing bridge during construction. One business will be relocated as a
result of construction of this alternate.
C. Alternative 3 (Recommended)
Replace Bridge No. 91 on new alignment to the east of the existing bridge
with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Two residences will be
relocated as a result of construction of this alternate.
D. Other Alternatives
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical; requiring the eventual
closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation
of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
An alternative with an off-site detour is not reasonable. The shortest
detour route is more than 19 kilometers (12 miles) in length (see Figure 1). This
would generate a much greater cost to the average road user during the course of
construction than an on-site detour. An off-site detour is also undesirable due to
the resulting community impacts. Two schools have recently been constructed in
the area. As mentioned above, 25 school buses each cross the bridge as many as 6
times per day during the school year. Closing the bridge during construction
would cause substantial delays for these buses and would be an obstacle to
school bus operations.
3
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows:
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Recommended
y }Tr' y z ";1??' ?li}I : a " ir 6.;(?(?(? rS+
Roadwa x A roaches $304,360 $304,054 $415,200

Detour, Approaches,
& Removal $475,632 $
461,038 $0
tiV.Ri ?'3 `rv ?} ?`- X40 f y
?y.
?Yf. ..?.4'i+ '??• m?
f r'- 7J?FW
Engineering &
Contingencies $210,000 $175,000 $135,000
'T'OWa 'Constru cti6n: i , } . $x?:35C1 OQ0 < { ? , E = > .C}0.000 ? r $95fl1
Right of Wa & Utilities $54,700 $56,600 $68,000

?(?
+?' a i O.a./.i
±u4,???' ?i Too.
IT ',+?y??jjJ1fwl?V 6.+
I¢,
s'.^stY?+rR^. 1
? s yryt,
.??.!'"???7?' ? z?
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a
bridge on new alignment approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing
structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be a approximately 18 meters (60
feet) in length. The clear roadway width of the bridge will be 12 meters (40 feet)
to accommodate two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) rail offsets.
The roadway approaching the bridge will consist of two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes
with 2.4-meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders. The new bridge will be at
approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Based on preliminary
design, the design speed will be 100 km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be detoured on
the existing alignment during construction.
Upon completion of the new bridge, the existing bridge will be removed.
The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Alternate 3 is recommended because it has the lowest cost of the alternates
considered. Also, there is a relatively small difference in environmental impacts
between the alternatives. The Division concurs with the recommendation.
4
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement
of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited
scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment by implementing the project
commitments listed in the front of this document, and by using current NCDOT
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this
project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited. Two residences will be relocated as a result of
construction of the project.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is
not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in
the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the
project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood
levels or have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility conflicts will be medium for the project. There is a water line along
the east side of SR 1509. There are aerial telephone and power lines along the
west side of SR 1509. There is a fiber-optic cable on the west side of SR 1509,
which is above ground across the swamp.
5
B. Air And Noise
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.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP
for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it
will not have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may
occur during construction.
C. Land Use & Farmland Effects
In the vicinity of this project, Onslow County has no zoning. This project
will impact no soils considered to be prime or important farmland.
D. Historical Effects & Archaeological Effects
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are
no known historic architectural resources in the project area. Therefore, SHPO
has recommended that no historic architectural survey be conducted for the
project (see letter dated November 12,1997, in the appendix).
The State Historic. Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are
no known archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown sites are likely
to be found. Therefore, SHPO has recommended that no archaeological
investigation be conducted for the project (see letter dated November 12,1997, in
the appendix).
E. Natural Resources
1. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information
sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Hubert), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (Hubert),
6
Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service) soil maps (Onslow
County), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200). Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR,1997) and from the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Onslow County, 1995). Information concerning
the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species
and species of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Susan Brady and Logan Williams on 2
November 1998. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or
more of the following observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Additional surveys for federally-protected species
were conducted by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Jim Hauser on 22
June 1999.
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources occurring in the study area are discussed
below. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. The topography in this section of Onslow County is nearly flat
to gently sloping, dissected by floodplains. Topography in the project
area is somewhat sloping since it is located in the stream valley and
floodplain area associated with Parrot Swamp. Project elevation is
approximately 4.6 m (15.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
a. Soils
Three soil phases occur within project boundaries: Muckalee loam,
Marvyn loamy fine sand 6-15% slope, and Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6%
slope. Muckalee loam is a poorly drained soil occurring on flood plains.
Permeability is moderate, surface runoff is slow, and the seasonal high
7
water table is located at 0.1-0.5 m (0.5-1.5 ft) below the surface. Flooding
occurs frequently for brief periods, and water may pond in the wider
floodplains for long periods in winter. Muckalee loam is listed as hydric.
Marvyn loamy sand 6-15% slope is a well-drained soil occurring
short side slopes near large drainageways on uplands. Permeability is
moderate, surface runoff is medium, and the seasonal high water table is
located 0.9-1.5 m (3.0-5.0 ft) below the surface. This soil is subject to
erosion if not protected by vegetation. Marvyn loamy fine sand 6-15%
slope is listed as non-hydric, but may contain hydric inclusions of the
Muckalee soil type.
Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6% slope is a well-drained soil occurring
on uplands. Permeability is moderate, surface runoff is medium, and the
seasonal high water table is located 1.1-1.8 m (3.5-6.0 ft) below the surface.
Norfolk loamy fine sand is subject to erosion if not protected by cover
vegetation, and is listed as non-hydric.
Muckalee loam is difficult to manage for croplands and timber due
to wetness and flooding, however, woodland productivity is rated as
excellent. Wetness, periodic flooding, bank instability, and seepage are
the major limitations for this soil. Marvyn loamy fine sand 6-15% slope is
mainly used as woodland, with the major limitations for this soil being the
slope and risk of erosion. Norfolk loamy fine sand 2-6% slope is used
mainly for cropland. The major limitations of this soil are erosion where
vegetation has been removed and, in areas used for building or sanitary
facilities, high water table during wet periods.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils
with a sandy/ silty texture. The soils did exhibit hydric conditions, such
as low chroma colors, in low areas of the flood plain. Therefore, hydric
soil indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual", 1987, were observed within the project study area.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources
likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information
encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major
water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
8
Waters Impacted and Characteristics

Parrot Swamp will be the only surface water resource directly
impacted by the proposed project. Parrot Swamp is located in sub-basin
030501 of the White Oak River Basin. Parrot Swamp is a tributary to
Queen Creek, and -has its confluence with the creek approximately 32 km
(2.0 mi stream channel distance) downstream of Bridge No. 91. Queen
Creek is a 3.1 km (10.1 mi) long coastal stream flowing into the White Oak
River estuary in the vicinity of the town of Swansboro and Bogue Inlet.
Parrot Swamp, at Bridge No. 91, is approximately 3.0 m (10.0 ft) wide and
has an average depth of 0.6-0.9 m (2.0-3.0 ft) at this location. The substrate
is composed of silt, sand and gravel. Parrot Swamp is a blackwater
stream, with a visibility of less than 0.6 m (2.0 ft).
Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned streams a best
usage classification. The classification of Parrot Swamp [index no. 19-41-
16-4] is SA. The SA classification denotes waters suitable for shellfishing
for market purposes, primary recreation, aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, and secondary recreation. The classification of
SA automatically includes Parrott Swamp in the supplemental
classification of High Quality Waters (HQW).
No Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
Water ality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this
goal the DWQ, formerly known as the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM), collects biological, chemical and physical data that
can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are
reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites throughout the state. Some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality. A benthic
C
9
macroinvertebrate collection site is located at the mouth of Queen Creek
in Onslow County, approximately 4.8 km (3.0 mi stream channel distance)
from the project study area. This station was sampled once in August
1994 and received a taxa richness rating of 103, a Biotic Index value of 2.3,
and a bioclassification of Estuarine (DWQ 1997).
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream,
lake and estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located
for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data. The type of
water quality data or parameters that are collected is determined by the
waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification and corresponding
water quality standards (DWQ 1997). Data collected at an AMS
monitoring site at the mouth of the White Oak River (NC 24 at
Swansboro) between January 1990 and December 1994 show no
excursions from NC Water Quality Criteria for all tested parameters
except copper (DWQ, 1997). The increased levels of copper are seen
throughout the whole basin, and are therefore probably not due to a point
source. Parrot Swamp is, however, listed as a partially supporting
impaired water due to fecal coliform contamination, and shellfishing in
this area has been prohibited or restricted (DWQ 1997).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. In
June 1998, DWQ issued a NPDES permit to NCDOT authorizing it to
discharge stormwater into Waters of the United States. No other point
source dischargers are located within a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) radius of the
project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a
temporary detour during construction is almost always preferred to
relocating the road entirely. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms
and other natural resources, whereas bridge replacement on a new
location usually results in more severe impacts. Alternates 1 and 2 involve
the current right of way and a temporary detour. Utilizing the full
existing right of way width of 18.3 m (60.0 ft) and temporary detour width
of 30.5 m (100.0 ft), anticipated impacts to Parrot Swamp for Alternate 1
will be 48.8 m (160.0 ft) and Alternate 2 will be 39.6 m (130.0 ft). Alternate
3 calls for relocation of the bridge. using the existing bridge as a detour
during construction. Utilizing the full existing right of way width of 18.3
m (60.0 ft) and new right of way width of 30.5 m (100.0 ft), anticipated
impacts to Parrot Swamp for Alternate 3 will be 48.8 m (160.0 ft). Usually,
10
project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less. .
Project construction for any of the three alternates may result in the
following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or
erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation
removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
. Precautions will betaken to minimize impacts to water resources
in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines in
Sensitive Watersheds will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval will also be strictly
enforced.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This
section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well
as the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems.
Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past
and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed.
11
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy
generally follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof,
et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al.
(1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used
in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
a. Biotic Communities
Five communities are identified in the project study area: Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype), Bottomland Hardwoods
(Blackwater Subtype), Coastal Plain Perennial Stream, Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, and maintained/ disturbed. Community boundaries within
the study area are well defined without a significant transition zone
between them, except in the case of the Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp, which merges into the Bottomland Hardwoods. Faunal species
likely to occur within the study area will exploit all communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors, except those
fauna restricted to the aquatic environment.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp is present along the Parrot
Swamp corridor on both sides of SR 1509. The hydrology of this .
community type is driven by intermittent flooding during high flow
periods. Periodic flooding provides nutrient input through sediment
deposition making this system very productive. However, periodic
flooding can also be a destructive factor during large storm events by
undercutting banks and eroding soils.
The canopy is composed of American elm (Ulmus americana), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple (Acer rubrum), red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
water oak (Quercus nigra) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The
shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees, Virginia willow (Itea
virginica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), common waxmyrtle (Myrica
cerifera) and tag alder (Alnus serrulata). Flowering dogwood (Corpus
florida) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) were occasionally found on
isolated hummocks within the floodplain. Herbs within this community
include net-veined chain fern (Woodu7ardia areolata), sedges (Carex spp.),
and smartweed (Polygonum lapathifolium). The vine layer is composed of
12
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), climbing hempweed (Mikania
scandens), climbing hydrangea (Decumeria barbara) and greenbrier (Smilax
bona-nox).
Bottomland Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype)
Bottomland hardwoods are present on both sides of the project
area, adjacent to the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The hydrology
of this community is also driven by seasonal or intermittent flooding;
however, this community tends to be farther from the stream channel than
the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
The canopy layer in this community consists of loblolly pine, red
maple and sweetgum. The shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy
trees, American holly (Ilex opaca), and Virginia willow. The herb layer
includes smartweed and net-veined chain fern. The vine layer is
composed of Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu (Peuraria lobata), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and greenbrier.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
The Mesic Pine Flatwoods area is confined to the extreme northern
and southern ends of the project, on both sides of the road. This area has
sandy soils and is higher in elevation than the rest of the project. This
community appears to be disturbed by human activity.
The canopy layer in this community consists of loblolly pine and
sweetgum. The shrub layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees,
persimmon, and occasional flowering dogwoods. The herb layer includes
aster (Aster spp.) and goldenrod (Solidago spp.). The vine layer is
composed of Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, poison ivy and greenbrier.
Maintained/ Disturbed
The maintained/ disturbed community is restricted to road
shoulders along SR 1509 and the area around the bridge and is present
along the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically
maintained community includes: fescue (Festuca spp.), goldenrod, dock
(Rumex spp.), paspalum (Paspalum spp.), beggar-ticks (Bidens spp.),
smartweed, ragweed (Ambrosia artemesiifolia), and calico aster (Aster
lateriflorus). The area immediately around the bridge, which is less
intensively maintained, also contains black willow (Salix nigra). Eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), is occasionally seen in the woods along the
edge of this community.
13
Coastal Plain Perennial Stream
This area of Parrot Swamp is a small blackwater stream. The only
vegetation associated with the stream itself in this area is smartweed and
beggar-ticks, both of which were growing into the stream channel in the
vicinity of the bridge. There is no visible submerged aquatic vegetation.
b. Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic
communities in an area will affect the fauna that are present and use the
area. This section addresses the fauna likely to be found in the project
study area.
Terrestrial Fauna
Fauna associated with the communities in the project area includes
Carolina anole* (Anolis carolinensis), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis Virginian) and raccoon
(Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) will use these
forest communities for cover and will forage on twigs and leaves as well
as mast.
Avian species utilizing these areas include the prothonotary
warbler (Protonotaria citrea), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Eastern
bluebird* (Sialia sialis), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata),
yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), and turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura).
Aquatic Fauna
Fauna associated with the aquatic community includes various
invertebrate and vertebrate species. Prey fish including mosquitofish*
(Gambusia affinis) provide foraging opportunities for pumpkinseed
sunfish* (Lepomis gibbosus), pirate perch* (Aphredoderus sayanus) and chain
pickerel (Esox niger). Invertebrates that are present include crayfish
(family Cambaridae), nymphal stages of dragonflies* and damselflies*
(Order Odonata), whirligig beetles* (family Gyrinidae) and shrimp*
(Palaemonetes spp.). The southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
auriculatus), green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina) and brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota) are common
permanent residents in this community. Anadromous fish such as-alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (A. aestivalis) use coastal
14
streams as spawning habitat.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources. described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms
of area impacted and ecosystems affected, for each of the three project
alternates. Temporary and permanent impacts are also considered here.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present within the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts for each alternate are derived using the entire proposed right of
way width. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right
of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
community type Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
hectares acres hectares(acres) bectares(acres)
?.Coa tal; ?Su taail Stftdifi 9 x(0:7.6} f18 tQ ?'#? .
TSw?m
Coastal Plain Bottomland 0.22 (0.54) 0.07-(0.17) 0.22 (0.54)
Hardwoods
.Mesie'Pitie-Matwoocis ' ., "D?Q2 0:01
Maintained/ Disturbed 0.76(l.88) 0.88 (2.19) 0.87 2.15)
Total ,f 44x:`28' 1:15= 2:82 19' 3;42
It should be noted that the anticipated impacts for Alternates 1 and
2 are mainly temporary impacts from the detour during construction,
whereas Alternate 3 is a permanent relocation of the road.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge NQ.
91 and its associated improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species,
thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope
of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
15
shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace
some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by
the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the
species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their
environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation
and erosion from construction-related work will affect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream
construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation,
which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms
(sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibia n species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment.
These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material
at the construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank
enhances the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation
stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and
sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into
aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and
downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation.
Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to
elevations of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
Anadromous fish are a valuable resource and their migration must
not be adversely impacted. The Draft Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage provides guidance to the NCDOT to ensure
that replacement of existing stream crossing structures will not impede
the movement of anadromous fish. These guidelines should be used in
projects located in the coastal plain. The draft guidelines are given in the
appendix.
4. jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
16
pertinent to two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare
and protected species.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three
parameter approach is used, where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area
to be considered a wetland.
Two types of wetlands are present within the project area, and are
associated with the alluvial forest:. The wetlands can be described as
palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous/ needle-leaved evergreen
seasonally flooded (PF01/4C, Cowardin, et al), and palustrine forested
broad-leaved deciduous/ needle-leaved evergreen temporarily flooded
(PF01/4A, Cowardin, et al). These wetlands can also be described as
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) and Bottomland
Hardwoods, respectively (Schafale and Weakley,1990). Soils within the
wetland areas have a silty texture and a Munsell color notation of 25Y
5/2. Hydrological indicators include saturated soil, the presence of
oxidized rhizospheres and drift lines. Vegetation within the wetlands
include green ash, red maple, Virginia willow, net-veined chain fern,
climbing hempweed and climbing hydrangea.
Parrot Swamp is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological,
physical and water quality aspects of Parrot Swamp are presented in
previous sections of this report.
17
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Table 3 summarizes anticipated impacts to wetland and surface
water areas in the project area for each alternate. Anticipated impacts to
these areas are determined by using the entire project right of way width,
including right of way for the temporary detours. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
wetland and surface water impacts may be considerably less.
Table I Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
r = p r " ? f° K ,4k r 't - A terriate "1';° ` lt' r`nate?2 ` ?w =^Alternate Y3',

Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.07 (0.16) 0.18 (0.45) 0.07 (0.16)
hectares acres
Bottomland Hardwoods 0.22 (0.54) 0.07 (0.17) 0.22 (0.54)
hectares acres
otalWetlarids tr , , ' 1 039 0 70) ? }rte,
1( `Q 39 (0:70 ?
,:,?.s:?he?ctarea? ?Q£$ ,E?v'A: ??'?cv? _
?'^gfN•Y ;1`???; .`?L? 1
.
?ts,'?"'?' 'g.`?" _?+5.. ? ? w i:2!

:"TDta1'SurfaceiW?iters : t_ ?•? k ;, K t y r
.
r
K Parrotwair4p : .?
48.8'(l60) "'
9:6 Z30) 48 8 (760) t
Y
1l?Ieters:
> n+t
.
Again, it should be noted that Alternates 1 and 2 present mainly
temporary impacts, while Alternate 3 is a permanent relocation of the
road.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. The subject
project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which is administered by the
Division of Coastal Management (DCM). The DCM is the lead permitting
agency for projects located within its jurisdiction. The DCM will not issue
a LAMA Major Development Permit unless NCDOT receives a
Stormwater Management Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ)-
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to
identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) in which
18
uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to property,
public health, and the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit
if the project meets all of the following conditions:
it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC;
it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act, and;
it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by the CRC.
This project may require a CAMA permit. The CAMA major
development permit application form serves as an application for three
other state permits and for permits from the Corps of Engineers (COE)
required by section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. The state permits include:
(1) Permit to excavate and/or fill;
(2) Easement in lands covered by water, and;
(3) 401 Water Quality Certification.
AEC information:
(1) Estuarine waters are an AEC which CAMA defines as all the waters of the
Atlantic Ocean within the boundaries of North Carolina and all the waters
of the bays, sounds, rivers and tributaries there to seaward of the dividing
line between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters. This
definition of estuarine waters was also set forth in an agreement adopted
by the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development.
(2) A Public Trust AEC includes all waters and submerged lands in the
coastal region where the public has the rights of use and/or ownership,
including rights of navigation and recreation. This AEC also covers all
lands under these waterways and the submerged minerals and biological
resources that these submerged lands contain.
(3) A Coastal Wetland AEC is defined as any marsh subject to occasional
flooding by tides (including wind tides). Tidal waters may reach the
marsh by either natural or artificial watercourses. Coastal Wetland AEC's,
by definition, must contain certain plant species listed in the CAMA
regulations.
(4) An Estuarine Shoreline AEC includes all shorelines within 23.0 m (75.0 ft)
landward of the mean high water level, or normal water level, of the
estuarine waters.
19
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that
pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act;
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency' or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted
for the duration of the construction or other land manipulations.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of
"no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. A 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states that in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
20
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics
in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United
States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right of way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder
widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the
United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement
of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/ elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious
pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/ debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net
loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide
Permit # 23.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species
21
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of 28 February
2000, the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Onslow
County (see Table 4). A brief description of each species' characteristics
and habitat follows.
Table 4. Federally-Protected Species for Onslow County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
-2 eJ1S1S rfi' r QA''
Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle T

.k 1. tt`? I F: YiS ._i-R
77 ..?
_ Y*..L:Y yy1i4. 9. srN "!
1r` t: 44 I
Clielonia m das Green sea turtle T
a Wither k - kx Y ` Zr r? *, '
.z tip'
E
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar
-cockad' . mod' er ;' E { , .

Amaranthus umilus Seabeach amaranth T
Xa 1^??
Thalictrum coole Coole 's meadowrue E
" " d th at is in dan er of extinction throughout all or a significant
E denotes Endangere (a species g
portion of its ra"e).
"T" denotes Threatened la species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These
species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.)
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened due to Similarity
Animal Family: Crocodylidae of Appearance
Date Listed: 6/4/87
The American alligator is a large roughbacked reptile with a broad
rounded snout. Most adults range in size from 6 to 12 feet. Habitat for the
alligator includes river systems, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal
marshes. The alligator will eat almost anything of suitable size including
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and crustaceans.
Species that have the federal classification of Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance are not biologically endangered or threatened
22
and do not receive protection under Section 7. However, due to its
similarity of appearance to other protected crocodilians, federal
regulations, such as hide tagging requirements, are maintained on the
commercial trade to help control illegal taking of the protected species.
The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no record
of American alligator within the study area.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/28/78
Loggerhead turtles can be distinguished from other sea turtles by its
unique reddish-brown color. The loggerhead is characterized by a large
head and blunt jaws. Additionally, they have 5 or more costal plates with
the first touching the nuchal and 3 to 4 bridge scutes.
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke Inlet,
North Carolina through Florida and on a small scale off of the Gulf States.
There are also major nesting grounds on the eastern coast of Australia. It
lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters. Loggerheads nest
nocturnally between May and September on isolated beaches that are
characterized by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous, feeding
on small marine animals.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT -
Nesting beaches are not present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of loggerhead
turtles in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not
affect the loggerhead turtle.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) Threatened
Animal Family: Charadriidae
Date Listed: 12/11/85
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a
sandpiper. It can be identified by the orange legs and black band around
the base of its neck. During the winter the plover loses its black band, its
legs fade to pale yellow, and the bill fades to black. Breeding birds are
characterized by white underparts, a single black breastband, and a black
bar across the forehead.
23
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. In North Carolina,
nesting occurs in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and
pebbles. They nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation,
but some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow
depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The
presence of people can cause the plover to abandon its nest and quit
feeding.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat in the form of beaches with fine sand and
mixtures of sand and pebbles is present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of piping plover in
the project vicinity. This species is known only from outer barrier
beaches. Therefore, project construction will not affect the piping plover.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/ 28/ 78
The distinguishing factors found in the green sea turtle are the single
clawed flippers and a single pair of elongated scales between the eyes. This
sea turtle has a small head and a strong, serrate, lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and
seas. Nesting in North America is limited to small communities on the east
coast of Florida, requiring beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping
platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC). The green sea turtle can be
found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays,
mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine grasses, the
principal food source of the green turtle, can be found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Nesting beaches are not present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of green turtles in
the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the
green turtle.
24
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Dermochelydae
Date Listed: 6/ 2/ 72
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the marine turtles. Unlike
other marine turtles, the leatherback has a shell composed of tough leathery
skin. The carapace has 7 longitudinal ridges and the plastron has 5 ridges.
The leatherback is black to dark brown in color and may have white
blotches on the head and limbs.
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and
are often found near the edge of the continental shelf. In northern waters
they are reported to enter bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of water.
Leatherback nesting requirements are very specific, they need sandy
beaches backed with vegetation in the proximity of deep water and
generally with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable slope and a suitable
depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Major
nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the only nesting population in
the United States is found in Martin County, Florida. Leatherback nesting
occurs from April to August.
Artificial light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away
from the sea. Leatherbacks feed mainly on jellyfish. They are also known to
feed on sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks, tunicates, and floating
seaweed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Nesting beaches are not present within the project area. Project
construction is confined to upstream areas of the estuary and not in beach
areas. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of leatherback
turtles in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not
affect the leatherback turtle.
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) Endangered
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/4/73
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle, the
backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black. In North Carolina
the cougar is thought to occur in only a few scattered areas, possibly
25
including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian Mountains. The
eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an
abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will
usually occupy a range of 25.0 miles and they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of large remote wilderness does not exist within
the project area. The project area is located close to the moderately
developed areas of Swansboro and Jacksonville, and it is not likely that
cougars would use this area. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program database
of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records
of eastern cougars in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction
will not affect the eastern cougar.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has plumage that is
entirely black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the
nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal
stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with
streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat.
A forested stand must,contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory,
and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of
the RCW is up to 200.0 hectares (500.0 acres). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually
in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease.
Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the
ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by
a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays
its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days
later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
26
Nesting and foraging habitat requirements considered necessary for
the RCW are not present within the project vicinity. There are no old
growth stands of southern pine in vicinity of the project. Additionally,
forested areas in the project vicinity consist of mixed pine/ hardwood
forests, which are less than fifty percent pine and generally have a dense
understory of hardwood saplings and shrubs. The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the
presence of the RCW within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impact to
the red-cockaded woodpecker will result from project construction.
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Date Listed: 4/ 7/ 93
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps
containing 5 to 20 branches and which are often over a foot across. The
trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish in color. Seabeach
amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-spatulate,
emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach green in color,
cluster towards the end of a stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow
in axillary fascicles and the legume has smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds
are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are relatively inconspicuous and
borne along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches.
Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches
functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural manner. Seabeach
amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands and
the lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary
populations often form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and
beach replenishment. ' This species is very intolerant to competition and is
not usually found in association with other species. Threats to seabeach
amaranth include beach stabilization projects, all terrain vehicles (ATV's),
herbivory by insects and animals, beach grooming, and beach erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of barrier island beaches functioning in
a relatively dynamic and natural manner does not exist within the project
area. The project area is located in the upper reaches of the estuary and
does not contain beach habitat. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data
base of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no
27
records of seabeach amaranth in the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect the seabeach amaranth.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 6/ 12/ 87
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems
and whorled leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers, usually occurring
in threes or fours. Fruits are present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and
sandhills of North and South Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones
or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of
dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peaty, poorly drained soil),
on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. .It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low .
shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained
depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained.
Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands
and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved loosestrife habitat in the form of ecotones or edges
between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins is not present in
the project study area. The study area contains bottomland hardwoods
and small stream swamp forest. The N.C. Natural Heritage Program data
base. of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no
records of rough-leaved loosestrife in the project vicinity.
During a second site visit on 22 June 1999, areas of suitable habitat
within the project study area were surveyed by NCDOT biologists Dale
Suiter and Jim Hauser. A plant by plant survey was unsuccessful. No
rough-leaved loosestrife plants were located. The NCNHP records were
checked via ArcView that was last updated in January 1999. At that time,
no populations of rough-leaved loosestrife were known from the project
study area. This project will not affect rough-leaved loosestrife.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: 2/7/89
Flowers Present: late June July (best mid July)
28
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems
that grow to one meter in length. Stems are usually erect in direct
sunlight but are lax and may lean on other plants or trail along the ground
in shady areas. Leaves are usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobed,
some two or three lobed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack petals.
Fruits mature from August to September.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs, savannas and
savanna-like openings, sandy roadsides, rights-of-ways, and old clearcuts.
This plant is dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain its
habitat: All known populations are on circumneutral, poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils of the Griffon series. Cooley's meadowrue only
grows well in areas with full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
The project area does contain open sandy roadsides that could
potentially support Cooley's meadowrue. The N.C. Natural Heritage
Program data base of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and
revealed no records of rough-leaved loosestrife in the project vicinity. No
individuals were observed during the initial site visit.
During a second site visit on 22 June 1999, areas of suitable habitat
within the project study area were surveyed by NCDOT biologists Dale
Suiter and Jim Hauser. A plant by plant survey was unsuccessful. No
Cooley's meadowrue plants were located. The NCNHP records were
checked via ArcView that was last updated in January 1999. At that time,
no populations of Cooley's meadowrue were known from the project
study area. This project will not affect Cooley's meadowrue.
Federal SRecies of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 22 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Onslow
County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection
under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed As Threatened or
Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms
29
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare
(SR), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists-Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the presence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern in Onslow County
Scientific Name Common Name State Habitat
Status
hila aestivalis t'"`
? Bachman' arr" xr, ": ,r h ,?^ ,=
Ammodramus liensloznii Henslow's s arrow SR No
,:.:, . o e
awl
'amaicensis black rail SR No
?` mcics'. ' c o
Passerina ciris ciris Eastern ainted bunting SR* Yes

ea- wg,
a o

Y,, a
Procambanis lumimanus Croatan cra fish SR Yes
u tali>?r?tel'{?z' , F• r.,? D :y'T
a manii
"rcx c Cha mans sedge W1 No
h
Dionea musci ula Venus fl tra C/SC No
=
77
^
Lobelia boykinii Bo kin's lobelia C No
? hi7l?rtzflnxYnn};?': ,:1 ~ ?? Q':
Oxi olis tcrnata Savannah cowbane W1 No
TP-?77IZ7SStt? CA741 Rana ?x " iU IIIa 5-0 ? k ?}

Rlicxia aristosa Awned meadowbeau T No
C
: ?
?
? u??
r Z? `+iW+
om ?'d ?-1'?D? ..?.
1-y
`
(Ll1f IK+i-
4.•
fl yy ,..
N
da o ulchra
i
Sol Carolina oldenrod E No
/
i'
Salldago UeyTia x E

r#}
niz

i s

1Vp + t

emrod? ?t
old
'4"?r"s +
rt 3
.
Tol eldia labra Carolina asphodel C No

"E"-An Endangered species is defined as one whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State s flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T "-A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
30
"SC"-A Special Concern species is defined as one which requires monitoring but may be collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act.
"C"-A Candidate species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). The species is also either
rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part
of the country or the world.
"SR"-A Significantly Rare species is defined as one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). The species is generally
more common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"Wl"-A Watch Category 1 species is defined as a rare species whose status in North Carolina is
relatively well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
/P"-denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
"*"-No s amen found in Onslow County in fifty years.
(NHP,199
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the
project study area.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial
adverse environmental effects will result from the implementation of the project.
The proposed project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" as defined by
the Federal Highway Administrations environmental guidelines (23 CFR
771.117).
31
FIGURES
....
t r
b

t? ,
r ' •
APPENDIX
STAR o +A
o o
oil
•??1Y pyM?'? ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 21, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 91 on SR 1509 over Parrott
Swamp, Onslow County, State Project
8.2260901, Federal Aid Project MABRZ-
1509(4), B-3358, ER 98-7733
Dear Mr. Graf:
On November 12, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The. above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

Nicholas L. Graf
11/21/97, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
k41
iavi4took
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: .?H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
,a s
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2 ?&
D to ,E,? William. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmenta alysis Branch, NCDOT
Date (JWNicholas Graf, P. E.
UU Division Administrator, FHWA
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 2001
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
*a a0i 4 -
Robert Andrew yner, P. E. Date
Project Development Engineer
JA? '?- ?6?
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP, Unit ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
,%to lot
.?H CARq
_ Q1W
= SEAL _
24925
0?'%
p?i?E?.,?aX?
Project Commitments
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's , Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best <Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General `Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Highway Division 3, Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Construction Unit
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines in Sensitive Watersheds will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly
enforced.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Highway. Division 3, Construction Unit
Upon completion of the new bridge, the temporary bridge will be removed. The
approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be planted with native
grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Highway Division 3, Construction Unit
Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without dropping them into
Waters of the United States. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped
into Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting. temporary fill
associated with the concrete deck is approximately 7.6 m'-(10 yd3).
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
August 2001 Page 1 of 1
Onslow County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
Federal Project MABRZ-1509 (4)
State Project 8.2260901
TIP No. B-3358
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on April 27, 2000.
A vicinity map for this project is shown in Figure 1. The original recommended
alternative (Alternate 3) was to replace Bridge No. 91 on new alignment to the east of the
existing bridge with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. The U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers preferred a temporary on-site detour, rather than a permanent
relocation of the bridge. The temporary on-site detours in Alternates 1 and 2 are the same
length, have the same design speed (100 km/h [60 mph]), and are in the same location as
a permanent relocation of the road. To minimize impacts, a new alternative was studied
with a shorter temporary detour. This alternative, Alternate 4, is now the recommended
alternative. Alternate 4 is shown in Figure 2.
Changes to the proposed project are described in this Addendum to Categorical
Exclusion. All other information presented in the Categorical Exclusion for this project
is valid.
II. DISCUSSION
Three alternatives were considered in the Categorical Exclusion. A fourth
alternative was studied at the request of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. All four
alternatives are listed below.
Alternate 1
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing
bridge during construction. The on-site detour will be approximately 420 meters (1380
feet) in length. Two residences will be relocated as a result of construction of this
alternative. The design speeds of the temporary detour and the proposed roadway will be
100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour east of the existing
bridge during construction. The on-site detour will be approximately 420 meters (1380
feet) in length. One business will be relocated as a result of construction of this
alternative. The design speeds of the temporary detour and the proposed roadway will be
100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 3 (Recommended in the CE)
. Replace Bridge No. 91 on new alignment to the east of the existing bridge with a
bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. Two residences will be relocated as a result of
construction of this alternative. The design speed of the proposed roadway will be 100
km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 4 (New Recommended)
Replace Bridge No. 91 in place with a bridge approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in
length. The on-site detour will be approximately 213 meters (700 feet) in length. Traffic
will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing bridge during
construction. No residences or businesses will be relocated as a result of construction of
this alternative. The design speed of the temporary detour will be 70 km/h (45 mph).
The design speed of the proposed roadway will be 100 km/h (60 mph). Alternate 4 is
shown in Figure 2.
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
(Recommended
in the CE) Alternate 4
(New
Recommended)
Bridge $180,000 -$180,0001 $180,000 $180,000
Roadway Approaches $304.360 $304.034 $415.'00 $'71.167
Structure Removal $7;768 $7,768 $7,768 $6,880
Detour, Approaches,
& Removal
$475,632
$461,038
$0
$92,600
Misc. & Mobilization $172,240 $172,140 $212,032 $194,353
Engineering &
Contingencies
$210,000
$175,000
$135,000
$105,000
Total Construction $1;350.000 $1300.000 $950,000 $850;000
Right of Way &
Utilities $54,700 $56,600 $68,000 $44,000
TOTAL PROJECT
COST $1,404,700 $1?356,600 $1,018,000 $894.000
2
.k
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the NCDOT 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program is $1,018,000, including $68,000 for right of way
acquisition and $950,000 for construction.
Calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
project plan sheets provided by NCDOT's Roadway Design Unit. Table 2 summarizes
potential quantitative losses due to project construction for each alternate studied. The
paved roadway width has been excluded from the impact calculations. Wetland impacts
occurring due to the construction of the detour bridge may be considered permanent
impacts due to the design of the temporary bridge. Therefore, all impacts occurring from
project construction will be considered permanent impacts. All wetland areas impacted by
the temporary detour bridge will be restored to their original elevation prior to project
construction and will be replanted with the appropriate wetland vegetation.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities..
Community type Alternate 1

heetares(acres) Alternate 2

hectares(acres) Alternate 3

hectares(acres)/` Alternate 4
(Recommended)
hectares(acres)
Coastal Plain `Small Stream
S"Nwnp 0.07 (0.16) 0.18 (0.45) '0.07-0.16) 0.09 (0.21)
Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods 0.22 (0.54) 0.07 (0.17) 0.22 (0.54) 0.0 (0.0)
Mesie Pine Flatwbods 0.23 (0.57) 0.01 (0.02) 0.23 (0.57) 0.0(0.0)
Maintained. Disturbed 0.76 (1.88) 0.88 (2.19) 0.87 (2". 15) (). ;4 ? U.8 ; )
Total Wetland Impacts 0.29 (0.70) 0.25 (0.62) 0.29 (0.70) 0.09 (0.21)
Total Community Impacts 1.28 (3.15) 1.15 (2.82) 1.39 (3.42) 0.43 (1.04)

" meters (feet) meters (feet) meters (feet) meters (feet)
Total Surface Water Impacts 48.8 (160) 39.6 (130) 48.8 (160) 36.6 (120)
Surface waters present in the project area include Parrot Swamp. Estimated linear
impacts are derived using the cut and fill lines for the detour and replacement bridges
located on the design plans. Anticipated impacts to Parrot Swamp will be approximately
120.0 ft (36.6 m) for Alternate 4. However, Parrot Swamp will be bridged, therefore,
actual surface water impacts will be considerably less.
Other environmental consequences of the alternatives are considered to be
approximately equal and are limited in scope. These impacts are accurately described in
3
the Categorical Exclusion.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 4 in its existing
location with a new structure approximately 18 meters (60 feet) in length. The clear
roadway width of the bridge will be 12 meters (40 feet) to accommodate two 3.6-meter
(12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) rail offsets. The roadway approaching the bridge
will consist of two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders.
The new bridge will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Based
on preliminary design, the design speed of the proposed roadway will be 100 km/h (60
mph). Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour west of the existing
bridge during construction. The length of the temporary detour will be approximately
213 meters (700 feet). The design speed of the temporary detour will be 70 km/h (45
mph).
4
FIGURES
N
rORES'
vla.<
12cksoninlfcl? J,I`a•?a1s--
71
'? I ? IJS=I I /
Hubert
/ z_ I-
Starling`s
5wa nsb
!o9 61-?.
j \ 15,2 \
ly ` ' 1550
Bridge No. 91
15V ,sos 61
IE2C \I ?%? 1511 ?«li ?' II C?{
23
150° 1622
Grew
Neck ) l?l,
?..?
Jl '?f ?, Ee \ I f ')
/ Landing '6- Nerrisso',
b, I rsES Pt
1 ? I IE?5
•' ISFS \ 5 \ g
•, ? ? ` - , , l •I \ ? ??-mss,, 0 ??, ?(I'•s i
A 1 ?- wil is
??? lan?mg ? ?\l
Al ?jll
407-
c
kl,
ky I--
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
( DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Onslow County
Replace Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
B-3358
0 0.5 1 MILES
0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS Figure 1
ter. ? i+?? ?.n? ` r, ?°??t)N ?J i \ f. ?1: • r -
I
-------------------- --
---------------
ZA r / frrw?vrr l?t ??.(
-, ?? f f ?YVy \ i
J C Y= \ A ? F°
i
CA
.rv? lam' r ~,?? \ 12 rr ?( ?i
a s
f? x J
CA ?? 3 N y
A
0
0
O ?
{• lJ
r,"4
4 is ` Q Z X00 o z
O ? Z = y? <4
CD O :5 2 u' I I
?in) zQ z
? CD p ?? mpp?y ~,? I h F
gg
O C02 D?=0,p ?~? 2 Iv1 I
~
CD
El
CID C) I?
N: ?4DZVmo 4~ 0 0 I? I ltc??
I ?. HDH D L ?i? ?I f
ffww H `A I? I
43
• Cl,- VI v m n ~ S{tlf '?
?
Ljj
z rio C
CID
_r I I IS
m?
Na
J
IF INCORRECT RETURN TO
Warrant NO. 1287528 NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date 04-19-2002
CONTROLLER'S OFFICE
oel UIrnu W 27aco_uu a2AR11 ngni nnq
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE OPURCHASE ORD R CONTRACT INVOICE AMOUNT (-) DISCOUNT (+) FREIGHT NET AMOUNT
04-15-2002 400.00 400.00
t
APB
I, ? 6
zonz
la ?rr?t_?i 4?s1;i 601101 p

Detach stub before depositing TOTAL: 400.00 400.00
(Remarks COST OF PROCESSING A CAMA MAJOR & 401 MINOR PERMITS T.I.P. # B3358
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Warrant NO. 1287528
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1515 Date 04-19-2002
l
Pay Amount $400.00
to the
Order of
ILK
. . - i..-)i-i.?-f-?-?si i•i? .l?Yb?..kH.. ... ..::. ., ..:.. ..... .. ..,'?..KC.,. , _,i'rf..
NC DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT C. Wayne Stallings
1638 MAIL SERVICE CTR ChiefFinancialOfficer
RALEIGH NC 2 7 6 9 9 -163 8 Present to: State Treasurer, Raleigh, North otina
payable at par through Federal Res ystem
HIS FORh1CGt.iAINS'.11CN0°ftIN CING
---------- ------ -
0L2875213113 1:053LLO5941: 511100011160LII'
FqCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 18, 2002
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Mr. John R. Dorney
Environmental Biological Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
N.C. Department of Transportation
r ;,>
Onslow County, Bridge No. 91, on SR 1509 over Parrott Swamp.
Proposed Project: Proposes to replace the existing 36' X 26' timber bridge with a 60' X 40' concrete
bridge. A temporary fill causeway approximately 400' long leading to a 600' long
temporary bridge spanning Parrott Swamp would be used as a detour during
construction.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
October 10, 2002. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Bill Arrington
at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE
Northemolina 28557
Hwy. 24, es ron Plaza I! orenea City,
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]\ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

IU C A? T
Development Type FEE DCM % DWQ %
(14300 1601435100093 1625 6253) (24300 1602 435100095 2341)
1. Private, non-commercial
development that does not involve 5250 100%($250) 0%($0)
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
II. Public or commercial development
that does not involve the filling or $400 100%($400) 0% (SO)
excavation of any wetlands or open
water areas:
III. For development that involves the
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A, B, C. or D
below applies:
III(A). For Private, non-commercial
development, If General water Quality S250 100%(S250) 0% (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(B): For public or commercial
development, if General water Quality $400 100%(S400) 0%($0)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached)
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional review and 5400 60%(S240) 40%($160)
written DWQ concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to wdter
quality or aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) $400 60%(S240) 40%($160)
can not be applied:
IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more 5475 60%(S285) 40%($190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Bridge No. 91, on SR 1509 over Parrot Swamp in
Onslow County
Photo Index - 2000: No Photo 1995: No Photo
State Plane Coordinates: x 2545100 y:339000 GPS: Rover File # X091714A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 1/31/2002 & 5/28/2002
Was Agent Present - YES (Lynn Smith)
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received as Complete- 9/16/2002
Office - Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Onslow County
Land Classification from LUP - Transitional and Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA and CS
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Secondary paved road and bridge
Pla nned - Secondary paved road and bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A Source: N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
F,xenvated Filled Other
(A) 404 Type Wetlands .0.17 acres
(Temp. Detour) Clear 0.06 acres
(Method III)

(B) Public Trust Area-Shallow Bottom Existing

ing na sq. ft.
Act ltloa
Shading 336 sq. ft.
(C) Other -High Ground 0.27 acres 1.5 acres (Disturbed
(Temp. Detour) within construction
- High Ground in Coastal 0.02 acres limits, Approximate)
Shoreline AEC (causeway removal)
(D) Total CAMA AEC Disturbed: 1296 sq. ft., 0.03 acres
(E) Total area disturbed by project: 2.03 acres
(F) Primary Nursery Area: Yes
(G) Water Classification: SA, HQW
(H) Open for Shellfishing: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The N.C. Department of Transportation is proposing to replace the
existing 36-foot long by 26-foot wide timber bridge over Parrot Swamp with a 60-foot long by 40-
foot wide concrete bridge. A temporary fill causeway approximately 400-foot long leading to a
60-foot long temporary bridge spanning Parrot Swamp would be used as a detour during
construction.
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3358 Onslow County, Bridge No. 91
PAGE 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION :
The site of this proposal is Bridge No. 91 on State Road 1509 (Queens Creek Road), 3.5 miles
southwest of Swansboro at the crossing of Parrot Swamp, in Onslow C ounty. The general
purpose of the project is to replace the deteriorated 36-foot long by 26-foot wide timber and
concrete bridge with a 60-foot long by 40-foot wide concrete bridge spanning Parrot Swamp,
while maintaining traffic flow on a temporary detour consisting of approximately 400 feet of
temporary fill causeway and a 60-foot long temporary bridge spanning Parrot Swamp.
Bridge No. 91 crosses Parrot Swamp approximately 1.75 miles up -stream of its confluence with
Queen Creek. The bridge crossing Parrot Swamp is flanked with Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp and Bottomland Hardwoods, except for the southwest and southeast quadrants, which are
urbanized and currently support a night club and mobile home, respectively. Creek width at the
crossing is approximately 22 feet with vertical clearance between the water and bridge bottom is
approximately 7 feet with a 3-foot water depth. An approximately 600-foot long by 45-foot wide
causeway was constructed through the Coastal Small Stream Swamp and Bottomland Hardwoods
on Muckalee loam soils when the bridge was constructed. The Coastal Small Stream Swamp and
Bottomland Hardwoods area consists of Sweetgum, Red Maple,. American Elm, Tulip Tree,
Green Ash, Kudsu, Morning Glory and Cat Tail. Soils in the swamp and wetlands are mainly
Muckalee loam with Norfolk and Marvyn loamy fine sands in the upper elevations of the bridge
approaches as classified by the NC Soil Conservation Service. Approximate elevations on the site
range between 1 feet and 11 feet above normal water level. No evidence of SAV beds was noted.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality classifies waters of Parrot Swamp as SA, HQW at
the project site. Parrot Swamp is Primary Nursery Area, as designated by the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries. The Onslow County Land Use Plan designates the project area as
Transitional, with all CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern designated as Conservation.
The proposal is to replace the existing 36-foot long by 26-foot wide timber and concrete bridge
with a 60-foot long by 40-foot wide pre-stressed concrete bridge on the existing alignment. The
proposed bridge would have a vertical clearance equal to the existing bridge (approximately 7
feet). Constructing this project would include installing a rip rap over filter fabric temporary fill
causeway with concrete deck on the west side of the bridge leading to a temporary 60 -foot bridge
spanning Parrot Swamp in order to detour traffic flow during construction. Approximately 230
feet of the temporary causeway will be fill through 404 type wetlands and removed upon
completion of construction and restored to the original elevation. The bridge will be installed
using top down construction. The bridge is being widened from 26 feet to 40 feet to more closely
correspond to the 12 foot paved travel lanes and 8 foot grassed shoulders of SR 1509. NC DOT
has committed to strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" and use Best
Management Practices for erosion control and bridge demolition. Approximately 12 feet of
existing causeway under the new bridge will be removed in its entirety and another 12 feet of
causeway will be tapered back to the new bridge bents and armored with rip rap.
2 '
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3358, Onslow County, Bridge No. 91
PAGE 3
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
As proposed, the construction of the temporary fill causeway and bridge detour with 2:1 fill slopes
would require the filling of approximately 0.17 acres of 404 type wetlands and approximately
0.27 acres of impacts to high ground. To allow room for grading and fill, approximately 0.06
acres of 404 type wetlands would be cleared adjacent to the temporary detour fill slopes by NC
DOT Method III (mechanical clearing and grubbing). The additional width of the bridge would
cause approximately 336 square feet (0.01 acres) of additional shading impacts to Public Trust
Waters AEC. Removal of 24 feet of previously filled causeway would result in the disturbance of
approximately 960 square feet (0.02 acres) of high ground. In addition to the above mentioned
high ground impacts, approximately 1.5 acres of high ground would be disturbed within the
construction limits of this project. Approximately 6150 square feet (0.14 acres) of the above
describe ground disturbance would be within the CAMA Coastal Shoreline AEC. No disturbance
of the creek bottom is expected during the installation of the bridge.
NC DOT has avoided and minimized the 404 type wetland excavation and fill impacts associated
with this proposal by lengthening the bride from 36 feet to 60 feet, using 2:1 fill slopes for the
temporary detour, using top down construction and moving the detour from the east side of the
bridge to the west side of the bridge. NC DOT BMP's require dropping no materials from the
bridge demolition in the waters regulated by CAMA. The NC DOT has proposed to use "Design
Standards in sensitive Watersheds" BMP's to minimize the impacts of erosion.
NC DOT proposes to plant the areas impacted for the temporary detour after the fill is removed
and they are restored to their previous elevation. NC DOT would be impacting approximately
0.23 acres of 404 type wetlands caused by the temporary detour in this proposal and requests to
debit the Clayhill Farms Mitigation Bank to offset these impacts.
The collective disturbance area for the project is 2.03 acres.
Bill Arrington
September 16, 2002
Morehead City
T
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Bridge Number 91 Over Parrot Swamp on SR 1509
TIP No. B-3358
Onslow County, North Carolina qll?,; iilQr: !'=`
INTRODUCTION
The Magnusbn-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended
by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267), requires Federal agencies
to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. Furthermore, it
established procedures for the identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a
requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation of Federally
managed fisheries.
The objective of this EFH assessment is to describe potential adverse effects to
designated EFH for Federally managed fisheries species within the project area. It also
describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset
potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed actions.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
Number.9 l, over Parrot Swamp on SR 1509 in Onslow County, in-place with a new
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on-site during construction utilizing a temporary
detour bridge west of the existing bridge. Both the permanent and detour bridges will be
60 feet in length. No bents will be placed in Parrot Swamp for either of these structures,
therefore minimizing impacts to the aquatic community.
The demolition of the existing bridge may potentially result in temporary fill of
approximately 10 yd3. The bridge rail and substructure will be removed without
dropping them into waters of the U.S. There is potential for the components of the deck
to be dropped into waters of the U.S. However, it is anticipated that the bridge will be
removed without dropping components into the water. During construction. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Aquatic communities located within the project area consist of Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp and open water. The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community is
present along the Parrot Swamp corridor on both sides of SR 1509. Periodic flooding of
this community provides nutrient input through sediment deposition making this system
very productive. Vegetative species occurring in this community include American elm
(Ulmus americana), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). red maple (Acer rubrum), red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly pine
(Pines taeda), water oak (Ouercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Virginia
I ,
willow (Itea virginica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), common waxmyrtle (Myrica
cerifera), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), sedges
(Carex spp.), and smartweed (Polygonum lapathifolium).
Parrot Swamp flows into Queen Creek approximately 2.0 miles downstream of Bridge
Number 91. Queen Creek empties into the Intracoastal Waterway approximately 1.0 mile
from the confluence of Parrot Swamp and Queen Creek. Neither Parrot Swamp nor
Queen Creek are listed as waterbodies in which EFH species are found according to the
species list distributed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), dated October
1999. Therefore, Table 1 represents the EFH species listed for Bogue Inlet, the closest
waterbody to the proposed project listed by NMFS. The habitat in Bogue Inlet differs
from Parrot Swamp. For that reason, Table 2 lists species likely to be present in Parrot
Swamp based on habitat requirements, including, but not limited to, salinity levels, water
temperature, and water depth.
POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS
Project activities directly affecting EFH may include the temporary fill placed in the
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community associated with the temporary bridge and
approaches and stabilization measures. The proposed alternative has minimal impacts on
natural communities. Based on the current design, permanent impacts to the Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp community will be approximately 0.23 acres. These impacts
are associated with the temporary fill and mechanized clearing that will occur due to the
temporary detour structure.
Temporary impacts to open water may include temporary fill due to bridge demolition.
However, no fill is expected to occur from bridge demolition. These activities can be
scheduled to avoid specific spawning, harvesting and/or otherwise important dates for
individual species.
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Throughout the design process, this project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts
to jurisdictional and aquatic areas. Specific strategies include redesigning the project
with the purpose of constructing the temporary detour bridge and approaches on the
western side of SR 1509 instead of permanently realigning the roadway along the eastern
side. The eastern side consists of wetlands that are of comparatively higher quality than
the wetlands located on the western side. Detour fill slopes were reduced to 2:1 to reduce
temporary roadway fill.
Parrot Swamp is classified as SA waters by the Division of Water Quality and is
designated by North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries as a Primary Nursery Area.
Therefore, NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) (High Quality Water Standards) throughout design and
construction of this project. Furthermore, Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed.
CONCLUSION
Given the relatively minor amount of fill in wetlands proposed, there is not expected to
be a significant impact to Essential Fish Habitat. No bents will be placed in the channel
for either the temporary or permanent structures and no temporary or permanent fill will
be placed in the channel. Furthermore, careful adherence to BMPs, adherence to species-
specific moratoriums, and coordination with National Marine Fisheries staff will
minimize, if not completely prevent, any adverse effects to EFH. Because the potential
individual and cumulative effects will be minimal, mitigation is not proposed.
' AUG = ,.
J ;
MCF". z" EAD t
j
.
FR?
®rg AUG 2 ,.
COASTr,.. P?IAitiACi+?AI?EyT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 23, 2002
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
Project Manager
Dear Mr. Timpy:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Supplemental Information for CAMA Major Development Permit Application
for the replacement of Bridge No. 91 over Parrot Swamp on SR 1509, Onslow
County, NCDOT Division 3, Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1509(4), State
Project No. 8.2260901, TIP Project No. B-3358.
The permit application for the subject project, dated April 19, 2002 was put on hold due
to conflicts with the proposed temporary bridge design. These issues have been resolved.
The enclosed information (the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment and a protected species
update) serves to supplement the permit application. The enclosed information, along
with the previously submitted permit application, should provide all the information
needed to begin reviewing the permit application.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith
at [phone], extension 286.
Sincerely,
aw4;471?Wllcll
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
QXX?CX>C?CXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX

a?
.? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

ti
X X >C X X X X X X

c
? X X X X X X
U

- - - - - - - - - - -

.?
; -

z ?, a

COD

?
a
a
. to)
_ r o •?o •.
Oa `ti a L.
o?
++ r y Y a L
cl?

?4

ti0

S

S

-z

z S
-

o a
a. LzL U a U
U ° a a c

u nL
U
U
U
U C

u
U ri
c
a?
04
V) ct
Ct CZ 44
c CA

E to

v?
v?
v?
m O
U ?.
Q o
w cz
?
? n.
v?
aa co v • ?° .
cz
Q ,

• ? ? ?
^ CZ M

r . ? . : . :_ : . :^ • cn . .. . .r ...

U
a

a

U C?i bG

U h .

cU N ? U

U
C7
?
?
411
U
o
-

? x

E

o
3

.fir h
.? Vn cn V)
r
AUG 2 9 -2002
7A? M1,1.4?1hG

X X X X X X X

?' X X X X X X X

03 X X X X X X

cn X X X X X
W

? e?i ? chi ? ? •v
^? ? O
O Ct
v .a V O
0 o> 0> O V O ? ?

c.

o
C/) Gn rA 1 .
U c a q.
u a 0
O U
cz+ U
n U
o +
?.
U
U
U
i=.
w
U.
w
N
Cd
.C
E?
°d 6 `321
? ?. AUG 2 S2002
?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1%A, G!
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 1, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Drew Joyner, P.E., Consultant Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
Lynn Smith, Natural Systems SpecialistfVII
Natural Systems Unit
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Protected Species Update for the replacement of Bridge
No. 91 Over Parrot Swamp, Onslow County, State Project
No. 8.2260901, TIP No. B-3358, F.A. Project No.
MABRZ-1509(4).
REFERENCES: Categorical Exclusion (CE) prepared by NCDOT, dated
April 25, 2000
This memo serves to update the previously submitted CE with respect to
Threatened and Endangered Species. Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended.
As of March 7, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists twelve
federally-protected species for Onslow County as listed in Table 1. Bald eagle and
golden sedge have been added since the completion of the CE. Descriptions of the
protected species are provided in the referenced CE with the exception of the bald eagle
and golden sedge. Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were given for these species.
Suitable habitat does not exist for loggerhead turtle, piping plover, green sea turtle,
leatherback sea turtle, eastern cougar, red-cockaded woodpecker, and seabeach amaranth.
Suitable habitat does exist for rough-leaved loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue,
therefore, additional surveys were conducted on May 14, 2002 by NCDOT biologists
Karen M. Lynch and Mary Frazer. Neither of these species was observed. Therefore, the

biological conclusions rendered in the referenced CE of "No Effect" remain valid for
these species. Brief descriptions of the characteristics and habitats for the bald eagle and
golden sedge are given below as well as biological conclusions.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Onslow County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance
Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle Threatened
Charadrius melodus Piping plover Threatened
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle Threatened
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle Endangered
Felis concolor couguar Eastern cougar Endangered*
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach amaranth Threatened
Carex lutea Golden sedge Endangered
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loosestrife Endangered
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's meadowrue Endangered
Threatened species are species that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
*Indicates a Historic record in which the species was last observed in Onslow County more than 50 years
ago.
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance is a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can
be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of
the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
No large trees with a clear flight path to the water exist in the project area. There
are no large bodies of water within one-half mile of the project area. Queen Creek is
located approximately 1.0 mile downstream of Bridge No. 91. Suitable habitat for bald
eagle does not exist with the project area. Furthermore, the project area was surveyed on
May 14, 2002 by NCDOT biologists Karen M. Lynch and Mary Frazer and no bald
eagles were observed. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
indicated no record of bald eagle within 1.0 mile of the project area. Therefore,..project_
construction will not affect bald eagle.
Lip;
AUG ri.)l7(
Carex lutea (golden sedge) Endangered ! 1
Sedge Family: Cyperaceae
Date Listed: January 23, 2002 - ----? ?' ...-HEAD
Golden sedge is a clump-forming member of the Sedge Family (Cyperaceae), with
fertile culms (similar to stems) reaching 3 feet (1 m) or more in height. The yellowish-
green leaves are long, narrow, and grass-like, with those of the culm mostly basal and to
11 inches (28 cm) long. Leaves of the vegetative shoots reach a length of 26 inches (65
cm). Fertile culms produce 2-4 flowering spikes, with the terminal spike male and the 1-
3 (usually 2) lateral spikes female and producing seeds. The beaks of the female fruit are
pointed in diverse directions with the uppermost pointing up, middle beaks pointing to
the side and lowermost pointing downwards. The leaf below the female fruit is also
strongly reflexed or downward pointing.
The fruits of this sedge are a stunning yellow-gold when mature, hence the specific
epithet, lutea, which translates to "yellow-gold". Flowering spikes develop in early April
with fruits maturing in mid-May and dropping by the end of June, restricting endangered
species searches to this time period (May through June). Without the fruits present,
leaves of Carex lutea are indistinguishable from many other sedges or grasses.
This very rare endemic plant occurs only in Onslow and Pender Counties in NC and
all eight populations discovered thusfar reside within a 12 mile area (5 populations in
Pender County and 3 populations in Onslow County).
This plant is found in areas where long leaf pine savannas grade into bottomland
hardwood forests. These areas are somewhat shady to open with a dense herb layer. The
typically acidic soils are comprised of sandy or peaty loam substrate with a higher than
expected pH as these soils are underlain by a coquina limestone or marl formation. Soils
remain wet to saturated in the spring. This habitat type is quite rare, therefore plants such
as golden sedge that require this specific habitat are rare.
Threats include fire suppression, which results in overcrowding, by woody
vegetation. Habitat is also vulnerable to limestone mining. Drainage ditches at some
sites have altered the depth and duration of soil saturation, and other sites have been
altered by logging and tree-planting. (With care, canopy thinning can be beneficial to
herbs stressed by shade and woody competition.) Habitat in powerline corridors is
vulnerable to mowing during the growing season, and to herbicide application.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of long leaf pine savannas grading into bottomland
hardwood forests does not exist in the project area. A survey was conducted on May 14,
2002 by NCDOT biologists Karen M. Lynch and Mary Frazer. No golden sedge was
observed. A search of the NHP database indicated no record of golden sedge within 1.0
mile of the project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect golden sedge.
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on
May 5, 2002 indicated that there are no known occurrences of any federally protected
species within the project study area. Therefore, this project will not impact any federally
protected species.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at
[phone], extension 286.
Cc: M. Randall Turner, TIP Project Management Team Unit Head
File: B-3358

Form DCM-MP-1
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT a. County: Onslow
a. Landowner:
Name See attached list in permit drawings
Address
City State
Zip Day Phone
Fax
b. Authorized Agent:
Name: N.C. Department of Transportation/
Bill Gilmore
Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
City: Raleigh State: N.C.
Zip: 27699-1548 Day Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
c. Project name (if any): B-3358
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
APPLICATION
6 2002
b. City, town, community or landmark:
Near the town of Hubert
c. Street address or secondary road number:
SR 1509
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): Parrot Swamp
3. DESCRIPTION AND 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.
New bridge construction including the use of a
temporary detour bridge
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existing project, new work, or both? Both
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. Replace exisiting bridge with a
new bridge over Parrot Swamp. Detour bridge will
be in place during construction.
RPvi,.Pd n3in5

Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract: N/A
b. Size of individual lot(s): N/A
C.
d.
e.
Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL:: +/- 11.2 feet
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract:
Muckalee loam, Marvyn loamy fine sand,
Norfolk loamy fine sand.
Vegetation on tract Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp, Coastal Plain Perennial Stream, Bottomland
hardwoods, Mesic Pine flatwoods and
Maintained/Disturbed. Ulmus americana,
Li7iodendron tulip
Pinus taeda, Acer rubrum and Liquidambar
styraciflua.
f. Man-made features now on tract Buildings and
trailer on high ground _
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use
plan.)
X Conservation X Transitional
Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
This area is not zoned
i.
j•
k.
Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
Onslow County does not have any zoning in the
vicinity of the bridge.
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? SHPO
Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
L,? 14 :c XOOZ
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes_ No
Coastal (marsh) Other Coastal Plain
Small Stream Swamp & Bottomland Hardwoods
If yes, has a delineation been conducted?
Yes by Dave Timpy (USACE) on March 13, 2001
(Attach documentation, if available)
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff,
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, "wash down" and residential
discharges.) Surface runoff
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
Water line
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
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
Form DCM-MP-1
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, 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
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
See Attached Sheet 7 of 8 permit drawings
• 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 $400 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.

A;' { 2 b" 2002
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.
This is the 1 s day of Q 19?0?'N?-
Print Name 6 s a4
Signature V. C_ Aai-, ?1 •? ' ? ,
Landowner or Authoriz Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
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

5
Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND AP? '4; t". %p02
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.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
36" ppc girders
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Parrot Swamp
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 3 foot
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 36 feet
(2) Width of existing bridge 26 feet
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge +/- 10 feet to to-}a„, W -N
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) All. New bridge will
be longer than the existing bridge
f. 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
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
g. Length of proposed bridge 60 feet
Revised 03/95
h. Width of proposed bridge 40 feet
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
+/- 9 feet (deck to wetlands)
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water
flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
±/- 10 feet - -b S W- 60+?
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? X Yes No
If yes, explain Navigation will be increased
because fewer bents will be placed in the stream
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands
containing no navigable waters? Yes X No
If yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
X Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed N/A
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
N/A
Form DCM-MP-5
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing
bridge?N/A
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
N/A
Yes 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
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert N/A
g. Width of proposed culvert N/.
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above
the MHW or NWL N/A
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water
flow? N/A
Yes No
If yes, explain
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing
navigation potential? N/A Yes
No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any excavation below the MHW
or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
C
APR '002
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any excavation within: N/A
Coastal Wetlands SAVs Other
Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 20 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 70 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in
cubic yards +/- 250 cubic yards (old bridge
fill).
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the.spoil disposal area
. Approved upland disposal site.
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Unknown at this time
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission
from the owner.
(4) Will the disposal area be available for
future maintenance? Yes X
No
(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.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area
below the MHW or NWL? _ Yes X
No
If yes, give dimension if different from No.
2 above.
e. 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
below MHW or NWL? Yes X No

Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
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 X Other
Wetlands If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 230 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled 30 feet
(3) Purpose of fill Temporary detour roadway
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? X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 340 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled 35 feet
(3) Purpose of fill Temporary detour roadway
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation
of any existing utility lines? X Yes
No
If yes, explain in detail Telephone lines, power
lines, etc. -
C. Will the proposed project require the
construction of any temporary detour structures?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Detour bridge
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
T _____? nos ins
,t',' L' -_' L, 0 2002
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Silt fence, diversion
ditches and NCDOT Type "B" basins
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic
dredge)? Backhoe, bulldozer, crane.
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting
equipment to project site? X Yes No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts. Minimize fill slopes, use
geotextile matting between layer.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or
culvert require any shoreline stabilization?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Class 11 riprap. See profile
sheet Nos. 5 and 6 in permit drawings.
r -0 oT
Applicant rooi
?Zame ?y
Signature
Date
04 <t A
NORTH CAROLINA Ap- z 2
UUUN I I
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2260901 ( B-3358
VICINITY
REPLACEMENT OF BRG. st91
MAP ON SR 1509 OVER
PARROT SWAMP

SHEET l OF 6 8 / 29 /2001

DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION. OF HIGHWAYS
SI TE
ONSLOW, COUNTY
M AP PROJECT: 8.2260901 ( B-3358
REPLACEMENT OF BRG. X91
ON SR 1509 OVER
PARROT SWAMP
SHEET L OF 8 / 29 / 2001
r ,

APP, ? 6 2002
LEGEND
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
WETLAND
WL
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
WRDENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
»• •• •' • CLEARING
F z FLOW DIRECTION
TB -- TOP OF BANK
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
C PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F PROP.LIMIT OF FILL
--i- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL
-EPB EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
0 WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE 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
00000 VORTEX ROCK WEIR
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
VANE

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2260901 (B-3358)
REPLACEMENT OF BRG. ;; 91
ON SR 1509 OVER
PARROT SWAMP
SHEET .3 OF 0
s
•
O
5
Ln
n o
n
?o
0
0
n p
C ?
70 ? o :
Om
.. ?o
14 -
m mm
o
z -o
o r -a
-4 m
rr--umi zN
m
zm mm
r7 -4 -0
a
o ;o
N -<
,.
N X11
to
?..
C p ?'
n
o= NI
N m rn0 -v
I
C8? r ? I
?? o I
? m
z )= l
n
o ? I
o
0 C C
?z> x
'orA r 0
Z c
?.? MNo?
e
ri) $ 0 a A M p rn
O p p x
P.
I /1
? N H
O

l?
1
I
I rn
I y
i o
C--
f
I
I
I
111V 1
-4I '
N
I
I
I

n
1 _
,o
T"
d
2!
Uri
illy
0

I

I
°
N
+
O
O
\."
U
It
W
+
0
O
Z
0
0
Ln
0
O
z
o ;P. 1- 0
C
m
U f ?z0 Z
r4 a

o
o
z

t4
0
z 0
P-
n 0
ET)
O
o
ro?? a G1

,4
0
X
CA .1
00
0
z
O N
O
O
D

N °
Ln X
O m N
;VC-) z nX --Ir-
,D G7 ?y D*

N '
I vD CA-
D +'0

=
` O CoZ.

?
?
r Z
t
I ?- I

l 1
? m
_ I L7*i Q) N
O -i
?t 1 D u . D
m Lo LA
Z -? °0aLAJ
) +
O I 1 1 II
Z I o f '?" m o
I 1 ° 0o
4;1 O I
N r-
cn oo II..I { b v' I
< I 1 11 ??
1
° ?, ?n I W 1 Q Q cn
m m I 1 0
N
< m I rn? 1
If < I
Ln I I I
1
I 1
N I
° ° o
100?

0
0 0
_
N
+
O

O
O 0
m

Z; II it \ ?
o? N \?
a
. Q
O
m N /

O p
N
r
o
-um
m?
/ p
+
O
O
O
err
co x(f) /
m >n

? 0_ /
n

O
O
CJ1
+
O
O
r

O ?'a o
O d
C d
C?7
?? y r
o Z O
O
0 o z il
oo cn
O '00 )
z +
BO cI
Z x
Q
cn 00

C4
Y
p.. v cn
O
z

( r - \

z
::E ,
;:E (n
N
r ?D

< N
D N '

O u 1
? w

i
O?

N?

1

II II
as

A r' - :- f 2002
I..
r cn ? o
m m
? o
-i n c
° N m
+
0 oo
m
D
m
J
C
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
Mr. Paul F. Fisher, P.E.
NC Department Of Transportation
1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1590
November 28, 2001

Subject: EXEMPTION from Stormwater
Management Permit Regulations `
Stormwater Project No. SW8 011115
B-3358 Onslow County.Brike,.#91 Replacement _
Onslow County
Dear Nk. Fisher:
The Wilmington Regional Office received a copy of your application for the project known as B-3358
Onslow County Bridge #91 Replacement. Staff of the Wilmington Regional Office have reviewed the application
for the applicability of the Stormwater Management rules to the proposed activity at this project. Based on our
review, you do not appear to be proposing a development activity on this site at this point in time that would be
subject to the stormwater requirements as provided for in 15A NCAC 2H,1000. Please be advised that other
regulations will potentially apply to your proposed activities.
If your project disturbs five acres or more and has a point source discharge 'of stormwater runoff, then it is
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N'PDES) stormwater discharge requirements. You
are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwatcr discharge from projects meeting these critcria.
This exemption applies only to the Coastal Stormwater Management Permit for the currently proposed
activity, If at any time in the future, development of any part of this site is planned, as defined in NCAC 2H.1000,
or if the proposed activities differ in any manner from what is shown on the plans on file with the Division, you
must submit the project for review of the applicability of the stormwater management rules. If you have any
questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
..-? c-., V--
Rick Shiver
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
RSSlarl: S:1WQSISTORMWATIEXEMPTI.
cc: Mitchell Parker, Onslow County Building Inspections
Sim Gregson, CAMA
Linda Lewis
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files
NCDDR
N.C. Division of Water Qusrdy 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wlimington, N.C. 28405 [phone] Fox [phone] Customar Servim
800-623.7748
TOTAL P.02
...moo
Crts_7C7
0, .Zl et.c)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
October 14, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3358 Onslow No. 91 SR 1509 ill Goodwin
B-3362 Person No. 11 US 158 /Dennis Pipkin
B-3324 Davidson No. 460 SR 1318 Dennis Pipkin
B-3142 Columbus No. 19 n/ NC 242 Jeff Ingham
I
B-3148 Columbus No. 248 /J SR 1740 Jeff Ingham
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room _R)'
These scoping meetings will be held back to back for B-3358 and
B-3362. The remaining project meetings will begin at 2:30 P. M. in the order shown above.
These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project, so all attendees should plan to arrive
at the beginning of the 2:00 P. M. or 2:30 P. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg
Attachments

lI-V/- l(0--q
S /?-
I
,so
00000
?Of NORM Coy North Carolina Department of
q Transportation
Division of Highways
9F? e??P Planning & Environmental Branch
OF,M
Onslow County
Replace Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509
Over Parrot Swamp
B-3358
Fi;ure One
Flea.,, Nw1
Pu ???-f S Wa W" 10
00 k W 0,010
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
10/8/97
TIP PROJECT: B-3358 DIVISION: Three
F. A. PROJECT: MABRZ - 1509(4)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2260901
COUNTY: Onslow
ROUTE: SR 1509
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 91 on SR 1509 over Parrot Swamp
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Hubert N. C. Quad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Collector
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 250,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 25,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 275,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT est. 4800 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2020) VPD
TTST % DUAL %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section 20 foot
pavement. grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
LENGTH 11.0 METERS WIDTH 8.1 METERS
36 FEET 26.5 FEET
COMMENTS:
D
c??
00
0
0
I?

6
0

1 ?o
?f
e
0
n

0
0
0
O
0