30555_NC DOT_20020528

CAMA / DREDGE & FILL / 114 Ni? 30555
GENERAL PERMIT � Ni?
Previous permit #� •��
New Modification Complete Reissue Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC d
❑ Rules attached.
Applicant Name b(-- 1,.j( )
-i-
Address �:� !� :
City ; �.
State
Phone # O ){i Fax #
Authorized Agent C i ; , i 1
Affected ❑ CW ❑ EW M PTA ❑ ES PTS
AEC(s): ❑ OEA ❑ HHF ❑ IH ❑ UBA N/A
❑ PWS: ❑ FC:
ORW: yes / no PNA yes / no Crit. Hab. yes / no
Type of Project/ Activity
Pier (dock) length
Platform(s)
Finger pier(s)
Groin length
number
Bulkhead/ Riprap length
avg distance offshore
max distance offshore
Basin, channel
cubic yards__
Boat ramp
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing
Other
Shoreline Length
Project Location: County
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
Subdivision
City -_ - - ZIP
Phone # ( ) River Basin
Adj. Wtr. Body (nat /man /unkn)
j
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body t- F
SAV: not sure yes no
Sandbags: not sure yes no
Moratorium: n/a yes no
Y Photos: yes no
Waiver Attached: yes no
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions
Agent or Applicant Printed Name
Signature Please read compliance statement on back of permit
Application Fee(s) Check #
(Scale:
See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
Permit Officer's Signature
Issuing Date Expiration Date
Local Planning Jurisdiction Rover File Name

Statement of Compliance and Consistency
This permit is subject to compliance with this application, site drawing and attached general and specific conditions. Any
violation of these terms may subject the permittee to a fine or criminal or civil action; and may cause the permit to become
null and void.
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance. The
applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) prior to undertaking any activities authorized by this permit, the applicant will
confer with appropriate local authorities to confirm that this project is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement or certified mail return receipt has been obtained from the adjacent riparian
landowner(s) .
The State of North Carolina and the Division of Coastal Management, in issuing this permit under the best available
information and belief, certifythatthis project is consistentwith the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
River Basin Rules Applicable To Your Project:
Tar- Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rules Other:
Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules
If indicated on front of permit, your project is subject to the Environmental Management Commission's Buffer Rules for the
River Basin checked above due to its location within that River Basin. These buffer rules are enforced by the NC Division of
Water Quality. Contact the Division of Water Quality at the Washington Regional Office (252-946-6481) or the Wilmington
Regional Office (910-395-3900) for more information on how to comply with thesebuffer rules.
Division of Coastal Management Offices
Central Office Elizabeth City District
Mailing Address: 1367 U.S. 17 South
1638 Mail Service Center Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 252-264-3901
Location:
Parker -Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-2293 / 1-888-4RCOAST
Fax: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Camden, Chowan, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Pasquotank and Perquimans
Counties)
Morehead City District
151-B Hwy. 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
202-808-2808
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Carteret, Craven, Onslow -above
New River Inlet- and Pamlico Counties)
Washington District
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
252-946-6481
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Hyde,
Tyrrell and Washington Counties)
Wilmington District
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
910-395-3900
Fax: [phone]
(Serves: Brunswick, New Hanover,
Onslow -below New River Inlet- and
Pender Counties)
Revised 10/05/01

NC ENR
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
May 28, 2002
NC Department of Transportation
ATTN: Chris Rivenbark
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Rivenbark:
Attached is General Permit #C-30555 to replace existing 91' x 29' bridge with a 105' x 30'
bridge adjacent to Long Creek on SR 1216 at the crossing of Cypress Creek near Piney Wood in
Pender County.
In order to validate this permit, please sign all three (3) copies as indicated. Retain the white
copy for your files and return the signed yellow and pink copies to us in the enclosed, self-
addressed envelope.
We appreciate your early attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bill Arrington
D.O.T. Field Representative
BA/srk
Enclosures
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled \ 10% Post consumer Paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1515
Pay
to the
Order of
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1638 MAIL SERVICE CTR
RALEIGH NC
27699-1638
THIS FORM CONTAINS MICROPRINTING
Warrant No. 1253736
Date 01-25-2002
Amount $100.00
66.1059
531
e
:ooyuu-�-faai-�a�iaa-��-►-���iai-►°j=ai aNe uRa,;:.uRo rc�wo uw xcAa..w.�s
C. Wayne Stallings
Chief Financial Officer
Present to: State Treasurer, Raleigh, North olina
Payable at par through Federal Res ystem
111 12 S 3 ? 3piin 1:053 L 105941: 5111000111601ii'

,�,CAMA / YDREDGE & FILL 1�Y4
? 30555
GENERAL PERMIT Previous permit #
XNew -.Modification --Complete Reissue Partial Reissue Date previous permit issued
As authorized by the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resources `�
and the Coastal Resources Commission in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC 07 . 7 j Q
Applicant Name_ VC D1T C
Address I � S 6AZi" 1 `,-erU t\LN
City ULC s l State kZIPF­2---7(�%-LbW
Phone # 73 j' / %��} Fax # ( ) <
Authorized Agent <Z[t r- t5
Affected _ CW EW �Z PTA ES )('PTS
AEC(s): - OEA HHF —1H - UBA N/A
PWS: -FC:
ORW: yes �% PNA yes / io ! Crit. Hab. yes / no
Type of Project/ Activity f ^ 1`
nn - Rules attached.
Project Location: County YPf ic�C_1
Street Address/ State Road/ Lot #(s)
Subdivision _
City_ f`L�Z� ' �; r� �ti�Cl� ZIP_ -
Phone # rr River Basin
Adj. Wtr. Bodyc6' ,cS7
_ ��o, rr Qt;Aman /unkn)
Closest Maj. Wtr. Body _&E cc fes_ FeQ,-
v � `
(Scale:
Pier(dock)length
Platforms ^, r
Finger pier(s)--
Groin length (� /— j
number �� ICt t� c X r ` J i11� 1 / z- •'zj %� /- ! t C Ur I CX
Bulkhead/ Riprap length Ili (� l t CIL J
avg distance offshore .- i _
max distance offshore t L' f C( L c c1 J x �� ' ' tJ/t� C�i - C,11
Basin, channel ex r S r1 11- t \ I ri f L L4I< .5 e- el Cl MSV / r j
cubic yards 3/�C, Z 4-S LsGI
Boat ramp
Boathouse/ Boatlift
Beach Bulldozing
Other �,^ iCY C /tf-
Shoreline Length
SAV: not sure yes no
Sandbags: not sure yes no'
Moratorium: n/a yes no
Photos: � no
Waiver Attached: yes no
A building permit may be required by:
Notes/ Special Conditions A
C
bt C
Agent or Applicant Printed Name
Post -it® Fax Note 7671
Date
# of
pages
To
s
���� �_k
From
Co./Dept.
Co.
Phone #
Phone #
Fax
#q )y-
'� G
-7 "IC'` 17
Fax #
I �. I _ See note on back regarding River Basin rules.
I'I4t; <E C r- 1)rl QIIOty e8 �t [�/ i'Yk
-CJt -L �.n Gr CCA-t�
S�giL��q«�fa
.5 / / - 7-t Q l.� C ( ( /! 1 [ / l 4r r C r f it /
RPerm%Officer' Signature C-� �/Z 7/-t7
e',
Signature *- Please read compliance statement on back of permit ** Luing Dake ExpiratiA Date
z�3 �3 p1`t CC, . X
Application Fee(s) Check # Local Planning]urisdiction Rover File Name

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
March 25, 2002
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
ATTN: Mr. Bob Stroud
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
AM 15 2002
SUBJECT: CAMA GENERAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
NO. 81 ON SR 1216 OVER CYPRESS CREEK, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO.
BRZ-1216(11), STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2271301, TIP PROJECT NO. B-3361.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the
referenced structure on existing location, along with associated approach improvements. The
new bridge will be approximately 105.0 ft in length with a 28.0 ft wide travelway. Traffic will
be detoured offsite on existing roads during construction. The scope of work for this project was
documented as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) approved by the Federal Highway Administration
[Federal Aid Project BRSTP-11(3), State Project 8.12708011 on 22 June, 2000. Additional
copies of this document are available upon request.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 81 is located on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek. It is
composed of concrete and timber. The timber structures and asphalt wearing surface will be
removed without dropping any components into waters of the U.S. duringdemolition. SY,me of
the concrete material may be dropped into waters of the U.S. during demolition. The resulting
temporary fill associated with the concrete is approximately 64 cubic yards (48.9 cubic meters).
Should any material falls into the stream it will be removed as soon as possible as part of the
bridge removal process.
Waters of the U.S.: The project will result in 0.008 ac of permanent fill in wetlands and
0.077 ac of mechanized clearing in wetlands. No stream relocation or channel change will be
involved. Permit drawings depicting this proposed work are attached. No deck drains will be
placed directly over Cypress Creek.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Cypress Creek [DWQ Index No. 18-74-55-2, (4/1/59), Class C Sw] flows south into
Long Creek which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. It is classified as C Sw, indicating
swamp waters, which are characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels,
and high organic content. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters, which implements stringent erosion and sedimentation control, will be employed
throughout construction.
No anadromous fish spawning areas occur within 5 miles of the project, however N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission had originally requested an in -stream construction moratorium
between April 1 and September 30 to prevent interference with spawning for pickerel, sunfish,
and catfish. The length of this moratorium would be reduced to April 1 through July 1 if silt
curtains are used during project construction.
The navigational clearance of the bridge will basically remain the same since no
recognized demand for navigation exists. Cypress Creek is not susceptible for use as a means to
transport interstate or foreign commerce and there is no evidence that boats greater than 21.0 ft
long cross under Bridge No. 62. Therefore, the Federal Highway Administration has determined
that the project does not require a U. S. Coast Guard Permit in accordance with 23 CFR
650.805(c).
It is anticipated these activities will be authorized by a CAMA General Permit. A permit
application and a check in the amount of $100.00 are enclosed to cover the CAMA processing
fee. The adjacent property owners have been notified of this permit request. Copies of the letters
sent to the property owners and the certified mail receipts are attached. The signed return
receipts from these property owners will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. By copy of
this letter, NCDOT requests a NWP 23 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
appropriate Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality. An application to
NCDWQ Stormwater Management Section was applied for in addition to those requested in this
application. However, it was determined that a permit will not be required for this project.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
k,.4_ William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mr. Doug Huggett, NCDCM
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics APR 1 5 2002.
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., NCDOT Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., PD & EA

FORM DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
a. County Pender
Revised 03/95
b.
City, town, community or landmark
1.
APPLICANT
Burgaw
C.
Street address or secondary road number
a.
Landowner:
SR 1216 (Piney Woods Rd.)
Name N.C. Dept. of Transportation
d.
Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
Address 1548 Mail Service Center
e.
Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
City Raleigh State NC
river, creek sound, bay) Cypress Creek
Zip 27699-1548 Day Phone [phone]
3.
DESCRIPTION & PLANNED USE
Fax [phone]
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
b.
Authorized Agent:
a.
List all development activities you propose e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
Name
and excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace the existing bridge with a new
Address
bridge and new approaches
City State
Zip Day Phone
b.
Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
Fax
New Work
C.
Project name (if any) B-3361 Bridge No. 81
C.
Will the project be for public, private or
over Cypress Creek on SR 1216
commercial use? Public
d.
Give a brief description of purpose, use,
Note: Permit will be i,;,-ued in name of landowner(s),
methods of construction and daily operations
and/or project name.
of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages. Purpose: to
replace an existing bridge with a new
bridge and new approaches
2.
LOCATION OF PROPOSED
Methods of construction: standard
PROJECT
roadway and bridge construction methods
a. County Pender
Revised 03/95

FORM DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 1.2 ac
b. Size of individual lot(s) n/a
C. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW
or NWL 34.0 ft above MSL
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Muckalee (1), Lumbee (fsl), Norfolk (Ifs)
e. Vegetation on tract
red maple, water tupelo, sweet gum, carolina ash
f.. Man-made features now on tract
Existing bridge and roadway
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land
use plan.)
X Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
R -A (Rural -Agriculture)
Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable.)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment
been done for the tract? _ Yes X No
If yes, by whom?
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
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? X
(Attach documentation, if available)
Revised 03/95
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
n/a
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.
n/a
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
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
APR 15 2002

FORM DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
number, landmarks, and the like.
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name see sheet 6 of 7 in 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.
N/A
A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
arYlication.
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.
Revised 03/95
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 A�day of McJ2 , 20 0
Print Name William D. Gilmore, P.E.
S ignature . L.. a 0 -Z • G /i,iz)__
Landowner or Au orized 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.

Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
removed? (Explain)
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to
this proposed project.
g.
Length of proposed bridge 105 ft
1. BRIDGES
h.
Width of proposed bridge 30 ft
a. Public X Private
i.
Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
4 ft
21 in. concrete cored slab
J.
Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge
If yes, explain
Cypress Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 11.5 ft
k.
Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
5 ft
X Yes No
If yes,
1.
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 91 ft
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 28.7 ft
opening? X Yes No
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
If yes, explain navigable opening will increase
bridge 5 ft
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) all of the existing
bridge will be removed and replaced
.
with a new bridge
in.
Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes X No
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
If yes, explain
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
n.
Have you contacted the U. S. Coast Guard
the MHW or NWL
concerning their approval?
Yes X No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-MP-5
J.
Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
2.
CULVERTS
potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
a.
Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b.
Number of culverts proposed
3.
EXCAVATION AND FILL
C.
Type of culvert (construction material, style)
a.
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
d.
Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
If yes,
Yes No
(1) Length of area to be excavated
If yes,
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(1) Length of existing bridge
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(2) Width of existing bridge
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
yards
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
b.
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
removed? (Explain)
require any excavation within:
Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
_
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
e.
Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
(2) Width of area to be excavated
Yes No
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
If yes,
yards
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
C.
Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
require any highground excavation?
the MHW or NWL
X Yes _ No
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
If yes,
removed? (Explain)
(1) Length of area to be excavated 50 ft
(2) Width of area to be excavated 65 ft
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 98 cy
f.
Length of proposed culvert
d.
If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
g.
Width of proposed culvert
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
h.
Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
(to be determined by contractor)
MHW or NWL
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
i.
Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes No
Yes X No
If yes, explain
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
SPR 1 � 2002
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-MP-S
(4) Will the disposal area be available for futureb.
b.
Will the proposed project require the relocation of
maintenance? Yes X No
any existing utility lines? ` Yes X No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
If yes, explain in detail
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
C.
Will the proposed project require the construction of
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
any temporary detour structures?
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
If yes, explain in detail
above.
e.
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
d.
Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below
channels? Yes X No
MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
e.
How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled
and erosion controlled? NCDOT
(3) Purpose of fill
Erosion Control Guidelines will be followed
f.
What type of construction equipment will be used
f.
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
result in any fill (other than excavated material
dredge)? excavators, backhoes, front-end loaders,
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
dumptrucks, motor grader, etc.
Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
_
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 62.6 ft
g.
Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(2) Width of area to be filled 6.5 ft
to project site? Yes X No
(3) Purpose of fill roadway fill
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
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
h.
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
highground? Yes X No
require any shoreline stabilization?
If yes,
Yes X No
(1) Length of area to be filled
If yes, explain in detail
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
4.
GENERAL
Applicant
or Project Name
a.
Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
�/
J
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
Signature
Date
Revised
03/95

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 25, 2002
Helen Persal
5560 Pineywoods Dr.
Watha, NC 28471
Dear Ms. Persal:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
APR 15 2002
Subject: Pender County, Replacement of Bridge No. 62 over Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney
Woods Rd.). Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1216(11), State Project No. 8.2271301,
NCDOT TIP No. B-3361.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No.62 over
Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney Woods Rd.) near Atkinson in Pender County. The proposed
action will involve replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge that will be 105.0 ft long and
approximately 28.0 ft wide. This replacement will take place on existing alignment and local
traffic will be detoured offsite using existing roads during construction.
The project will require the permanent fill of 0.008 ac of wetlands and the mechanized
clearing of 0.077 ac of wetlands. No stream relocation or channel change will be involved.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is required
for this work. This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. In that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy
of the permit application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on
your part.
If you have any questions, please contact your appropriate DCM representative, or call
Mr. Chris Rivenbark, N.C. Department of Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,
.. William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOTORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 25, 2002
International Paper Company .F'p.�t�?
3 Pine Valley Dr.
Wilmington, NC 28412
Dear Sir or Madam:
Subject: Pender County, Replacement of Bridge No. 62 over Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney
Woods Rd.). Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1216(11), State Project No. 8.2271301,
NCDOT TIP No. B-3361.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No.62 over
Cypress Creek on SR 1216 (Piney Woods Rd.) near Atkinson in Pender County. The proposed
action will involve replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge that will be 105.0 ft long and
approximately 28.0 ft wide. This replacement will take place on existing alignment and local
traffic will be detoured offsite using existing roads during construction.
The project will require the permanent fill of 0.008 ac of wetlands and the mechanized
clearing of 0.077 ac of wetlands. No stream relocation or channel change will be involved.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is required
for this work. This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. In that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy
of the permit application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on
your part.
If you have any questions, please contact your appropriate DCM representative, or call
Mr. Chris Rivenbark, N.C. Department of Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,
'tl &. &t
,✓ William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCOOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

NORTH CARODNA
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PENDER COUNTY
VICINITY PROJECT: 8.2271301 (B-33(61)
MAPS BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
CREEK ANIS APPROACHES ON
SIS 1216
SHEET 1 OF 7 DATE 01/23/02

LEGEND
LINE WT
LINE WT
4-6
6
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
PROPOSED BRIDGE
4 t WETLAND
WL
4-6
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
6
DENOTES FILL IN
2
WETLAND
®
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
15
FILL IN
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
®DENOTES
SURFACE WATER
2
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
6
& ABOVE
®DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
2
(POND)
SINGLE TREE
2
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
2
FILL IN WETLAND
�tr_rr`z-� L� WOODS LINE
2
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
2
■ DRAINAGE INLET
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
®
2
WATER
ROOTWAD
2
i DENOTES MECHANIZED
2
•* �` • CLEARING
2
FLOW DIRECTION
RIP RAP
2
TB
2-4
-Z_ TOP OF BANK
WE - EDGE OF WATER
-
2
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
2
OR PARCEL NUMBER
2
IF AVAILABLE
- --C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
2
A
2
- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
2
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
2
- TOE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
2
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
21Nk
I 5 ZQQZ
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
2
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
2
PLANT BOUNDARY
�
- - -- - WATER SURFACE
2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
X X X LIVE STAKES
2
X X
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BOULDER
6
FENDER COUNTY
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROJECT: 8.2271301 (]x-3361)
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
CREEK AND APPROACHES ON
SR 1210
SHEET 2 OF 7 DATE 01 % 23 % 02

m �
HELEN PERSAL ��� INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
VIEW ��y
�Y
PLAN I E Y�'
CLASS II
RIPRAP
L�0)
PENDER COUNTY
s CLASS II
50 0
PDE
BEGIN 20'
G E
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER
�O' RIPRAP END BRIDGE
-'k- v-
E
E
�
*
CYPRESS CREEK AND APPROACHES
25 50
WOODS
*
SCALE: I"= 50' HORIZ.
V11111AF1 WETLAND
�1
BRIDGE "81
12' FUNNEL DRAIN
wi 12 CSP
TO SR 1336— — —
``-`-
ALO NC 42 I
18.5 BST SR 1216
��_
m �
E
* *
BEGIN BRIDGE Gj�
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY to GHQ WE
3�
N. C. DEPT. OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
OF HIGHWAYS
VIEW ��y
�Y
PLAN I E Y�'
PENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2271301 (B-3361)
50 0
** ** * * DENOTES MECHANIZED
C=
I"
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER
*
* * * * CLEARING
CYPRESS CREEK AND APPROACHES
25 50
DENOTES FILL IN
ON SR 1216
SCALE: I"= 50' HORIZ.
V11111AF1 WETLAND
SHEET 3 OF 7 DATE 315% 02

100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
EXTENDS 450 FEET WEST
PI = 13+00
EL = 33.81'
VC 40 KC= 160
HISTORICAL HWSEL.36.91'
FROM HURRICAN FLOYD
HISTORICAL HWSEL. 35.29' Q —
FROM HURRICAN FRAN—
(+) 0.152
100 YR. WSEL - 35.11'
25 YR. WSEL - 33.32'
(+) 0.29
� STA. 14+43.18 -L-
GRADE POINT EL. = 34.259
21" CORED SLAB
3 SPANS @ 35' ; OAL =105'
SKEW = 90°
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
EXTENDS 525 FEET EAST
30 NG UPSTREAM _ 1.5:1 _ 1
— — — — — — —
CLASS
NG DOWNSTREAM II
RPRAP IHwsEl�27.9
EST. 55 CU.YDS 1 I 02/09/01 I /
EXCAVATION
EXIST. BRIDGE
12+00
13+00
OVER TOPPING \
SCOUR
14+00
PI = 15+35
EL = 34.51'
K C= 246
40
PROP. GRADE
(+) 0.0015
1.5;1 i NG UPSTREAM 30
NG DOWNSTREAM
CLASS II
RIPRAP
EST. 43 CU.YDS
EXCAVATION
PROP. BRIDGE
20
15+00
16+00

SECT. A—A
FILL IN WETLANDS
40
40
PROP. GRADE
EXIST. GRADE
ON o�
30
4.,
4:,
30
50 40 30 20 10 0 10
20 30
40 50
15+50
-L-
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2271301 (B-3361)
o
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
o
CREEK AND APPROACHES ON
SR 1216
SHEET 5 OF 7 DATE 01 % 23 % 02

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES ANIS ADDRESSES
OWNER'S NAME ADDRESSES
]HELEN PERSAL 5560 PINEYWOODS DRIVE
WATHA, NC 28,471
INTERNATIONAL PAPER 3 PINE VALLEY DRIVE
COMPANY WILMINGTON, NC 28,112
APP 1 5 2002
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2271301 (E-3361)
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
CREEK AND APPROACHES ON
SR 1210
SHEET 6 OF 7 DATE 01 % 23 % 02

N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FENDER COUNTY
F� PROJECT: 8.2271301 (B-3361)
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
ny CREEK AND APPROACHES ON SR 1216
Form Revised 3/22/01 r—) SHEET 7 OF 7 DATE 4/5/02
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
Site Station Structure
No. (From/To) Size / Type
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
WETLAND IMPACTS
Temp. Fill Excavation
In Wetlands In Wetlands
(ac) (ac)
Mechanized
Clearing Fill In SW
(Method 111) (Natural)
(ac) (ac)
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Existing
Fill In SW Temp. Fill Channel
(Pond) In SW Impacted
(ac) (ac) (ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 12+20/16+90 -L 3 SPAN BRIDGE, 105'
0.0084
0.0772
TOTALS: 1
0.0084
0.0772
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FENDER COUNTY
F� PROJECT: 8.2271301 (B-3361)
BRIDGE NO. 62 OVER CYPRESS
ny CREEK AND APPROACHES ON SR 1216
Form Revised 3/22/01 r—) SHEET 7 OF 7 DATE 4/5/02

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3361, Pender County
Bridge No. 81, on SR 1216
Over Cypress Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1216(11)
State Project 8.2271301
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge is composed of concrete and timber
components. The timber components will be removed without dropping any
component into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The asphalt wearing
surface will be removed prior to demolition, without dropping into the water. Some
of the concrete material may enter Waters of the U.S. during demolition. The
temporary fill associated with the concrete is. approximately 64 cubic yards. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed.
Categorical Exclusion Document
Green Sheet
June, 2000
APR 1 5 2002
Page 1 of 1

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3361, Pender County
Bridge No. 81, on SR 1216
Over Cypress Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-12160 1)
State Project 8.2271301
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge is composed of concrete and timber
components. The timber components will be removed without dropping any
component into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The asphalt wearing
surface will be removed prior to demolition, without dropping into the water. Some
of the concrete material may enter Waters of the U.S. during demolition. The
temporary fill associated with the concrete is approximately 64 cubic yards. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed.
Categorical Exclusion Document Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
June, 2000

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3361
State Project No. 8.2271301
Federal Project No. BRZ-12160 1)
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 81 over Cypress Creek, on SR 1216 in
Pender County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location with
a new bridge approximately 105 feet in length and 28 feet in total clear
width. The bridge will have a 22 foot travelway and 3 foot offsets on each
side. The new approach roadway will have a travelway of 22 foot width,
with shoulders of at least 6 feet width on each side. Shoulder width will be
increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. During
construction, traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 81 has a sufficiency rating of only 38.0 out of 100. The bridge is
posted for weight limits of 23 tons SV and 26 tons TTST. For these reasons,
Bridge No. 81 requires replacement.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1 . Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
C. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)

2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including
the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O3 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at -grade railroad
crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
C. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
OReplacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited
use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant
adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located
on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus
and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
F)

required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of
users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected
bus traffic.
1 1 . Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there
is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a
limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a
CE only where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of
alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $400,000
Right -of -Way and Utilities 61,000
Total Project Cost $461,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1,000 VPD
Year 2025 - 1,800 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 22 feet wide with at least a 6 foot grassed
shoulder on each side. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet where
guardrail is warranted.
c

Design Speed:
The design speed will be 60 mph.
Functional Classification:
SR 1216 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division 3 Engineer supports road closure and replacement at the
existing location.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? 1-1
X
(2)
Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
❑
X
(3)
Will the project affect anadromous fish?
F-1
X
(4)
If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
X
F
(5)
Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
1-1
X
(6)
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
❑
X
(7)
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
-1
Resource Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
F
X
(8)
Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
❑
X
(9)
Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
❑
X
4

PERMITS AND COORDINATION
YES
NO
(10)
If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
F-1
and/or land use of adjacent property?
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
F-1
X
(16)
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
X
(1 1)
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
F-1
X
(17)
resources?
❑
X
—
(12)
Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
F
X
low-income population?
—
(13)
Will the project result in the modification of any existing
X
❑
regulatory floodway?
❑
X
—
(14)
Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
❑
X
—
SOCIAL ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
YES
NO
(15)
Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
F-1
and/or land use of adjacent property?
growth or land use for the area?
F-1
X
(16)
Will the project require the relocation of any family or
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
❑ X
(22)
business?
F-1
X
(17)
Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
-1
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
F
X
low-income population?
(18)
If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
X
❑
(19)
Will the project involve any changes in access control?
❑ X
(20)
Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
F-1
and/or land use of adjacent property?
moi_
(21)
Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
❑ X
(22)
Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X
RV

(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic F1—
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing Elroads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge ❑
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? 17 X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws Elrelating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F-1 X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are1:1X
important to history or pre -history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ❑ X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non -recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act F-1 X
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? F —1 X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
None.
11

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
Proiect Description:
B-3361
8.2271 301
BRZ-1 2160 1)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 81 over Cypress Creek, on SR 1216 in
Pender County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location with
a new bridge approximately 105 feet in length and 28 feet in total clear
width. The bridge will have a 22 foot travelway and 3 foot offsets on each
side. The new approach roadway will have a travelway of 22 foot width,
with shoulders of at least 6 feet width on each side. Shoulder width will be
increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. During
construction, traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
2-00
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
6 -ZZ -to Wc�,,,e &71,'a #
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7

-- L ----------
S
Costin
J \
121 o Piney Wood
1335 1.3 2 CO
i
l
M
Z:
i I
N
1
1330
34 5
i
Bride No. 81 � 33g
1 16
< 1 337
', ♦ 134
9
6 : I
1333 i y
I
1351 4() Crossroads iI
1 121 1 1 5 c. 8 �►' ♦. Q 1 .4 ,.
wards \
1220 2 Comer 1' \
I `'• S 1 0
140 a
� � 1122 •--- _ -.
. 11 1404
.i
1 21 \ .; \�I \• 0
Studied Detour Route
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Pender County
Replace Bride No. 81 on SR M6
Over Cypress Creek
B-3361
Figure 1

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Goodwin. Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project oor ator
Habitat Conservation Progr m
DATE: December 16. 1998
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Columbus, Duplin, Halifax. and Pender
counties. North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3144, B-3165, B-3182 and B-3361.
BiologW
ists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401. as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 16, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x 10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush -hogs. or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to

Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 16, 1998
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a neve alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-} ear
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3144 — The bridge site is surrounded by an expansive swamp. To minimize
wetland impacts, recommend replacing the structure at the current location
with road closure. Specifically, no temporary detour.
2. B-3165 — Limestone Creek provides a good fishery for pickerel, sunfish, and
catfish. To prevent interference with spawning, we request that there be no in -
stream work between April 1 and September 30, the length of this moratorium
could be reduced by the use of silt curtains. The existing bridge is surrounded
by a bottomland hardwood wetland. Therfore, we recommend that the bridge
be replaced at the existing location. We also recommend that the roadway be
closed during construction and that an on-site detour not be used.
3. B-3182 — We have no specific fishery concerns at this site. However, there is
the potential for federally listed mussels in the vicinty of this project.
Therefore, we recommend that Tim Savidge be contacted and the appropriate
surveys be preformed. If mussels are located, we recommend an on-site
meeting to discuss strategies to minimize adverse impacts.
4. B-3361 — Cypress Creek supports pickerel, sunfish, and catfish. To prevent
interference with spawning, we request that there be no in -stream work
between April 1 and September 30, the length of this moratorium could be
reduced by the use of silt curtains. If a temporary detour is necessary, we
recommend locating it downstream of the existing structure to minimize
wetland impacts.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and Nvildlife
resources in the vici: ity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or enteringinto these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge X81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek,
Pender County, B-3361, ER 99-7693
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
G '•
On December 10, 1998, 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 i-0the 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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleig}t, North Carolina ?760] ?S07 �?�%

Nicholas L. Graf
12/28/98, 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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: '/V. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett

A
ffi
o
to-
i \
�1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B Hunt Jr.. Governor
Division of Archives and History
Bem Rav McCain. Secretar.
Jeffrey J. Cro". Director
October 27 1999
r
E C
Rvan Smith
Langley and McDonald
5544 Greenwich Road,
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
z�
W
RE: Replace of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek, Pender County'
ER 00-7730 �2�2�
•� . -:. -... .
,
,
Dear Mr. Smith:
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic. or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on
the project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thant: 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.
A
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Ia _01M re no
cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
109 East Jones Street • Ralei,h. North Carolina 27601 -?807

APR 15 2002
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 81 ON SR 1216
OVER CYPRESS CREEK
PENDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3361
State Project No. 8.2271301
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 98 -LM -08
Langley and McDonald Project Number 1960024-208.00
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources. Permits and Miti(2ation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 2761 1
Attn. Phillip Todd, Environmental Specialist
Issued: December 1999
f
9 Langley and McDonald
's ?� _-,dsca a ar:nitects=nvnron.mental Consultants
5544 Greenwich Road • Virginia Beach, VA 23462 • [phone] • FAX: [phone] • L&[e-mail]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTOF TABLES...................................................................................................................................III
LISTOF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................III
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description..........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology...................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions..........................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................................3
2.1 Regional Characteristics.................................................................................................................3
2.2 Soils
2.3 Water Resources.............................................................................................................................4
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification.........................................................................................................4
2.3.3 Water Quality...........................................................................................................................4
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts...................................................................................................5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................6
3.1 Biotic Communities........................................................................................................................6
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.........................................................................................6
3.1.2 Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest...........................................................................6
3.1.3 Mesic Pine Flatwoods..............................................................................................................7
3. 1.5 Disturbed Roadside..................................................................................................................
7
3.1.6 Aquatic Community.................................................................................................................7
3.1.7 Wildlife....................................................................................................................................7
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts...................................................................................................8
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts...................................................................................................................8
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts.......................................................................................................................9
3.2.3 Natural Resources Perspective.................................................................................................9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .....................................................
4.1 Waters of the United States...........................................................................................................10
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters...................................................................10
4.1.2 Permits...................................................................................................................................1
1
4.1.3 Avoidance. Minimization. Mitigation....................................................................................12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species...........................................................................................................I3
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species...................................................................................................13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
..............................................................
1
5.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................
ACD9T A'RTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1116 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project .�'o. 1960024-108.00 Page ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.....................................................................�
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Pender County........................................................................1
LIST OF FIGURES
(Figure follows page listed)
Figure1. Project Vicinity Map................................................................................................................... I
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Project...................................................................................................... 1
.N L-uvt ,vl(I K - replacement of Fridge Ao. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and .ticDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960021-208.00 Page iii

1.0 I1tiTRODtiCTION,
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Cateaorical Exclusion (CE) for the replacement of Bridge Number 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creel:
in Pender County. The purpose of this report is to inventory and describe the natural resources that
occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and are likely to be impacted b, the proposed
action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are
provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should
be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this
document are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If
design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek.
Pender County (Figure 1). The existing two-lane shoulder cross-section is 9.1 meters 030.0 feet) wide.
The proposed cross-section is a two-lane shoulder section as well. The current and proposed right-of-
way width for this project is 18.3 m (60.0 ft). The current structure is an open deck «ith a steel plank
floor on I -beams. Project length is as much as 121.9 m (400.Oft) west of the existing bridge and as
much as 700 feet east of the existing bridge. Three alternatives are being considered for this project
(Figure 2):
Alternative I — Replace the existing bridge in-place with a bridge: traffic will be detoured off-site
during construction.
Alternative 2 — Replace the existing bridge in-place with a bridge; traffic will be maintained on-site
on a temporary structure to the south.
Alternative 3 — Replace the existing bridge on new alignment to the south with a bridge; traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge.
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information pertaining to the
project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the
project area include:
:NUuv1 .%nl n - Replacement of Bridge o. 81 on SR 1316 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and .ilcDonald. Inc. Project .yo. 1960024-208. 00 Page 1

i
/ l
Costin
i
- i
i
X45
° Bridge X0.81 "
1216
PineyWood 1 216 339
4, 1 1— 1337 Ln
a 1 ! 134
h ,!
�r Q \
1338 , 1216
J Rhyne
1351 4) Crossroads
r
i 1 1 211 1 r) 0)
4 r
Y --- 2.5 e �
-
i ��
rte` _ Wards\ � _ 0 1 11l 0
2 Comer r; t
\ 1 " 140
P 1 122 ..............
11
U') 1404
1121
North Carolina
` Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Pender County
Repkee Bridge No. 81 on SR 216
Over Cypress Creek
B-3361
Figure 1

-. y:Tr li •r 1, � - -� �'r--, r";., �:q.`: [: .�� �.
'l. a,,r -_ 3i` '^' +meg - � @ 's�''>`_ r. 'wry :3 � `�.• _ _ 3 •►; `±�; _ ;/-•
jot
00
•3Q5'vt r"'- `-,T ?3'y� ��,.7 - 'G t, ". �t _ '� •-4c- -iF - sj.' - _ _ .
a ••�-� _ �� c'� :i "!s'� �•-'�,�->tT'i� ) ;x - .� �"•'•%� � `:•.. -T' <fr_}y�. d" mss. ;�:: ..%•.
1 � w"y fi, C '^. ! i '.i 1• f t . �#� � 7r' .� •� s�' _. - - ."Y �.. •: vj •- -�, .� -iv - '� - ../ ,y : 4� s - - -
�i
?-� �' n •""£�' � ��,•rt�rwr- -� ^o-- �'�p �r`:�. z�"�r � ft �i1i.# c,i - � . - _ _ � _ - _
. .• � - Ir jai b %. r �. � � , 1 ' � Y L :� � a � i -.
q' h �• �T i
-Z:7 : Y.• .�,'' y V -•T y>�'' .. _,,,_ _
'€;. Ol
+++•••���+++ 4 of
• 's � ��, `:;7� � - � ` � I y zt _ may., � _ •` � _
Ilk. "e' ?� {•. - ^'; .. • � - _''- . r• -c _-.;.-, _ _ .. fir.•
z - •'s; ;.:.rye_ _, - .. ,�,ft' a r. ,� j.:-. .4f� � 4, .i' '�� : `r•` '. i .f��" A^ ��,r f} . ., - ..-►��.
- �i' Y �: ?= - 1• p.?>":. rs',+a �- �` _a�..1
� � aate�,, - - , , _ - s' .Y: •:.. ,, .. :.�'- — �; _y. t12,: ,� - � ':° - �'�• -
41
'L Y�' - J j,� ,•� T'F. y A;a arm
t �. S.• . ,; ` N•C 'r '.f ! ..0 J•rr�'-= Jk J rl - 'L'a -
�:. 'r: - -3=-• - -:d '�' ,'ice-" - �(_
r � ;i 'J -1 3� :.r - F7.'1.''-1'�'� •�i - r c _ - ^-,�,• ' � r .. - "'� ` . r'.-? •.� 3 _ . ".may , S"� .� _: -1. �,_.
• h `_' .w.r. '�,.;• ':f'."s _ ,. - "` 1
-: �1f �� y :-:'�-. �+tt�; �. ", '+r. ,..c M1. k. � s' �'u _ \. .i,.'` P 4;;�,t•+_ :5-_ .•fir .i "�. � 1 1
- � _ J[ - !�� 'i.�- ,'�^9„�. � � r � � _vile - Y-� "r y r ` i ,. .. _ T -tt \:�`. Y:�,S" fi-� ��` r• ' 1 1 1
-,� :J >'•`�>�r 1
-d ggam11e.. ..a• '°� - a` '` '��- .tit '• -` /c i
i ' r •�, •.'t; .,1, .. t .
.�'-� rs'. r •3 � y k f� .-'•y �" - � �r ��� 1. �, � }A�n ,� _ 'y��`" _ -:-r`�'a�` �t s .s''y' -,� <.:.� ` � - ------ - - - - --- - -- - -- —
� *�.f. *' _ .7 �1'�;, _ � .. r �K � _ r �,.`•' _ - •u r o _ z i,.A .-, :•'t•,� _.J,...si.. , _
IR
-_. .Y` � 1 �4' b�rv. '.''R,d - • - "T �.. _ -�, �t'y` �: �Q" � _ X81-'.. 1 I"�-. �., 1
,y. st•- - ii,'. -!- - i•r 'wy- o m, 1. • 1
t� � ` a1►i •;b �I�. r rt .7'F" ''7�`r[ `�• r.:, y_ - r •. i .'�{- � �i Y� Lt4.. �' - ► / 1
.a �`L hyo ` _ `�l�rl`• .�N. �W ; � .f ` '�Y jv: rt-. ",T� � 1
.� � � > w 4. ,. +�i J LxJaz •".=,' -I y �~ �'�$ ', 2� - '}.YI < `qya l•�- I
iy 1 {. .SZ s.' _ / r' _�• •►► ,G "k♦ - ` ..,� 'r`-- �, frY. r Y -' 1 k- 1'+i} F $` ` JJJ^^^•s�' .
_ `'�t tk � ,y'. J" '<, `".'' 3c-' - r - .`fie -t.•` - •y �,,. ,t,r' �tY\ •� �^ -� . � ,i`• ���r�h .. i'� ��"��� r;.:_ r Z" — -
�• �,JI !� ... _ P }_ HT1, r ' F �. } ` __ .
r 'i, ►• "F,- c+ r tib: i - �.

• U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps (Costin. NC).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1 20).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service. (currently kno,,N-n as Natural Resource Conservation Service).
Soil Surti•ei• ofPender Counrv, !Forth Carolina (1990). and
• N.C. Division of Water Quality Cape Fear Basinwide 1 1anagement Plan (1996)
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina' (15 September 1999) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Biological
Conservation Database (September 1999). NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of
state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural areas.
Langle}. and McDonald. Inc. Environmental Specialists Mary -Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith
conducted general field surveys along the proposed alignment on 13 October 1999. These surveys
were conducted under abnormal circumstances as water levels were at unusually high levels due to
rainfall and flooding associated with Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd.
Water resources were identified. and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford et
al. (1968.11. Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980). Palmer and Braswell (1990. Potter et al.
(1980). Webster et al. (1980, and Williams et al. (1990. Vegetative communities were mapped
utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition
involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques including qualitative habitat
assessment based on vegetative communities. active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds. scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted and
tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria established in the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation 11anual (1987) and Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina (NCDEM 1990. Wetlands were classified based on the classification
scheme of Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits
along the full length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0
km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to
the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map (i.e., 163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)).
NCDOT .\RTR - Replacement of BridgeNo. o. 81 on SR 1216 over Cvpress Creek December 1999
Longlev and AkDonald. Inc. Project No. 1960024-308.00 Page 2

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to possible
environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the potential for
soil erosion and compaction and other possible construction limitations or management concerns.
Water resources within the project area present important management limitations due to the need to
regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of
water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition.. soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities. thus
affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Pender Countv lies in the lower coastal plain physiographic province in southeastern North Carolina.
Dominant soils are primarily loamy and sandy. A seasonal high water table is the main limitation to
development. County elevation ranges from sea level to 33.5 m (110.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
Project elevations average 9.1 m (30.0 ft) msl. The Cape Fear. Black. and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers
drain nearly the entire county. (USDA 1990)
2.2 Soils
There are three soil types located in the project area. They are as follows:
• Muckalee loam. frequently flooded (Mk) is a poorly drained soil found on floodplains. It has a
surface laver of 12 -inch thick dark grayish brown loam. It has moderate permeability, with very
slow surface runoff, and medium infiltration. The seasonal high water table is 0.2) m (0.5 ft) to 0.5
m (1.5 ft) below the surface most of the year. This soil is subject to frequent flooding. The main
limitations of this soil for development are wetness and flooding. The Capability Unit is Vw.
(USDA 1990)
• Lumbee fine sandv loam. occasionally flooded (Lu) is a poorly drained soil. In low areas this soil
is subject to ponding for brief periods. The surface laver is a 7 -inch thick very dark gray fine sandy
loam. It has moderate permeability, very slow surface runoff. and medium infiltration. The
seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. The land capability class is IIw in drained areas
and VIw in undrained areas. (USDA 1990)
• Norfolk loamy fine sand (NoB) is a well -drained soil found on convex interstream divides near
major drainage w,ays. The surface laver is a 9 -inch thick grayish brown loamy fine sand. It has a
moderate permeability, medium runoff. and rapid or medium infiltration. The seasonal high water
table is 1.2 m (4.0 ft) to 1.8 m (6.0 ft) below the surface. The land capability classification is IIe.
(USDA 1990)
.%'CDOT .\'RTR - Replacement of Bridge .1'o. 81 on SR 1216 over Cvpress Creek December 1999
Langlev and .1lcDonald, Inc. ProjectNo. o. 1960021-208.00 Page 3

2.3 `Fater Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards. and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major
regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources and minimization methods are
also discussed. as are means to minimize impacts.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and non -
point sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published resource
information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of
water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic
organisms.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the studv area are located in the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin. State Route
1216 crosses one perennial stream. Cypress Creek, the only water resource in the project area (Figure
2).
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) that
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The classification for Cypress Creek
(DEM Index No. 18-74-55(2), 4/1/59) is C — Sw (NCDWQ 1999). Class C refers to waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing. wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Sw refers
to swamp waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS -I or WS -II) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
At SR 1216, Cypress Creek is approximately 22.9 m (75.0 ft) wide and ranges from 1.2 to 1.8 m (4.0 to
6.0 ft) deep. The substrate in the study area is a sandy loam. The riparian community is a Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp consisting of species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsyhanica), laurel
oak (Quercus luurifoliu). American elm (Umus americana), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), netted
chain fern (Woodtivardiu ureoluta), giant cane (.41 dinaria gigunlea), and laurel -leaved greenbrier
(Smilax lattrifolia).
2.3.3 Water Quality
There are no registered point source dischargers located in or directly upstream from the project study
area (NCDWQ 1999).
.NC UU/ ARIR - Replacement of Bridge .`o. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langlev and 11cDonald, Inc. Froject Ao. 1960024-208.00 Puge 4

The Basinw•ide 'Monitoring Program. managed b,,- the DWQ. is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality -monitoring program that addresses long -terns trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macro invertebrates organisms
which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)) and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all
species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The
biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There are no benthic monitoring;
stations on Cypress Creek in or above the project area.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with project
construction, including clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, in -stream
construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following
impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the above-mentioned construction activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal,
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas,
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff,
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles. and
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns. y
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area. Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface T aters (NCDOT 1997) will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Limiting in -stream activities and revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "*waters of the United States" during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with bridge removal will not exceed 48.9 cubic
meters (64.0 cubic yards). NCDOT's Best ll'lanagement Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(B11P-BDR) (1999) must be applied for the removal of these bridges.
.%C.UUI NHTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
LangleY and .ticDonald. Inc. Project No. 1960024-208.00 page 5

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project area and the relationships between fauna and flora within these
communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, soils, hydrology. and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These classifications
follow Schafale and Vveakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the common name only. Fauna
observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna described
from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making boundaries between
contiguous communities difficult to define. There are five communities located in the project area.
These communities are discussed belo,,v.
3.1.1 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swainp
A Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community is located on the north and south sides of the existing
bridge and would be impacted on the southwest side by the on-site detour. It appears that this area is a
riparian buffer left after logging the adjacent areas. It is bordered by roadside, Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwood Forest, and successional agricultural communities. The canopy is dominated by
red maple (Acer rubrum), water tupelo (A' !ssa aquatica), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), and yellow -poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). The understory is composed of red maple, black chem (Prunus serotina), red bay (Persea
borbonia), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub and ground layers include wild grape
(Vitis rotundifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), rattan vine (Berchemia
scandens), blackberry (Rubes argutus), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), giant cane (.4rundinaria giganteu), false nettle (Boehmeria cvlindrica), lizard's tail
(Saururus cernuus). blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
3.1.2 Coastal Plaili Bottomland Hardwood Forest
A Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest community is bordered by the Coastal Plain Small
Stream Swamp to the west and is conti�(guous to the Mesic Pine Flatwoods community to the east. This
community will be impacted by any project alternative. The canopy is composed of loblolly pine
ACDOT ;VRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley, and .ticDonald, Inc. Project No. 196002.1-208.00 Page 6

(Pinus taeda). yello x -poplar, and sweet Rum. The understory is dominated by flowering dogwood
(Cornus Florida). American holly. and Carolina ash. The shrub and ground lavers include blueberry
(1%accinium sp.). greenbrier. Japanese honeysuckle. and poison ivy.
3.1.3 Alesie Pine Flanvoods
A Mesic Pine Flatw-oods community is located northeast of the existing bridge adjacent to the Coastal
Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest. It will be impacted by the bridge replacement. This community is
composed of loblolly pine in the upper canopy. The understory contains red maple, water oak
(Quercus nigra), flowering dogwood, sweet gum, yellow -poplar, red bay, and wax myrtle (11j,rica
cerifera).
3.1.4 Successional Agricultural Field
A successional agricultural field is located on the northwest side of Bridue No. 81. It is bordered to the
north by disturbed roadside and to the west by the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp. The dominant
species in this community are vellow-poplar, loblolly pine, winged sumac (Rhus copallina), silverling
(Baccharis halimifolia), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), broad -leaf cattail (7vpha latifolia). greenbrier. sweet
bay (Magnolia virginiana). yellow jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens), Japanese honeysuckle.
blackberry, and goldenrod (Solidago spp.).
3.1.5 Disturbed Roadside
The disturbed roadside community is located on both sides of SR 1216 and will be impacted by both
the bridge replacement and the on-site detour. Due to mowing and the use of herbicides this
community is kept in a constant state of early- succession. The dominant species in this community are
fescue (Festuca sp.), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), goldenrod, clover (Oxalis sp.) and wild onion
(.Allium canadense).
3.1.6 Aquatic Community
This community consists of Cypress Creek. Aquatic insects that may be found in this community
include the water strider (Geri -is sp.), dragonfly (Odonata sp.), crane fly (Tipula sp.), mosquitoes
(Diptera sp.) and black -winged damselfly (Calop[eryx maculata).
3.1.7 Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while
the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals and birds associated with ecotones and
A'CDOT XRTR - Replacement of Bridge .\'o. 81 on SR 1316 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and 11cDonald, Inc. Project :yo. 1960024-208. 00 Page 7

wetlands are the least shrew (Crtipototis parva). southern short -tailed shrew (Blarina CU)-Uline1 i.v).
hispid cotton rat (Sigrnodon hispidus). and eastern cottontail rabbit (5ivli•ilagzis floridanus).
The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp provides habitat for an assortment of birds and mammals.
Birds often associated with swamp communities include red -winged blackbird (Agelaizis phoeniceus).
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata) and common
yellow throat (Geothltipis trichas). Retiles and amphibians that may also frequent this area include the
black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) and spring peeper (1kyla crucifer).
Mammals that may frequent the swamp and bottomland hardwood forest communities include white-
footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). In addition, white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may also forage in or near this
community. Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the riparian edge. Spring
peepers and northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) breed in semi-permanent pools during the spring.
Rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snakes (Carphophis amoenus), ring-necked snakes (Diadophis
punctatus), queen snakes (Regina septemvittata) and the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina
carolina) may be found here as well.
Mesic Pine Flatwoods may provide habitat for such animals as the blue jay (Cvanocitta cristata).
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatzts punctatzts).
corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata), and eastern box turtle.
Successional communities such as the successional agricultural field provide good habitat for such
animals as the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). white-footed mouse, white-tailed deer, and the
brown snake (Storeria dekavi).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described above.
Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the
project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing and paving
of portions of the project area and thus the loss of community area. Table I summarizes potential
losses to these communities resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial
communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in Section 1.1 and the entire proposed
right-of-way width of 18.3 m (60.0 ft) for the bridge replacement and the on-site detour. However,
.NC_L)Ul ARTR - Replacement of Bridge %'o. 81 on SR 1316 over Cvpress Creek December 1999
Langlev and McDonald, Inc. Project No. 196003-1-208.00 Page 8

project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way: therefore. actual impacts may he
considerably less.
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Cypress Creek will result from physical disturbance of aquatic
habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality) associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 81.
Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing
species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can
result in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations. and
• Loss of benthic macro invertebrates through scouringresulting from an increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BN1Ps.
3.2.3 Natural Resources Perspective
Alternative one is the recommended alternative for the proposed project based on the smallest impacts
to wetlands (0.05 ha (0.1 1 ac)).
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community
Alt. 1
Bridge
Replace*
Alternative 2
Bridge On -Site
Replace' I Detour**
Alternative 3
Bridge IOn-Site
I Replace* 1 Detour**
Coastal Plain Small Stream
0.03 ha
0.03 ha
0.27 ha
0.27 ha
0.03 ha
Swamp***
-----------------------------------------------
(0.07 ac)
--------------
(_0.07 ac)
(0.66 ac)
(0.66 ac)
(0.07 ac)
Coastal Plain Bottomland
0.00 ha
- ----------
0.00 ha
----- ---
0.00 ha
------------ ----
0.00 ha
---------------
0.00 ha---
a
Hardwood Forest***
Hardwood
(0.00 ac)
--------------
(0.00 ac)
(0.00 ac)
(0.00 ac)
(_0.00 ac)
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
0.00 ha
0.00 ha
- - - - --
0.00 ha
- - - - ----
0.00 ha
--------
0.00 ha
------------------------- ---------------------
(0.00 ac)
- - ---
(_0.00 ac)
(0.00 ac)
(0.00 ac)
(0.00 ac)
Successional Agricultural Field***
0.00 ha
--------
0.00 ha
--
0.27 ha
---------------
0.27 ha
---------------
0.00 ha
- -- -- ---------------------------
(0.00 ac)
--- ---- --
(_0.00 ac)
(0.66 ac)
(0.66 ac)
(0.00 ac)
Disturbed Roadside
0.02 ha
----------
0.02 ha
-`---------
0.08 ha
---- -- ----
0.08 ha
--------- -----
0.02 ha
(0.04 ac)
(0.04 ac)
(0.20 ac)
(0.20 ac)
(0.04 ac)
Total Impacts 0.05 ha
0.05 ha
I
0.62 ha 0.62 ha
0.05 ha
(0.1 1 ac) I
(0.1 1 ac)
(1.52 ac) I (1.52 ac) I
(0.1 1 ac)
r Ma,ic„t Mlpdcis -- i emporary impacts ""impacted Portions are Jurisdictional Wetlands
NOTE: Alternative 1 contains an off-site detour.
A _ uv/ .� K I K - Keplacement ojBridge .1'o. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and .McDonald, Inc. Project .vo. 1960021-201.00 Page 9

4.0
JL7RISDICTIO\AL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory issues:
"waters of the United States" and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular significance
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with
the impact analyses required to satisfy federal and state regulatory programs prior to project
construction.
4.1 "Waters of the United States"
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States." as defined
in 33 CFR Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing
season (USACE 1987).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and hydrology. Wetlands in the project area are located in the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest. and successional agricultural field. Vegetation in these
areas is described in Section 3.1 above. Soils in these communities are as follows:
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
0 to 30 cm (0 to 12 in) - matrix color of 10 YR 4/1. no apparent redoximorphic features
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest
0 to 15 cm (0 to 6 in) - matrix color of 2.5 Y 4/1. no apparent redoximorphic features
Below 15 cm (6 in) - matrix color of 2.5 Y 6/2 with 7.5 YR 5/8 redoximorphic features
Successional Agricultural Field
0 to 30 cm (0 to 12 in) - matrix color of 10 YR 4/1, no apparent redoximorphic features
As shown in Table 1 (page 9). permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of the bridge and on-site
detour vary between alternatives from 0.03 ha (0.07 ac) to 0.54 ha (0.66 ac). Alternative 1 would result
in the smallest wetland impact: thus, the recommended alternative for this project ' from a natural
resources and jurisdictional waters perspective.
The Cowardin classification for these wetlands is PFO 1 C (palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded. The wetlands within the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp of the proposed
ACDUI ARTR - Replacement of BridgeNo. 81 on SR 1216 over Cipress Creek December 1999
Langley and .VcDonaid. Inc. Project No. 1960024-208.00 Page 10

project area receive a rating of 64 based upon Guidance for Rating the I clues or ii'etluncis 117 N01•1h
Carolina (DWQ 1990. The wetlands within the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest and
Successional Agricultural Field are rated as 20 (DWQ 1990.
Physical aspects of surface waters are described in Section 2.3.1. Cypress Creek flows into the Coastal
Plain Small Stream Swamp system on the south side of Bridge 81.
4.1.2 Permits
As described above impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
"waters of the United States" resulting 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 Policv Act:
• 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
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit
from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
The NCDOT built Bridge No. 81 in 1972. This bridge carries SR 1216 over Cypress Creek in Pender
County. It has an asphalt overlay surface on prestressed concrete channel sections, is 27.7 m (91.0 ft)
long and 9.1 m (30.0 ft) wide. The bridge has prestressed caps, pile bents and end bents. There is the
potential for parts of all three spans of the bridge deck to be dropped into the water at the project site
during removal of this bridge. The resulting temporary fill into `'waters of the U.S." will amount to no
more than 48.9 cubic meters (64 cubic yards) of material. All temporary fill material will be removed
from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process and will therefore not require a
permit.
.%'CDOT %'RTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over Ctpress Creek December l 999
Langley and alcDonald. Inc. Project No. /960024-208.00 Page 11

4.1.3 Avoidance, 41inimization, Alittgatlon
The Army Corps of Engineers 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. rectirving 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 examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters of the
United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
offset unavoidable impacts. 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 includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "-vvaters 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 to median widths.. right-of-way widths. fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to `'waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 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." specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site
whenever possible.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result
in the fill or alteration of 0.13 ha (0.33 ac) or more of wetlands and/or 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) or more
of perennial streams.
This project avoids and minimizes to the maximum extent practicable by replacing the existing two-
lane bridge and approaches as mentioned in alternative one (Table 1). Mitigation for this bridge
replacement will not likely be needed. If compensatory mitigation is required. written approval of a
final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the USACE.
.N C. UV l :N R/ K - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over Cvpress Creek December 1999
Langlev and AkDonald. Inc. Project No. 196003.1-208.00 Page 12

-I? Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been or are. in the process of decline due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with human development. 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 United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (FEZ'S). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laNN
4.2.1 Federal1j, Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E). Threatened (T). Proposed
Endangered (PE). and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended. As of 15 September 1999. the FIVS lists
twelve federally protected species for Pender County (Table 2). A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential
project impacts follows. The project area was surveyed for the presence federally protected species and
their habitats on October 13, 1999 by Mary -Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith. No federally
protected species were determined to be present.
Table 2. Federal and state protection statuses for federally listed in Pender County.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status
American alligator
Alligator mississippiensis
T(S/A)
Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle
Caretta caretta
Threatened
Threatened
Green sea turtle
Chelonia mydas
Threatened
Threatened
West Indian Manatee
Trichechus manatus
Endangered
Endangered
Piping Plover
Charadrius melodus
Threatened
Threatened
Red -cockaded woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
Endangered
Shortnose sturgeon
Acipenser bretiirostrum
Endangered
Endangered
American chaffseed
Schtivalbea americana
Endangered
Endangered
Coolev's meadowrue
Thalictrum coolevi
Endangered
Endangered
Golden sedge
Carex lutea
Prop. Endangered
Endangered
Rough -leaved loosestrife
Lysimachia asperulifolia
Endangered
Endangered
Seabeach amaranth
Amaranth pumilus
Threatened
Threatened
• T (S/A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. The American alligator is threatened due to similarity of appearance
to another rare species that is listed for protection. T(S!A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation of the
Endangered Species Act. A biological conclusion for the species is not required.
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
ACDOT ARTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SI? 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and .licDonald. Inc. Project .\ o. 1960024-208. 00 Page 13

Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) T (S/A)
Animal Order: Lorcata
Federally Listed: 1�1a%- 2. 1997
Alligator mississippiensis range from 1.8 to 5.8 m (6.0 to 19.0 ft.) in length. This reptile has a broad
snout, a short neck. a heavy body. and a laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish or dark gray. but
faint yellowish crossbands are sometimes evident. The young are black with conspicuous yellow
crossbands. This species is similar to the spectacled caiman but has a small, curved bony ridge in front
of the eyes.
The American alligator inhabits fresh water swvamps, marshes. abandoned rice fields, ponds. lakes. and
backwaters of large rivers. Although its range once extended north in the coastal plain to the Dismal
Swamp, the American alligator is now rarely observed in the area north of the Albemarle Sound and in
much of the upper coastal plain.
In June, the female builds a large mound of leaves, mud, and debris about 60 cm (23.6 in) high. 120.0
to 200.0 cm (47.2 to 78.7 in) wide usually located in a shaded area a few meters from the water. She
deposits about 30 eggs in a cavity atop the mound, remains nearby, and challenges all intruders.
frequently including man. Hatchlings about 21 cm (8.3 in) lona emerge in late summer or early fall.
(Martof et al. 1980)
The wetland habitat that the American alligator needs is present at this site. Although this creek may
be too small to support the alligator, the likelihood of occurrence is possible due to the close vicinity of
the Cape Fear River. However, the NCNHP database was checked and there were no records of
existing populations of alligator in the project vicinity.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) T
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: July 28, 1978
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.
Adult loggerheads weigh between 77 and 227 kg (170 to 500 lbs) and are 80 to 120 cm (31 to 47 in)
long. The loggerhead can be distinguished from other sea turtles by its unique reddish -brown color.
The loggerhead is characterized by a large head and blunt jaws. Otherwise they have 5 or more costal
plates with the first touching the nuchal and three to four bridge scutes.
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
NCDOT .VRTR - Replacement of Bridge .yo. 81 on SR 1216 over Cipress Creek December 1999
Langlev and AlcDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-208. 00 Page 14

The project site is unsuitable for the loggerhead sea turtle for a variety of reasons. the most important
being proximity to the ocean. In addition. the NCNHP database was reviewed and revealed no records
of loggerhead sea turtles in the project area. Construction of the proposed project %gill have no effect
on this species.
Trichechus nianatus (West Indian manatee) E
Animal Family: Trichechidae
Federallv Listed: 3%11.%67: 6 270
The manatee's historic range included the Gulf Coast as far west as Texas and the Atlantic Coast as far
north as New Jersev. Delaware, and Virginia. Winter populations are now limited to the southern half
of the Florida peninsula. In summer they have been sighted as far north as North Carolina and west as
far as the Florida panhandle. Although manatees found in North Carolina are considered to be
migratory, there is evidence of over -wintering by manatees in v. -arm -water discharges from power
plants.
The manatee is a large, gray or brown, barrel shaped, aquatic mammal. Adults average three to four
meters (10 to 13 ft) lona and weigh around 500 kg (1,100 lbs). The hindlimbs are absent and the
f-)relimbs have been modified into flippers. The tail is flattened horizontally. The wrinkled body is
nearly hairless except for stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle. In clear water most of a manatees bodti is
visible, however. in murky waters (like North Carolina), only a small part of the head and nose are
visible.
Manatees are found in canals. sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt water bays. and as far off shore as
3.7 miles. They are found in freshwater and marine habitats with a depth of 1.5 m (5 ft) or more.. In the
winter, between October and April. Florida manatees concentrate in areas with warm water. Durin(y
other times of the year. habitats with sufficient water depth. an adequate food supply, and proximity to
freshwater are preferred. It is believed that manatees require a source of freshwater to drink.
Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may
occasionally feed on fish. They spend five to eight hours a day feeding and consume up to 1 1 percent
of their body weight.
The main threats to the manatees existence are from the destruction of habitat and injury by boat/barge
collisions and flood control structures.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project site is unsuitable for the West Indian manatee primarily due to the distance from the ocean
and inlets. Manatees are not known to travel such a great distance upstream. In addition, the NCNHP
database was reviewed and revealed no records of Florida manatees in the project area. Construction of
the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
NCDOT SRTR - Replacement of Bridge Ao. 81 on SR 1316 over Cvpress Creek Decem5er 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project .yo. 1960031-308.00 Page 15

Charach-his inelodus (piping plover) T
Animal Family-: Charadriidae
Federallv Listed: December 11. 1985
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sandpiper. An average bird grows to
about 17.5 cm (7 in) in length and has a wing span of 37.5 cm (1; in). It can be identified b,,the
orange legs and black band around the base of its neck. During the «inter the plover loses its black
band, its legs fade to pale yellow, and the bill fades to black. 'White underparts. a single black
breastband. and a black bar across the forehead characterize breeding birds.
The piping plover breeds alone the east coast from New Foundland to North Carolina. It winters from
North Carolina southward into the Florida Keys and along the Gulf of Mexico. Plovers return to their
breeding grounds in March or early April.
Piping plovers nest 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 beacharass. The nest is
a shallow depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles. The piping plover feeds
on invertebrates such as insects and marine worms. 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
The habitat needed to support the piping plover is not found in the project area. Almost all of the area
is vegetated and the materials to build their nests are not present. The NCNHP database was reviewed
and there are no records indicating that this species exists in the project vicinity. As such. construction
of this project will have no effect this species.
Picoides borealis (red -cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: October 13. 1970
The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and west to
eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas. Oklahoma, and Missouri. The
RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and
southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal
plain. The few populations found in the Piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of
former populations.
The adult red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a 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 a black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris),
,yCDOT ARTR - Replacement of Bridge ,Vo. 81 on SR 1216 over Ctipress Creek December 1999
Langle v and .ilcDonald. Inc. Proiect .\'o. 1960024-208. 00 Page 16

for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50 percent pine. lack a thiel:
understory. and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds
nest exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least
30 vears of age. The foraging range of the RCVr" is up to 200 hectares (500 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 can occur from 3.6 to 30.3 m (12 to 100 ft) above the
ground but average 9.1 to 15.7 m (30 to 50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the tree. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense by
the RCW against possible predators. A colony of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair
and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April. May, and June and hatch 3S
days later. Clutch size ranges in number from three to five eggs. All members of the colony share in
raising the young. Red -cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild
fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The mature, open pine stands that the RCW needs are not present in the project area. The pines around
the project site are few and are contained in the mixed pine -hardwood community. In addition. this
community is not contiguous to other stands of older pines that would enable it to be foraging habitat.
The NCNHP database contains no records of existing populations of RCW in the project area. Based
on these facts, construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
Acipenser brevirostrum (Short -nosed sturgeon) E
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Federally Listed: March 11. 1967
The short -nosed sturgeon is a small (1 meter (3 feet) in length) species of fish that occurs in the lower
sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John River, Canada to the Indian
River, Florida. It can be differentiated from the Atlantic sturgeon because of its shorter snout, wider
mouth, and the pattern of its preanal shields (the short -nose having one row and the Atlantic which has
two).
The short -nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less than sea water. It feeds benthicly
on invertebrates and plant material and is most active at night. It is an anadromous species that spawns
upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within close proximity of the rivers mouth. At least
two entirely freshwater populations have been recorded. in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short -nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants
to reproduce successfully.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
ACVW ARIR - Replacement of Bridge :\'o. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and .McDonald, Inc. Project No. 1960024-208.00 Page 17

The size of Cypress Creek is not adequate to support the short -nose sturgeon. and the creel: is too far
from the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The NCNHP database was reviewed and no records \ycr�:
revealed indicating short -nose sturgeon populations in the project area. Therefore. bridge construction
will have no effect on this species.
Schic-albea americana (American chaffseed) E
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late V1ay-early June
This species is known historically from Alabama, Connecticut. Delaware. Kentucky. Maryland.
Massachusetts. New' York. Tennessee. and Virginia in which it has been extirpated. The only
confirmed North Carolina population is on Fon Bragg military base in Hoke County.
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the base (if at all) and growvs to a
height of three to eight decimeters (12 to 31 in). The entire plant is pubescent with upwardly curvin�u,
hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate, lance -shaped to elliptic, stalkless, and two to five cm (0.; to 1
in) long. The leaves are three veined and become progressively smaller towards the top. The
purplish -yellow flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a lona narro,.y capsule, enclosed in a
loose -fitting sack -Like structure.
This species occurs in open. moist pine flatwoods. fire maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between
peat wetlands and open grass -sedge systems. Soils are eenerally sandy, acidic, and seasonally moist to
dry. Fire is important in the maintenance of open habitat for the American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of moist pine flats occurs in this area, however, the stand is not open or well
maintained enough to support the American chaffseed. Additionally. no records of this species being
present on or near this site occur in the NCNHP database. As such. construction of this project will
have no effect on this species.
Thalictrum Goole}•i (Cooley's mea&o \Tue) E
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: February 7. 1989
Flowers Present: late June -July (best mid July)
Coolev's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems that g=row to one meter (3 feet) in
length. Stems are usualiv erect in direct sunli<_Pub but are lax and may lean on other plants or trail along
the around in shadv areas. Leaves are usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobed; some two or three
lobed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack petals, but staminate ones have yellowish to white sepals
and lavender filaments about five to seven millimeters lona. Pistillate flowers are smaller and have
:NC L)U1 .SRI R - Replacement Of Bridge .Vo. 81 on SR 1216 over (-ipress CreekDecember 19,09
Lunglev and 1lcDonuld. lnc. Project .Vo. 1960074-208.00 page 1,Y

greenish sepals. Fruits are narrowly ellipsoidal achenes. five to six mm (about 0.2 in) lone. Fruits
mature from August to September.
This plant is found in moist to yet bogs. savannas and savanna -like openings. sande roadsides.
rights -of -ways, and old clearcuts. It 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. It only grows well in areas with full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The open bog and savanna -like habitats on which Cooley's meadow -rue depend are not found in the
project area. The NCNHP database was reviewed and no records were found indicating a population of
this species in the project vicinity. Therefore. construction of this project will have no effect on this
species.
Carex lutea (Golden Sedge) PE
Plant Family-: Cyperaceae
Federallv Listed: Auaust 16. 1999
Carex lutea in North Carolina has only been identified in Pender and Onslow Counties in the outer
coastal plain. The records of this species indicate that it is very localized and endemic to .yet savannas
underlain with limestone deposits. (LeBlond et al. 1994)
This plant has pale. yellowish -green scales, narrow leaves, a sparsely serrulate perigynum, and an
elongated inflorescence. It is found only in sandy soils underlain by coquina limestone deposits. This
plant occurs in the partially densely tree shaded ecotone between the longleaf pine savanna and
nonriverine swamp forest communities. The herb laver is generally dense and the area subject to
frequent fires. Vegetation that is often found with Carex lutea includes pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens). yellow -poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), wax myrtle (1LIvi-ica
cerifera). Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum coolevi), stargrass (Aletris farinose). Carex lonchocarpa,
royal fern (Osmunda regalis), obedient plant (Physostegia purpurea), and Carolina grass -of -Parnassus
(Parna.ssia caroliniana). (LeBlond et al. 1994)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project site does not contain the proper habitat, sandy soils underlain with limestone. to support
this species. The NCNHP database was checked and it was determined that there are currently no
records of golden sedge in the project vicinity. As such. this species will not be affected by
construction.
ACDOT.\RTR - Replacement of Bri4,e %'o. bl on SR 1216 over Ctipress Creek December 1999
Langlerand.VcDonald. Inc. Project.\o. 196002.1-_08.00 Page 19

Lj•simachia asperulifolia (Rough -leaved loosestrife) E
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federall-,- Listed: June 12. 1987
Flowers Present: June
This plant which is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and South Carolina and is
currently found in nine locations in North Carolina and is believed to be extirpated from South
Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that grow to a height of three to six dm (12 to 24 in) from a
rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals below the showy yellowy flowers, and
usually occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in terminal racemes of five petal flowers. Fruits are
present from July through October.
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, peat. 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. It is rarely
associated with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The long leaf pine upland and the pond pine ecotone that rough -leaved loosestrife typically inhabits is
not present on the project site. The NCNHP database revealed no records of a population of this
species in the project vicinity. Therefore. construction activities for this project will have no effect on
this species.
Amaranthus pumilus (Seabeach amaranth) T
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed: April 7, 1993
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. It was historically known from
Massachusetts to Florida and is presently confined to 55 populations in North Carolina, New York, and
South Carolina.
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps up to one foot in diameter containing five
to 20 branches. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish -pink or reddish in color and one to six dm
(four to 24 in) long. The thick, fleshy leaves are small, ovate- spatulate, emarginate, rounded and 1.0 to
1.5 em (about 0.5 in) long. 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 smooth, indehiscent fruits
are four to five mm (0.15 to 0.2 in) long. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are relatively
inconspicuous and born along the stem.
NCDOT NRTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over C tpress Creek December 1999
Langley and .ticDonald. Inc. Project No. 1960024-208.00 Page 20

Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic
and natural manner. It grows well in overwash flats at the aceretina ends of islands and the lower
foredunes and upper strands of non -eroding beaches. Temporan- populations often form in blowouts.
sound -side beaches. dredge spoil. and beach replenishment. This species is ver- 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). herbivore by insects and animals.
beach grooming. and beach erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There is no habitat for seabeach amaranth on this project site. The NCNHP database was reviewed and
it was determined that there were no known populations in the project vicinity. Therefore, construction
of this project will have no effect on this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are twelve federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Pender Count-. Federal species of
concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions. including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. However. the status of these species is subject to change. and so should be included for
consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration
for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms, which
are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T). or Special Concern (SC) in the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program Biological Conservation Database are afforded state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrence of FSC species
within 1 mi (1.6 km) the project study area. Table 3 lists federal Species of Concern, the state status of
these species (if afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for
each species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
.%000I AR TR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over CCtpress Creek
December /999
Langley and .11cDonald. Inc. Project .\ o. 196002-:- 20hV.00 Page 21

5.0 REFERENCES
Cmvardin. Lewis til.. V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS. GPO.
LeBlond. R.J.. A.S. Weaklev. A.A. Relnicek. and W.J. Crins. 1994. Carex Lutea (Cyperaceace), A
Rare New Coastal Plain Endemic from North Carolina. SIDA 16(1): 153 -161.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailer and J.R: Harrison I11. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
NC Department of Parks and Recreation. September 1999. Natural Heritage Program Biological
Conservation Database. NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC.
NC Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters. NCDOT, Raleigh, NC.
NC Department of Transportation. 1999. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP -BDP). NCDOT, Raleigh, NC.
NC Division of Environmental Management. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina. NCDEHNR. Raleigh. NC.
NC Division of Water Quality. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality,
1983-1990. NCDEH'NR. Raleigh. N.C.
NC Division of Water Quality. September 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. NCDEHNR. Downloaded from
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/stnnclass/scIasses.htm1.
NC Division of Water Quality. 1996. Cape Fear River Basinw•ide Water Quality Management Plan.
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina, The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill. NC.
Potter, E.F.. J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the `vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
.%'CDOT .%'RTR - Replacement of Bridge xo. 81 on SR 1216 over Cipress Creek December 1999
Langley and .ticDonold, Inc. Project .VO. 1960024-208. 00 Page 23

Table 3. State protection statuses for federal Species of Concern listed in Pender Count,.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aintophila aestivalis
Bachman's sparrow
SC
NO
Ammodramus hensloirii
Henslow-'s sparrow-
--
NO
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Rafinesque's big -eared bat
SC'PT **
NO
Myotis austroriparius
Southeastern bat
SC
NO
Heterodon sinus
Southern hognose snake
--JPSC *
NO
Rana capito capito
Carolina gopher frog
SC/PT
NO
.Agrotis buchhol. i
Buchholz's dart moth
--
'I0
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
T/PE
NO
Hemipachnobia subporphyrea subporphyrea
Venus flytrap cutworm moth
--
NO
Lampsilis cariosa
Yellow- lampmussel
T/PE
NO
Procambarus plumimanus
Croatan crayfish
--
NO
Spartiniphaga carterae
Carter's noctuid moth
--
N0
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana
Georaia indigo -bush
E
NO
Astragalus michauxii
Sandhills milkvetch
T
NO
Carex chapmanii
Chapman's sedge
--
NO
Dionea muscipula
Venus flytrap
C -SC
NO
Kalmia cuneata
White wick,
E -SC
NO
Uacbridea carolinana
Carolina bo.,amint
T
NO
Oxypolis ternate
Savanna cowbane
--
NO
Parnassia carolinianu
Carolina grass-of-parnassus
E
NO
Plantago sparsiflora
Pineland plantain
E
NO
Rhynchospora thornei
Thorne's beaksedge
E
NO
Solidago pulchra
Carolina goldenrod
E
NO
Solidago verna
Spring -flowering goldenrod
T"ES
Tofieldiu glahru
Carolina asphodel
C
NO
Trillium pusillum rur. pusillum
Carolina least trillium
E
NO
• "E" --An Endangered species is 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.
`
• "SC" --A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article
25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes
(animals) and the
Plant
Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that
are also
listed as Threatened or Endangered.
• "C' --A Candidate species is one which is very rare in
North Carolina. generally with 1-20 populations
in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. 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.
• "/P -"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listings as Endangered. Threatened, or Special Concern, but
has not vet completed the listing process.
• * - Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
• ** - Obscure record - the date and'or location of observation is uncertain.
\'CDOT.\'RTR - Replacement OfBrldge ;\o. 81 on SR 1216 over Ctpress Creek December 1999
Langley and .ilcDonald. Inc. Project .\o 1960024 -?08.00 Page 22

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weaklev. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program. NC Division of Parks and Recreation.
Raleigh. N.C.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, t'.S.
USACE. V icksbura. MS.
US Department of Agriculture. 1990. Soil Survey of Pender Count . North Carolina. USDA. Soil
Conservation Service. GPO.
US Fish and V,,"ildlife Service. September 15, 1999.- Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina. USFWS. Downloaded from http://web.ral.r4.fws.cov/es/countvfr.html.
US Geological Survey-. 1984. Topographic Map of Costin. NC. USGS, Reston. Virginia. Scale
1:24,000.
Webster, W.D.. J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas. Virginia and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
XCDOT A'RTR - Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over Cypress Creek December 1999
Langley and McDonald, Inc. Project .No. 1960024-208.00 Page 24

05/22/2002 16:04 NC DOT PDER 4 82522473338
• Complete ftefflti 1, 2, Wd 3. Atso complete
item 4 if RetltrLIW DQNVK t IS desired.
• Print your name end tt an the revere@
00 that we can rehlm the pard to you.
• Attach this card to the back of the mallpwce,
or on the front R spec@ pwmka.
1. Artlebe AMw to:
International Paper Company
3 Pine Valley Drive
Wilmington, NC 28412
2- AnIcte Number (Copy from wrvka 14W
NO.234 D02
A. Racewed by FMw PMnt Csntd 9. Dar of
C. stun
X Q Apertt
O Andre
v, a deeuwy Mewbt from roam 1? O Yea
ff YES, enter dellwy rtedrew blow; D No
3-'j "=type
Mau O 6gxeas acne
Fteptatered O Prarn Reee(pt for luereha -dw
O marred trail 4 C.o,D.
4. aRGAMctted Dbr-wy? P" Foo O Yes
151"1 q qq 1
PS Foran 3811, July 1999 Domeeeo Munn Reoelpt
• complete Itemts 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 411 Restricted Degvery le desired.
• Print your name and address on the reveme
so that wa can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mallplece,
or on the front If space permrm.
1, ARlcle Addressed to:
Ms. Helen Persal
5660 Pineywood Road
Watlta, NC 28471
A. PACMMd by illl�msv POnt Carry)
C. Sq
X �Aftvee
D- to deAvory tddresa d flan t 9 Yea
M YES, wilier d*,Pwy addrosa WOW. U No
8.1or, icotlyye
❑ awl
Reglsterod O Return Receipt for Merctmnd'se
O Insured Mau 13 C.0-0.
4. P-Viotad DvF-W (Er" Foe) ❑ Yee
2, Article Number (Copy from service label)
! 51q S2► �
PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domeatlo Return Reoelpt ,025"4X4 .0952
■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item, -4 if Restricted DBllvery Is aeslrea.
• Print your name and address on the revers®
that can return file c to you.
■ Attach Thihi s card to the back of the mailplece,
_ n or on The front if space parmits.
Artlde Addr8ss00 Tb:
Ms. l•Telen Persal
5560 Pincywoods Drive
Wutha, NC 28471
A. Received by (Fleets Print Cleeriy) I B. Date of Delivery
C. Signature
X 0 Agent
0 Addre
0. Is delivery adara= ciitlerem from cern 17 0 Yes
It YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No
3. ����S,,,,///Cn���rv��_�ice Type
ertirie0 Mail 13Express Mail
�
Registered 0 Return Roccipt for Mcmh ndisr
Q Insured Mall 0 C.O.D.
Reatricted Delivery? (Fare Feel 0 Yes
z -
2, Article Number (CopykoA service IabCl) 0 45cl � iq f"lI^-78
PS Form 3811, July 1998 Dome500 Return R"PT 102595 00 M-0952