20421D - NCDOT

LAMA AND DREDGE AND FILL 020 _21—�
GENERAL
-,r PERMIT
as authorized by the State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health,and Natural Resources and the Coastal Resources Commission
in an area of environmental concern pursuant to 15A NCAC .1)14 o
� G-oR�N 7�y /
Applicant Name/V, e• 0ep 4 A'"s ''�' % Cat Phone Number(9/9) 733 "
Address P.O. r�uX ,075.)0/ Zip �7b1 1—s.��/
City R4iei6ff State /IC
Project Location (County,State Road, Water Body,etc.)
,eifit--TChl fp /4A b Nv cst CAPE PEAR
Mr?' Ct/r94//`' /
Type of Project Activity uv.vf A-iun.- /D Acl-✓ES /'O4- S S-6''``''1 o SA//i d 1//1 i 10' 'IP S;,ri-` S beat-A.
a ►tide Rcc�� c�tiCit -e t'41° rig;✓4 a`1 tv-m'fr ' A'�n R rr�F�vi S I P'/e s
q�r�vs>t►.c/
E f7�C+k' I S irr c e J !'Utif let>� /�//Pr. `t,Uex g e , p/e t/ (e Q
ra/trl:-40A- /7f�Y e/op.,14S wC/f A-t An CotiS% car /i S d iiv 7i ./'00 .
4- )
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SKETCH (SCALE: �/�
Pier(dock) length 41.(h/5
/. WARS rJ Ye COA,OiA(le) fre rt+k` ,4V7 ,.j,*) "'MAI /
Groin length A4/94A ✓` ' pe'ft/) /tGvrrnr3Eie .7/ /9 9 8' 44-/) J.4•/ /1'c t'F()
t)pctm5e4 4' ,/99(
number
Bulkhead length Q. ,/1O f4 ' elF 7E1'4Pa Y P' /e s eY amtx 4'& ;S fro
yip,.lioIP;Zt yprt Di if 7mr i G Pe teal%I.
max.distance offshore
3. fro wo/P lr M fF V TAKE- P1Aff A 7 TT St- ARG I4 0L
Basin,channel dimensions Br?(,v:EN FFY,Caf/9iQY .,t 44,0 Av/4Y 7S no Via' v /i Pnctl
d /IA,/4 beornaN S F;c /.
cubic yards
L/ . (0,6; 1U4-t or /IA4 ,CAC c i9 - .1905 .SfhM/I APP/f'.
Boat ramp dimensions
Other 7F000 t/ P// ' '
/'/AuMee.-f •
7'r+/3,41 V 1/Ai-hie f'-"
AO X' //'x/P'
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, applicant's signature
imprisonment or civil action; and may cause the permit to be-
come null and void. (
permit officer's signature
This permit must be on the project site and accessible to the
permit officer when the project is inspected for compliance. ��� _ G /� _ �/
The applicant certifies by signing this permit that 1) this pro- 9 issuing date expiration daU
ject is consistent with the local land use plan and all local
ordinances, and 2) a written statement has been obtained from
adjacent riparian landowners certifying that they have no attachments 7 f'/ , //00
objections to the proposed work.

GENERAL PERMIT COMPUTER FORM
APPLICANT NAME: /U ©"r
ADDITIONAL NAMES: &B l, )ti C v S i-k N
AEC DESIG: • " DEVELOP AREAf
(Will only take 6) _" PRODDESC: — r�.
(Will only take 1)
WORK: b
(Will only take 4)
ttJ
MAINT:
(Will only take 4)
IMP:(will only take 6)
ACTION EXPIRATION
DREDGE&FILL REQUIRED: 6_?L(-1(7 _ �(-(—S c7 a
CAMA MAJOR DEVEL,REQUIRED: —) — �(—�

NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Jan 25 '99 12:21 P.01
• •
r1;%.)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
jAmES B. HUNT JR. P.O.BOX 25201.RALEIGH..N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TPOLSON
GOVERNOR S CC
•
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COVER
&ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
FAX
DATE: -1 s
Please deliver the following pages to: `PX#$; W C— 350-- d4,04
Name: TeVI rQgcein Phone: .9/0- �i 9 S.--3 x a 5
J
This Telecopy is being sent by:
Name: cis sell Rtyrf ,,.R^e s g- C�
Phone Number: 519' - 'l82=7gy/x305-Ext:
Remarks:
jefiniLti&j:OLLEL4-ry Lft .-1-;Lirj prp,;55;ifip_szulifiLliLay—aci-
;s -PAL, 1.01rLjk^ tl,,�
Number of pages (Including Cover Sheet) c
If you do not receive all pages clearly, call [phone] as soon as possible.
Project Development& Environmental Analysis Branch Fax Number(919) 733-9794

NCDOT/F&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Jan 25 '99 12:22 P.02
' t/cLwn JGn11 6vt-� __... v►.i,�V .JO WW1CO_ kC 80
II-
(10,11
'AN 3.N a 1999
._1Al.:-APP,cc)rrtIAr&aCT*14
North Carolina F`'' ;"F°RM,��TJON
PREFAK REPLY FOR
Department of Administration
James B.Hunt,Jr.Governor State Property Office
Katie O.Dorsett,Secretary Joseph H.Henderson,Director
December 29, 1998
Mr.Victor Barbour
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201 •
Raleigh,North Carolina 27611.5201
Re: Right of Entry-Ratt Island
New Hanover County, .
Dear Mr.Barbour;
Please consider this letter authorization for North Carolina Department of Transportation to go upon
state-owned lands for the purpose of conducting a foundation load testing program for the new bridge located
on Ratt Island near the Northemdt Cape Fear River. The area covered by the right or entry is limited to an area
identified on the attached sketch labeled as Exhibit A and is attached hereto.
This right of entry is subject to any prior out conveyances grunted for utilities or roads. By acceptance
of this right of Entry,evidenced by the performanceof work on the property,North Carolina Department of
Transportation indemnifies and hold harmless the State of North Carolina for injury,lose or damage arising out
of the actions of the grantees, its agents or contractorsp me that this right of entry will terminate upon orming work on the premiss. It is our understanding
that the proposed work is considered to be temporary, and
completion of the testing.
If we can assist you further,please contact Wanda King,Real Property Agent of my office.
i
S Y,
/d/
TomCline
(:rl4Gena! Estate Manager
Attachment •
GcY1T
"7.14Ts t; 11;1 idderi. :'
NC Department of Transportation
Design Services
Courier#51-31-40
State Property Office • 116 West Jones Street • Raleigh 27603-8003
Telephone:[phone] Fax: [phone] F-mail:spogadmiral.doa,state.no,us
State Courier 51-01-00
An Niu,l OVpQriunity/ Afllrrninivo notien Er+pIvye•

NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] :an 25 '99 12:22 P. 03
' vrv.vn vr,..vr,. • .- ,G/ I'f 70 I f I ( f1V.. 9 r W4/VL
•
V .•
iti
/,.f S f
e
- �
' "' `)RA77'
' 1 I•ANP
'N. . . ; 16ttlu - ' '
�' N Ch'ANNEL SANS �i
s '
1 I r r a -� • , .: Iir.r ZOOM
y' m C m UNIT "`0" ` UN1T "P
1. ..,./i; %
) END �1,4I N CHAIVNE ►,
'f S N '`P�0 'AW5
r,' • I STA 37fa0
4- .M:.- ter+.. t G /r1
.,' 4 _ . 7~ GocAT/br�,1 `
/3 r . [
r. ., , 1 - • iii
•
*
c -N,
f
. i
Al
\' t
t
1 I
I'
i Wv , ti,M INGTON
•
1 E CAPE P A
N F Rival

NCDOT/PRE BRANCH Fax:919-rSS-9(94 fan 1� yy 11 LJ r.uu
vw•v�� ,(1 ,CA/,' .---•-
Olfi4 AtAf, Ltr
.4V0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
E. rj01LRIS TOLSON
)AML•s B. HUNT )R P.O BOX 25201.RALEIGH,N.G 27611-5201• SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
August 18. 1998
•
State Project: 6.258001 B AUG !
I. D. Number R-2633CA 1998
County: New Hanover
Desoriptlon: US 17/WIlmington Bypass from US 421 NOrth of
Wilmington to US 117 atiff.OF j 4,tre.(} j,QTJQW
Subject: Tempolrary Access for Testing
Claim of Rock Hill I LLC - Parcel 903
Memorandum to; Mr.J. A. West,State Negotiator
Attention; Mr. D. M. Sellers, SRWA
From: J. J, Anderson,Jr. ‘A(1 '
Division R/W Agent
Enclosed, as requested by Mr. Setters In i8 memorandum testing on®d June the property ogi7fo k Ms a ill 1tter LLC.
granting permission for the Department to conduct
Please let me know if I con`be of further assistance.
JJA,JR;pbt
Attachment
cc: Mr. F. M. Langston
306 DMslon stvo,Wilmington.NC 23401 Tetopho^v 010-751-6733IFAX 910.251-2752
4W
r4,r

Auodkuc0 Aalgofl P®ilwfl
nupoJoo woN V 11 L IIIH)1N,t1
JaBDuoW ,'Jr'vow JeBpb' '1
•sinoA Air►u Alen
•/tiossaa au Aiainlos4n SI unii 1r unui JALf10 rtuGd 0Jd Jno 10 aoungr 91D Ou DuO
Penowe)SlJoep AuJ lil M iecuJAw enNoiw.ion,o ui euop eq 01 81JuSe1 eyu toedXe'BSJnoo Jo'pinoM eM
•AUDsseoeu peweep geldu.iPt Ilos Jo4 Oupoq/ o puo so41 'b aUnr poop 'iaueope
ugor •Jw wau uosUu0IIIIM uuor 'AN 01 wnpuo,owew 644 ul L4 J0 pas s0 $uµ8®{ pool eyi sepnpul sli.0
.8u1lsad 4onpuo0 04 Avedad 311 l IIIH)loon euµ uodn J84u8 0}'SUBIScO
�o sluaBo su 'uonci,podsuauj 40 luawpDdea oulloJn* =ON A►11 04 uOlsslusled lu048 Ol eNea II1P'+Jeilel SIUl
:uowellueg
107E 3N'uoOOuIWIW1
enu4 uoyaMb 90C
tut"?AOM,01L1SI?J unlgi va
Jr'uo meouv 'r r Jw :wld
U0U.D4JodsuDJ4 to luewaiodea ouliO103 U1JON
3'11 ! IIfW)$3O21
Jo AjJad0JJ et.0 uo Buµsel4npuo0 04 u0IsslwJed 40e1C1nS
Li! sn o3 ugoulwllnn
10 Llu0N lZV sn wou s3OdAg u0.113ulwlIM/III Sr) :uoucluoteci
1enouoH meN :,tlunon
'o££9L"21 :JegwnN .0
LOO9SZ'9 :4oercue Nos
.w • AAr AI i/ /IA II IL A/'f III ^.1,..00.A1.1A \IAf e.1A
Qn S7:7t 66. c7 U2( b62_6-�2z-616:xed HONtiH 32d/lOQON

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
/2 22/y
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
1144. V rtc_5 56N--- b C /Vv
FROM: I RE . NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
CerC Ca 1 r�$ E
ACTION
❑ NOTE AND FILE ❑ PER OUR CONVERSATION
❑ NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ❑ PER YOUR REQUEST
❑ RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR APPROVAL
❑ NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ❑ FOR YOUR INFORMATION
❑ PLEASE ANSWER ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS
❑ PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ❑ SIGNATURE
❑ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ❑ INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
��� a C q 1S0(./

45t1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201,RALEIGH,N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 2, 1998
Mr. Scott McLendon C E I V E r.-:-�.,`n
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ��,
Post Office Box 1890 �C. 2 1998
.1
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 IDlviSi. �' 9�
COASTAL M,
� NAi, E7j6-74T
Dear Mr. McLendon:
SUBJECT: New Hanover County, Bridge on US 17 Wilmington Bypass over the
Northeast Cape Fear River, TIP No. R-2633CA, State Project 8.U250901
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposed in its January 7, 1998
application to construct the Wilmington Bypass from US Route 421 (US 421) to
approximately 5,800 feet east of Interstate 40 (I-40). The NCDOT's Soils and
Foundation Design Section proposes to conduct a foundation loadtest on R-2633CA. The
foundation loadtest will occur on Rat Island and in the east channel of the Northeast Cape
Fear River. The loadtest will provide information on the existing subsurface conditions
at the site in order to design the most economical bridge and uncover any potential
construction problems associated with the site and its geology.
The foundation loadtest plan consists of three elements: geotechnical tests and tests
performed at Test Areas 1 and 2. Geotechnical tests involve SPT borings and CPT,
dilatometer, and vane shear tests. Test Areas 1 and 2 include lateral statnamic, Osterberg
Cell, and lateral static tests. Specific activities conducted during the proposed work
include drilling drilled piers with bentonite slurry; constructing a reinforced concrete cap;
driving, extracting, and re-driving steel piles; and advancing and extracting pre-stressed
concrete (PSC) piles. Please see the enclosed foundation loadtest plan for more details on
the type of work proposed.
The foundation loadtest impacts 0.002 acres of waters of the United States. Measures
taken to minimize the impacts include performing construction from barges and
temporary platforms, accessing the site via water, demolishing all aboveground
structures, and the absence of dredging activities.

The NCDOT hereby applies for a Nationwide 6 permit for the proposed foundation
loadtest. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Gordon Cashin at 919-
733-7844 extension 278.
Sincerely,
((.1/1044. ,�• ,t �.
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DENR
Mr. Bob Stroud, DCM, DENR
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
Mr. David Cox,NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler,NMFS
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
w/out encl.
Mr. Scott Hidden, P.E., Soils and Foundation Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E.. Hydraulics
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J.D. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Leigh Lane, Project Planning Engineer

FOUNDATION LOADTEST PLAN
R-2633CA
BRIDGE OVER NE CAPE FEAR RIVER
US 17 WILMINGTON BYPASS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Primary Goals
1. To develop unit tip bearing and skin friction values for use in design of the drilled
shafts for axial capacity.
2. To develop lateral capacities for use in the design of the drilled shafts for ship impact
in the East Channel.
3. To develop lateral capacities for the alluvial soils and muck for the design of the
approach span structures.
4. Learn about potential construction problems associated with this specific site and
geology.
Significant Cost Saving Areas:
1. Primarily, expect a reduction in drilled shaft lengths due to increased axial capacities
and a reduced factor of safety (increased level of confidence). A reduction in shaft
diameters may also be possible depending on drilled shaft lateral capacities.
2. Possibly, expect to utilize pre-stressed concrete (PSC) piles for the approach span
structures as opposed to drilled shafts. This will not only depend upon the loadtest
results but also upon scour elevations.
3. Also, expect to reduce potential for claims and costs associated with construction of
the foundations.
Geotechnical Testing.
Sequence and Description of Tests-
1. SPT borings at each NCHRP Group location, drilled shafts location, PSC piles
location.
2. CPT testing with pressuremeter at each NCHRP Group location and the PSC piles
location.
3. Dilatometer testing at each NCHRP Group location and the PSC piles location.
4. Vane shear testing on Rat Island.
Test Area 1
Sequence and Description of Tests-
1. Lateral statnamic test on NCHRP Group (approximately 80,000 lb. test) on Rat Island
to test muck.
2. Series of Osterberg Cell tests on the two 84" drilled shafts without the cap to test
axial capacities. One shaft would tip in hard clay and would contain two 3000 ton
cells (one at the bottom and one in the dense sand). The other shaft would tip in
dense sand and contain one 3000 ton cell at the bottom.

3. Lateral static test on NCHRP Group on Rat Island by pulling drilled shafts and group
together to test muck.
4. Lateral static test on NCHRP single piles by pushing apart for comparison to the
group.
5. Lateral statnamic test on the two 84" drilled shafts with the cap (approximately
120,000 lb. test) to test lateral capacities of the dense sand (Pedee Formation).
Test Area 2
Sequence and Description of Tests-
1. Driving, restriking and PDA measurements on both the 30"PSC square pile with a
steel H-pile stinger and a 36"PSC cylinder pile. Pile lengths would range from 70 to
110 feet. Hammer energies required are expected to range from 120 to 160 ft-kips.
Jetting and drilling during driving would be expected in order to advance the cylinder
pile as far as possible into the Pedee formation. The 30"PSC pile would be pulled
after driving to observe the condition of the pile.
2. Lateral static test on the PSC piles by pushing them apart and using NCDOT frame to
test loose alluvial soils.
3. Lateral statnamic test on NCHRP Group (approximately 80,000 lb. test) to test loose
alluvial soils.
4. Lateral static test on NCHRP single piles by pushing apart for comparison to the
group.
Additional Comments and Details
1. Test Area 2 may be moved to deeper water if during geotechnical testing phase it is
found that the proposed location has shallower than expected water.
2. We expect to have 5 barges and 2 cranes to perform this construction.
3. The drilled shafts and the concrete piles (if they can not be removed) will be left in
place for demolition during the actual bridge construction.
4. Bentonite slurry will be used during the construction of the drilled shafts. All
applicable permits will be obtained by the contractor for the slurry use prior to
beginning construction.
5. A temporary work platform will be constructed on the banks of Rat Island in order to
perform the lateral statnamic on the NCHRP Group in Test Area 1. All other work
will be performed from barges. Site access will be by water from either down or up
river.

Item 12 - Description of proposed work.
Foundation Loadtest Plan will include the following-
1. Drilling 2 2.13 m diameter drilled piers. The drilled piers will be drilled with
bentonite slurry and all cuttings, as well as the slurry, will be disposed of off site.
Fresh water for the bentonite slurry will be drawn from either a well onsite or piped in
from off site. 2.13 m diameter steel casing will be used during drilling and remain in
place during testing. The steel casing will extend from the top of the each pier to
elevation -11 m.
2. Constructing a reinforced concrete cap. The bottom of the cap will be at
approximately elevation 0 m and the top of the cap will be at approximately elevation
5 m. According to the US Army Corps of Engineers' control tide station located in
Wilmington, NC, the mean high water elevation for the NE Cape Fear River is .85 m.
The cap and the drilled piers will be demolished and removed down to the mudline by
blasting after completion of testing.
3. 8 .27 m diameter steel piles will be driven, extracted and driven again in two different
locations. 4 other .27 m diameter steel piles will be driven, extracted and redriven in
three different locations. In some cases, the steel piles may be vibrated in. All the
steel piles will be extracted and removed from the site after completion of testing.
4. One .76 m square pre-stressed concrete pile and one .91 m pre-stressed concrete
cylinder pile will be driven. Methods to advance the piles to the required depth ma\
include jetting while driving, pre jetting and augering while driving. The square pile
will have a steel pile stinger on the end approximately 3.5 meters in length. The
square pile will be extracted and removed from the si a after completion of testing.
The cylinder pile will be demolished and removed by4biasting)or cutting down to the
mudline after completion of testing.

R '-- NC := R C C 1..: 7
z/7
_----.I.-_:--''—'- -,
--- ,
.4...--------( .
f/
..." -•.,,,,c,N ( r•-- ,r t AR , -11 . . ) ,,
i e\
)
.L./. -‹ Castle Hoyn; \Ao‘
1222 \
\ 4 ct-6 It
l
Zi. 1
o
( ( \ Skipper
„,,
,... ,
Corner• \
133
X N N
T......----'
'- ,
_ mirage A
s.,
\''''''N4s.,
LOADTE — E
,,..
, / ........__,\
,
r
'ockhili P 4.
RAT e/.51f7AND , i
-4-
I
o ,il x
;,: c...' 9-- (
LAKEKirkland,
, i Murro ville__,F,:l. I.
i \ .
1 A
// r/ 7j / /
Wright b. - Kerr Av. •
i fliEN III/ F4tNANAT;ONRAL
AIRPORT /
/----\ .,
1 . il 'I---,-- "-ILO
/I-
7- x ,
J1 ,
PS
, .
\\==VAG1_E - ' WI ' MI NGIIINo .
_fr.'s-C.141p
a
\ i(1
ISLAND , r 11111111 % \ /'
IOpirill*./ • , n ‘N5 7 •,..-,
L.... i I
Wrightse
N E W HANOVER
Blvd-
SnIP/-,r ci COUNT' Y
IRUNSWICK 0 L ,
COUNTY is ),,ii •X
\ IIII t
\T-11A -T, t_.\
i
LEGEND STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALE I GH
lf : 11 ; ! 1 Railroads
Existing Roods FOUNDATION LOADTEST PLAN
Streams 6. Creeks IN EAST CHANNEL
' Rivers NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
LOCATION MAP
- - - County Line ,

Atit'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA > ;,
II
"RAT ISLAND" ,:.T 1, /--- 2J3 in DIAMETER DRILLED PIER
il
N CENTERED AT STA L 37'32000
,._,
r •, / 1
!A
I ;;
12 PILE GROUP (4 ROWS OF 31 ---- " '-- '
WITH STEEL FRAME CENTERED ��� ___
AT STA-L- 37413.100 -
APPROXIMATELY 2.5 in x 4.5 m :`'" -- / / '.13 m DIAMETER DRILLED PIER
.27 m DIAMETER STEEL PIPE. PILES . • ' -
1 CENTERED AT STA-L- 37.38.400
•
;; 1 I'
• 7
�7 • r
addle ' ' , , fff- _ '
illop L/ , / ! ,
US 17 (WILYINC'I'ON BYPASS) , ' , ' •�
''; • 1 6.40 m > - REINFORCED CONCRETE CAP
a w APPROXIMATELY 3 m x 9.3 m
/
' z AND 2.4 in THICK
1
2 27 in DIAMETER SINGLE w ¢ '
STEEL PIPE PILES ''" • `- , ' `� '
r.
CENTERED AT STA-L- / % % r' 0. PROJECT No R 2s»cA
37,13J00,3 METERS RIGHT • ' ' ;>- u Q ►�„ ►NNOVER!; w u'
1 COUNTY
i W STATIOISI YARI ES
NIV\
sT' /
Mat(
OCPARTLIENT Or TRANSPORT AT ION
A FOUNDATION LOADTEST
FOUNDATIONL,OA1 `1'FS' ' PLAN IN EAST CHANNEL
-- ------- NORTHEAST CAPE PEAR
RIVER
•I.+SO.R SKI nD
a ♦ M.uuW DA!! ♦.rt.• I.. Mrt. N. I Wl '�I
B♦ DAl!, I T.a
st_plan_permit-Iarge.dgn Sep. 17, 1998 10:29:17

1�� UV I � I 'I
; r - 2 27 In DIAMETER SINGLE
i1 STEEL PIPE PILES
/ 1sf PILE CENTERED AT1.
,r
(i STA L-38,55.000,29 METERS LEFT
---- - .1_ Lo
_ a ,...4
/ _ 12 PILE GROUP 19 ROWS OF 3) `
i. a 2 / ! WITH STEEL FRAME
C:N)' ', .- -' ' Q Q - FIRST ROW CENTERED
1, ; : t•• ,, =< k� AT STA L 3855000,26 METERS LEFT
-�- i APPROXIMATELY 25 m x 4.5 m
I a E-Ci
• 27 m DIAMETER STEEL PIPE PILES
Q co i ;
�' w i .•— 76 in SOUARE PRESTRESSED
ti • z CONCRETE PILE
, ..-4- i CENTERED AT STA-L•38,55.000,
j/
s' 1520 METERS LEFT
ill
ii
91m DIAMETER PRESTRESSED i�_�
( --�'r CONCRETE CYLINDER PILE
`(• CENTERED AT STA-L-38.55.000,
( 7,�)METERS LEFT
•,
(
1 \--, 1
s.
i
i . I
t t.-,
-
L •, `
i
39
i US 17 (NI!MIN(TON i( ;SI
I I
, /:
I
i ' , 1
I
y `�`• ! i ( PROJECT NO R-2633CA
iYFR
I %•. ,\ i '/ i-•� •• NEv COUNTY
STATION: VARIES
S
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
FOUNDATION LOADTEST
F'O I1 N ll A`1'10 N L 0 A n T 1�;S'1' _ PLAN PLAN IN EAST CHANNEL
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR
RIVER
m[Y---WI:YLL'I-,me 11(Nvas s.r„NO
_ au
_plan_permit-Iarge.dgn Sep. 17, 1998 09:51:02

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: 199603552
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) : 06
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) .
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) . PLEASE PRINT.
1 . OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental
2 . MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 25201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE) :
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME) : (WORK) : 919-733-3141
4 . IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E. , Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE) :
COUNTY: New Hanover NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Wilmington, NC
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC. ) :
North of Wilmington, NC. Loadtest site is on Rat Island and east
of Rat Island in the east channel of Northeast Cape Fear River.

2
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Northeast Cape Fear River.
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA) , HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW) , OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW) ,
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II) ? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ?YES [X] NO[ ]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES) , WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
Yes. Rural.
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I .D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION) : Initial CWA §404/NEPA permit application (Action ID
199603552) for R-2633C was submitted on January 7, 1998. The proposed
foundation loadtest plan, R-2633CA, is included as part of R-2633C. The
Wilmington COE retired the January 7, 1998 permit application on August
17, 1998. CWA §404/NEPA permit application resubmitted on October ,
1998.
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [X] NO [] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
Additional permit request is resubmittal of CWA §404/NEPA permit
application for the construction of the Wilmington Bypass from US Route
421 (US 421) _to _approximately 5,800 feet east of Interstate 40 (I-40) .
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 0.75
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0

3
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0 EXCAVATION: 0
FLOODING: 0 OTHER: 0
DRAINAGE: 0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION) :
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours) : N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : See attached description of proposed work and foundation
loadtest plan with maps.
13 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To learn about the existing subsurface
conditions at the site in order to design a more economical bridge.

4
14 . STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS) : No wetlands impacted. Subsurface conditions vary widely over
short distances. Consequently, loadtest must be performed where the
bridge will be constructed in order to get accurate design parameters.
Measures taken to minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. : no dredging, all
access is by water, no structures left in place above ground, and all
work over water and land will be performed from barges and temporary
platforms.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: USFWS - February 15, 1991 . NMFS - February 15, 1991.
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES . )
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: SHPO' s first response to NCDOT's contact in
letter dated March 19, 1991.
17 . DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO []

5
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE (919) 733-6369.
18 . THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38) . ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural, swampland.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U. S . MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
11, 4;644-
OWNER' S/AGENT ' S SIGNATURE DATE

6
(AGENT ' S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED ( 18g. ) )
AGENCY ADDRESSES
ENDANGERED SPECIES:
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
P.O. BOX 33726 PIVERS ISLAND 160 2ILLICOA STREET
RALEIGH, NC 27636-3726 BEAUFORT, NC 28516 ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TELEPHONE (919) 856-4520 TELEPHONE (919) 728-5090 TELEPHONE[phone]
HISTORIC RESOURCES:
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 EAST JONES STREET
RALEIGH, NC 27601
TELEPHONE (919) 733-4763
STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES:
MR. JOHN DORNEY MR. STEVE BENTON
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES RESOURCES
4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD POST OFFICE BOX 27687
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27607 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611-7687
TELEPHONE (919) 733-1786 TELEPHONE (919) 733-2293
FAX (919) 733-1495
CORPS OF ENGINEERS FIELD OFFICES:
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
6508 FALLS OF THE NEUSE ROAD, 151 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 143
SUITE 120 ASHEVILLE, NC 28801-5006
RALEIGH, NC 27615 TELEPHONE (704) 271-4854
TELEPHONE (919) 876-8441
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
POST OFFICE BOX 1000 POST OFFICE BOX 1890
WASHINGTON, NC 27889-1000 WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
TELEPHONE (919) 975-1616 TELEPHONE (910) 251-4511

S
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobcy, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 1
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 91-0591 - Scoping. Wilmington Bypass
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties
DATE: March 25 , 1991
•
The Department of Environment , Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transportation ' s (DOT) scoping
notice to construct the Wilmington Bypass in Brunswick and New
Hanover Counties. The information that was circulated for review
was not sufficient to evaluate potential environmental impacts of
this project. However, our review efforts did raise a number of
specific issues that will need to be fully addressed in the
proposed EIS.
In reviewing our comments it is evident that DOT' s
preliminary selection of bypass corridors will have impacts of
the environment. There is concerns with potential impacts on
wetlands , water quality, and on rare, threatened and endangered
species . These are critical issues that deserve specific
attention in the EIS. Comments also indicate that mitigation
will be required for wetland loss and implementation of stringent
sediment control measure is necessary to help minimize impacts
from highway construction. If these issues are anticipated, then
every effort must be made to address them early on.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Our divisions
welcome the opportunity to work with the Department of
Transportation throughout all phases of this project . _
MM:bb

EMT O .
os
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
� ►+ NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
'rifts o1
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
February 20, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways Ff9
P.O. Box 25201 y Di: o 1999 •
Raleigh,North Carolina 27611
L
Dear Mr. Vick:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Federal Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the Wilmington Bypass, I-40 to US 421, New
Hanover County, North Carolina, Federal-Aid Project No. STPNHF-17(1), State Project No.
8.U250901, TIP No R-2633C. The proposed project is to provide a northern bypass of the City of
Wilmington.
General Comments
The SDEIS is confusing regarding the impacts of the two alternatives on riverine wetlands adjacent
to the Northeast Cape Fear River. It is difficult to determine the differences in the impacts of the two
proposed alternatives. The SDEIS should be revised to clarify the impacts of each alternative on
riverine wetlands.
We are also concerned that the costs of bridging wetlands versus mitigating for wetland losses
associated with filled causeways is inadequately addressed. The Southern Alternative would cost
an additional $25 million dollars to bridge all wetlands. However, the additional costs for
mitigating iihc loss cf 25 acres of high quality wetlands, if a bridge is not constructed, is not
addressed. These additional mitigation costs should be considered if costs are to be used as basis
to justify one alternative versus another.
The SDEIS identifies 12 additional highway projects involving wetland losses in the vicinity
project. Given this large number of projects in the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers area,
we believe that a comprehensive assessment of cumulative wetland losses should be a part of the
National Environmental Policy Act documents for all projects in this area.
I
noRR i -

Specific Comments
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES
2.3.3. Cost Estimates
Page 2-34} graph 2. This paragraph and Table 2.8 on page 2-35 address the costs associated with
the project. It is inappropriate to discuss project costs or develop a table depicting costs that
excludes the costs of bridging wetlands and mitigating wetland losses. Pursuant to the 1990
Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection
Agency regarding mitigation and the Clean Water Act, wetland avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation are a part of the permit process. Therefore,the costs of these activities should be included
as a basis for comparing alternatives. The SDEIS should be revised to more clearly identify all costs
associated with each alternative.
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.3 EXISTING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
3.3.1 Biotic Communities
Table 3.13 INVENTORY OF EXISTING BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Page 3_S7. We recommend that this table be revised to more clearly demonstrate that the total
wetland losses include 25 acres of fill in riverine wetlands adjacent to the Northeast Cape Fear River.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.2 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Hydrology and Drainage
4.2.1.1 River and Stream Crossings
Page_4-24, paragrap i 4. This section states that a bridge length of 730 feet (Table 4.4) would
maintain existing drainage patterns. However, it does not address changes in drainage patterns in
the adjacent riverine wetlands that would result from the extensive wetland fill approaches required
if a 730-foot-long bridge is used.
4.3.3 Aquatic and Fisheries Resources
P_age -46__ _2 n_aragraphl. The assessment of impacts in this section does not consider the impact of
lost wetland functions and values on fishery resources. The SDEIS should be revised to address the
impacts of loss of water quality maintenance and habitat functions resulting from the wetland losses.
A discussion of the restoration of these functions through a compensatory mitigation plan should
also be included in the document.

4.3.4 Protected Species
4.3.4.4 Fish
Pa 4 ,--paragmp . This section addresses impacts on the endangered
the roles of various agencies in addressing these impacts. However, it dos not identify
sturgeon and
as the lead federal agency responsible for this species. The NMFS's responsibilities does not identify the NMFS
permit applications pursuant to the Clean Water Act also should be listed.
p nsibilities for reviewing
4.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
4.4.4 Biotic Communities
Pagej„..6.8,paragnaph.5. This section inadequately addresses the impacts of the wide range
theconstruction alternatives that could be used. For example, construction techniques
the placement of temporary g of bridge
of all of t mpe bridge construction techniques,roads in ndsto
dredging
red in canals may range frond:
g g for barge access. The wetland
addressed. including top-down construction, should be
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Andreas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
I
I
I
I

;C:
L'S/EC - Wieting
?WS, ATLA, GA
?WS, Raleigh,NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
[CDEHNR, Raleigh,NC
vCDEHNR, Morehead City,NC
COE, Wilmington,NC
F/SEO13
F/SEO21

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP GOMMER(:;Ei
National Oceanid end Atmosph.ric Adminletreclun
NA'ICNAL MARINE rISNERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
April 18, 1995 G F t✓�
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager ( APR 2 4 1995
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways ?. �
0ryl P. O. Box 25201 G, OF Qc'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 � 1ok
WAYS
Dear Mr. Vick:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the Federal Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for Wilmington Bypass, I-40 to US 421, New Hanover County,
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-17(1), State Project No. 8.U250901, TIP No. R-2633C. The
roposea project is to provide a northern bypass of the City of Wilmington between 1-40 and US
21. The following comments are provided for your consideration.
ieneral Comments
le preferred (southern) alternative is a part of the Greater Wilmington Urban Area
'ransportation Plan (GWUATP). This plan ultimately involves multiple projects l
all
npacting hundreds of acres of wetlands. The NMFS is concerned that the DEIS
does not
idress the cumulative impact of the GWUATP on fishery resources and it is recommended that
Le DEIS be revised to provide this information.
nder the preferred alternative, 7,500 linear feet of filled causeway would be constructed in
et!ands. The cost of bridging these wetlands is discussed, but the cost of mitigating for lost
:tlands is not. This information is needed to balance the true cost of bridge versus causeway
,nstruction.
stly, the DEIS is inadequate regarding the consideration of mitigation options. Specifically,
purchase and preservation of wetlands is the only mitigation measure considered. The DEIS
)uld be expanded to describe a broader range of potential mitigation options such as wetland
toration and enhancement.

e Commen
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.2 ALTERNATIVES RE
�
2.2.2 VIEWED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Construction Alternatives
2.2.2.1 History of Feasible Alternatives Development
Page 2-14, paragraph 5 - This section concludes that environmental conditions west of the
terminus of the proposed project would not preclude future extension of the bypass.
paragraph understates the environmental impacts related to the future extension of the
Wilmington Bypass and does not consider cumulative wetland losses associated with the
complete project. Therefore, the basis for this conclusion should be clarified.
.2.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES
2.3.3 Cost Estimates
Page 2-33, paragraph 6- Avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts will reduce mitigation
requirements and the costs associated with mitigation. Accordingly
be
to provide a detailed explanation of costs and savings associated with brieEIS g nghould we ands.evised
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.3 EXISTJNG NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS
3.3.3 Aquatic and Fisheries Resources
Page 3-49, paragraph 3 - The DEIS states that the Northeast Cape Fear River is designated by
the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries as a
cies.
This section should be expanded to address the nursery habiry tat v�alllee o area f th�project area's
wooded swamps and riverine habitats as secondary nursery areas for anadmmous species.
3.3.4 Protected Species
3.3.4.4 Fish
Page 3-61, paragraph J. - We agree that the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
tyirostrum) is a likely inhabitant in the Northeast Cape Fear River. Therefore, in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, it is the responsibility of the appropriate
federal regulatory agency to review its activities and programs
programs that may affect endangered or threatenedP l�s and to identify any activity or
presence ofprotected species or their habitat. Due to the possible
species, consultation with our Protected Species Management Branch at
the letterhead address, must be initiated. If it is determined that these activities may adversely
affect any species listed as endangered or threatened, then formal consultation is required.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter should be expanded to include a section addressing the cumulative wetland losses
associated with the multiple roadway improvements identified in Section 1.4, PLANNED AND
PROGRAMMED ROAD IMPROVEM .NTS. Whereas, this DEIS only covers one of many
highway projects, the cumulative impacts of multiple projects in the Wilmington area should be
addressed.
4.2 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL, ENVIRONMENT
4.2.1 Hydrology and Drainage
4.2.1.1 River and Stream Crossings
Page 4-15, paragraph 3 - A '72-inch culvert is proposed for the crossing of Ness Creek. The
DEIS should address the adequacy of this size culvert for the passage of anadromous species that
utilize the habitats of Ness Creek. Also, the DEIS should address the impacts of all proposed
culverts on upstream access for anadromous fish that utilize the project area as habitat.
Sincerely,
Andreas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
E C .``' J i National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
,cF, f""'a�+ southeast Regional Office
6 9450 Koger Boulevard
�,4, �s St. Petersburg, FL 33702
c;• , C.) February 25, 1991 F/SER21/RSS
'r •' . 919/728-5090
'.Z i _I • .r
Mr. P. E. , Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Please reference your February 15, 1991, letter requesting our
input in the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the proposed Wilmington. 'Bypass; Brunswick and New Hanover
Counties, N.C. , State Project No. 6.258001T; TIP No. R-2633 . We
have reviewed the information provided with your letter and offer
the following comments.
The preliminary alternative corridors depicted in your letter would
cross the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear River. These rivers
and their tributaries and adjacent wetlands provide habitat for a
variety of anadromous and estuarine dependent fishery resources.
Alternative highway and bridge alignments under study, cross
wetlands and water that support both commercially and
recreationally important fisheries. Therefore, we recommend that
the EIS include the following:
1. The EIS should address bridge and highway alignment
alternatives that will avoid and minimize wetland losses.
2 . The EIS should describe the location, species, and acreage of
wetlands potentially impacted by the highway alignment alternatives
considered.
3 . The EIS should provide a description of the aquatic organisms
found in the project area and an assessment of the impacts of the
project ' s alternatives on these resources.
4 . The EIS should describe construction alternatives that will
minimize wetland losses. We recommend bridging all wetlands to
avoid loss of these important resources.
5. The alternative analysis in the EIS should demonstrate that
the recommended alternative also represents the least
environmentally damaging alternative.
6. Bridge construction often requires temporary filling for
access roads and/or excavation of channels for barge .construction
access. The EIS should address the impact on wetlands and fishery

i
-2- 1
resources of any construction related temporary wetland losses or
fishery habitat alternations.
7 . If, after avoidance and minimization of wetland involvement,
the selected alternative requires unavoidable wetland losses, the
EIS should provide a mitigation plan to compensate for wetlands
lost. Unless compensation for wetland losses is incorporated as a
part of the project, we will likely recommend against the issuance
of a Corps of Engineers ' Section 10/404 permit for the project.
8 . The Cape Fear River supports a population of the endangered
shortnose sturgeon (Acivenser brevirostrum) for which we are t
responsible. Accordingly, you should contact Dr. Terry Henwood of
our endangered species staff at Protected Species Management
Branch, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional
Office, 9450 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 ,
telephone number 813/893-3503 .
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries is an excellent And
reliable source of data concerning specific fishery resources in
the project area. A representative of our Beaufort field office is
available to discuss National Marine Fisheries Service concerns at
any time during this process.
Sinc ly your ,
ii7X1
And,.`eas Mager,
71 Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division !
l
1
1
i
I

united States Department of the Interior •
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
l• ,. �¢ Raleigh Field Office
j Post Office Box 33726
44CP.3 Raleigh.North Carolina 27636-3726
p`^ram%-`p, ,+r
J^`
March 28 , 1997 C
�4PR 1ion-
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth g6441
District Engineer
U. S . Army Corps of Engineers
P .O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
•
Attention : Scott McLendon, Regulatory Branch
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
This is the report of the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on Public Notice (PN) ID #199403552 , dated February
27 , 1997 . The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) has applied for a ,Department of the Army (DOA) permit to
fill jurisdictional wetlands in conjunction with the
construction of a portion of the Wilmington Bypass , New Hanover
County, North Carolina (TIP No . R-2633C) . The PN states that
at wetland losses
two alternatives are under consideration and that
are estimated to range from 130 acres (Southern Alternative) to
116 acres (Central Alternative) . The PN requests comments on
these alternatives . This report is submitted in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat . 401; as
amended; 16 U . S .C. 661-667d) , and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended ( 16 U . S . C. 1531-1543) . It
is to be used in your determination of compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency' s 404 (b) (1) Guidelines (40 CFR
230) and in your public interest review (33 CFR 320 . 4 ) as they
relate to protection of fish and wildlife resources .
According to information provided in the PN, the NCDOT proposes
to construct a four-lane, divided freeway on about 7 . 8 miles of
new location. Both build alternatives would provide
interchanges at US 421, US 117/NC133, and I-40 . Both build
alternatives would require a new bridge..over the Northeast Cape
Fear River.

The wetlands in the project area represent very valuable f' sh
and wildlife habitat . The proposed project would produce
permanent losses of tidal freshwater marsh, tidal cypress-gum
pocosin wetlands, freshwater bottomland hardwood forest,
and wet pine flatwoods . The Service strongly recommends that
the District Engineer ensure that this project does not result
in any loss of the many functions and values provided by the
wetlands in the project area, especially the riverine areas
adjacent to the Northeast Cape Fear River. We are concerned
that the alternative as currently designed have not incorporated
all practical measures to avoid and minimize wetland impacts .
Unavoidable losses should be mitigated to ensure that there is
no net loss of the functions and values provided by these
•
wetlands . The PN states that the NCDOT is investigating
mitigation opportunities in the project area . However, a
mitigation proposal is not ready,at this time . The Service
stated in previous has
comments on NCDOT projects that compensatory
mitigation should be developed early in the planning process .
The complete absence of a compensatory mitigation plan precludes
any realistic assessment of the long-term impacts of the project
on fish and wildlife resources .
The Service provided your office with the comments of the
Department of interior, dated February 24 , 1997, on potential
project impacts on federally y protected species based on
information contained in the Supplemental Environmental
Statement released in December 1996 . The Servicee requested
t th i:edah
at
additional justification was required to support a determination
that the project was not likely to adversely affect the rough-
leaved loosestrife (Lvsimachia asoerulaefol ia) and Coole ' s
meadowrue ( Thalictrum coolevi) . Therefore, the re �
Section 7 of the ESA have not been fulfilledqL-: _ements of
r
'at this time .
In summary, the Service believes that the proposed activities
will have a significant ant irreversible adverse impact on fish
and wildlife resources . We feel that the NCDOT has inadequately
addressed avoidance and minimization measures recommended by the
Service in previous comments on NCDOT projects . In the absence
of a revised alternative which would truly avoid and minimize
wetland impacts, the Service would recommend denial of a permit
for this project . The above findings and recommendations
constitute the report of the Service . In accordance with the
procedural requirements of the 1992 404'(q)'' Memorandum of
1

Agreement , Part IV . 3 (a) , we are advising you that the proposed
work may result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to
aquatic resources of national importance .
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
public notice . Please advise us of any action taken by the
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers on this permit
application. If you have any questions regarding our comments,
you may contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext . 27 .
•
Sincerely,
•
ohn M. Herner
Supervisor
FWS/R4 :HHall : 3/28/97 :WP :A: 2633c3a. 39"
•

{ : - United States Department of the Interior
= OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
4`" ' ., K \...4-)L OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE
, \(' Richard RichdB. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street,S.W.
Atlanta,Georgia 30303 Qik e C
/-
February 24 , 1997 CC\
ER-97/4
��B
�q Nicholas L. Graf, P. E. /99j
Federal Highway Administration r' "(-*yi v
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601 L'f -It-,
it Al-
Dear Mr. Graf:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Wilmington Bypass, I-
40 to US-421 in New Hanover County, NC, as requested. The Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) comments in this letter are provided in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended,
(16 USC 661-667d) and Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ,
as amended, .(16 USC 1531-1543) .
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Department's comments on the DEIS for this project dated April
21, 1995, expressed concern that the overall Wilmington Bypass had
been divided into three segments. While each segment would have a
certain independent utility, the construction of a single segment
would dictate, to some degree, the alignment of other segments.
The construction of a single segment could serve as a justification I
for the construction of other segments. While the FWS concurred
with an interagency agreement to resolve the segmentation issue by
the concurrent release of separate National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) documents for the central and western sections of the I
bypass, we believe that the three sections of the bypass are
interdependent and that a review of the overall bypass project fwould have been facilitated by the preparation of a single NEPA
document.
The wetlands in the project area represent very valuable fish and I
wildlife habitat. The proposed project would produce permanent
losses of tidal freshwater marsh, tidal cypress gum swamp, pocosin
wetlands, freshwater bottom land hardwood forest, and wet pine
flatwoods. We believe that every effort should be made to avoid
and minimize the permanent loss of these wetland areas, including
the bridging of all riparian wetlands. If unavoidable losses
occur, there should be sufficient compensation to ensure that there
is no net loss of the functions and values provided by these
wetlands.
1

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Analysis of Alternatives
The SDEIS states (p. 2-15) that the western terminus of the project
would be I-40. There would be an interchange at the junction with
1-40. The document notes (p. 2-15) that the project termini "at I-
40 and US 421 are logical endpoints. " However, a statement which
appears to occur only in the summary section (p. S-2) states that
a "5 , 800-foot extension east of I-40 is necessary to completely
develop the interchange movements. " Exhibit 8 of the Natural
Systems Technical Memorandum (NSTM) , dated October 1996, shows the
eastern end of this extension in a wetland area. We question the
need for any interchange development to extend 1. 1 mile from I-40
and whether the eastern end of this extension represents a true
"logical terminus" for transportation purposes between US 421 and
I-40.
The issue of termini for this project concerns us because there
will be a desire to link adjacent sections of the project to these
points. Any work east of I-40 would restrict the alignment of the
segment which will be built from US 17 to I-40 (TIP No. R-2405) .
Our comment on the 1995 DEIS noted that the upgrading of Sidbury
Road was an alternative to the new location corridors proposed by
the NCDOT. We recommend that the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) fully explain the need for this 1. 1-mile extension
and support the eastern end of the extension as a logical terminus
for this project. We also recommend that the FEIS specifically
address the utility of the 1. 1 mile extension in the event that R-
2405 is not build or is designed to meet I-40 either north or south
of the interchange proposed for this project.
In reference to the other parts of the Wilmington Bypass, the SDEIS
notes (p. 2-15) that the two alternatives for this project would
"not restrict consideration of other alternatives . " We disagree
with this statement. Any significant extension of the present
project on new location to the east of I-40 would seem to severely
restrict the range of alternatives which would be feasible for R-
2405 , and would enhance the selection of a new location corridor
for the eastern portion of the overall Wilmington Bypass. Figure
2 . 3 indicates that the eastern terminus of R-2633C will join R-2405
and the western terminus of R-2633C will join R-2633A/B. The
overall goal of the project is to construct a single route to join
US 17 northeast and southwest of Wilmington. We believe that
current plans to connect these three segments will result in the
central segment, the subject of this SDEIS, controlling, to some
extent, the corridors of the eastern and western parts.
The SDEIS presents two alternatives, the southern and center
alternatives. Section 2 presents a detailed analysis of the
selection and justification of these alternatives . The document
2

does not give a preference between the alternatives. In the narrow
context of the single project considered in this SDEIS, the FWS
attended interagency meetings which worked to develop alternatives
for the central part of the overall bypass. We believe that the
analysis which led to the corridors between US 421 and I-40 is
adequate.
The FWS would like to provide comments on the final design features
and eventual alignment on the highway within the corridor selected.
We strongly recommend that the final design include features to
ensure that the project does not disrupt hydrological flow within
the project area. Furthermore, we recommend that the final design
includes measures to allow the passage of amphibians, reptiles, and
small mammals.
Wetland Losses and Mitigation
Section 3 presents a comprehensive discussion of the social and
natural environmental features of the project area. Table 3-13
(pp. 3-51/S2) presents an outline of the biotic communities which
would be impacted by the project. The total wetland impacts, based
on a 300-foot right-of-way, - would be 133 and 118 acres for the
southern and center alternative, respectively. The FWS
especially concerned that both alternatives wouldis
proposed 2,800-acre conservation area alongpass thCaugh ta
the
River. As noted in the SDEIS _ Northeast Cape Fear
3) , this area
wetlands, bluffs, and buffer strips on6both sides of thensists ri er. of
Under the 404 (b) (1) guidelines of the Environmental Protection
Agency, we understand that the NCDOT should first endeavor to
avoid, then minimize, and finally compensate for wetland losses of
the project. The SDEIS discusses (p. 4-61)
to
reduce impacts to wetlands. " However, the documentlal doeseas notres state
which, if any, measures will actually be used for the
While noting that bridging of the wetland along the Northeastj CapeFear River would reduce wetland impacts, the NCDOT has apparently
only given "consideration" to this design feature. We recommend
that all feasible design features and construction techniques be
employed to minimize the permanent loss of wetlands. These
measures would include, at a minimum, steeper side slopes for fill,
the elimination of lateral drainage ditches, reduced median widths
through wetlands, and the bridging of riparian wetlands along the
Northeast Cape Fear River.
Despite all efforts for avoidance and minimization, this project is
likely to result in somepermanent
SDEIS does not present a fly developed losses. However, the
mitigation. The document indicates P plan for compensp. 4-61) that a atory
ial
mitigation site would be areas within a( 2 , 800-acre tract along theNortheast Cape Fear River which has been proposed as a conservation
area by the Wilmington District of the U. S.
Corps of
Engineer. The FWS recognizes the high value of this area, but we
3

-s concerned that compensation within this area may involve the
.rchase of relatively undisturbed wetlands which could, in time,
purchased by the Corps. The preservation of this area has been
signated as a separate fish and wildlife enhancement feature of
e Corps ' dredging projects associated with the Wilmington Harbor
lip channel, and the Corps ' proposal calls for the area to be used
:r conservation purposes. Therefore, the FWS is concerned that
.e use of parts of this tract by the NCDOT as compensation could
_ad to a situation where two agencies were seeking to use the same
:_nd in conjunction with two different projects. Furthermore,
Smpensatory mitigation within this area may rely exclusively on
:e preservation of intact, relatively undisturbed wetlands. The
• S would have reservations about a compensatory mitigation plan
:ich relied entirely on preservation.
a strongly encourage locating disturbed and/degraded wetlands
long the lower Northeast Cape Fear River which could be restored
id/or enhanced. While preservation of existing wetlands can be an
wportant part of a comprehensive plan which is centered on
astoration and/or enhancement, the use .of wetland preservation to
:mpensate for the permanent loss of wetlands results in a net loss
the functions and values provided by these areas. If the
roject will result in a net loss of wetland functions and values,
ais loss should be documented in the FEIS.
eederally-listed Species
ection 4 . 3 .4 of the SDEIS (pp. 4-62/65) discusses project impacts
n federally-protected species. The document notes (p. 3-56) that
abitat for two federally-endangered plants is available in the
roject area. These are the rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysilnachia
sperulaefolia) and Cooley' s meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) . The
DEIS states that "previous field surveys" indicate that these
pecies do not occur within the alternative corridors and concludes
nat the project is not likely to adversely affect these species.
he protected species section of the October 1996 NSTM contain
imilar language. Page 17 of the NSTM provides only a cursory
ascription of field survey methodologies and provides no specific
of ormation on surveys for protected species. The FWS believes
hat a more detailed justification for project impacts to these two
isted species should be provided.
he SDEIS concludes (p. 4-64 ) that the project is not likely to
Adversely affect the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) , a
'ederally-endangered aquatic mammal. This conclusion is based, in
'art, on the opinion that the project area is in the "extreme
iorthern range" of the species. Data have been published which
Eocument manatees at the port facility in Wilmington, just south of
:he project area, and in the Northeast Cape Fear River in Pender
:ounty, several miles upriver from the project area. The later
.nstance is cited in the NSTM. Therefore, the FWS regards the
)roject area to be within the summer range of the manatee. The
4

SO��S does include a
ich could list of precautions
3COCTwhich be used by manatees. for constructionareas
by the ?WS. Rigorous natruc�
allow project construction without
to list wass supplied into t
adverse conditions mould
Y c-�a.,►12 impacts to the senates.
In the strict sense
believe that the of a corridor
alternatives development between
I-40 and US we
southern paent and anal
that tre pro ect are adequate. However, of the center and
may restrictof ' as the center section of the Wilmington is meat, the corridortothconcerned
This is analyses of projects to Bypass,
project for 1. 1 most
apparent in the the east and
this extension 1 1 east of I-40. The SDEIS does notn of
t 421 and (1') part of dues b the
condition which (2) a l the transportation link justify
ch would logical terminus for the between US
part of the overall not restrict corridor selection project, or (3) a
erall bypass, for eastern
The FWS considers
value as fish raed the wetlands in
wildlife habitat. ..'pA°jest to have very high
compensatory mitigation
the fiction and which provides on-sits,comprehensive plan of
ofba plash values of fn--�Cirb replacement
and use preservation
=eta rely primarily on restoration Should be developed.
.
wetland wetlandstun The mitigationy plan to protect and augment the r enhancement
functions and values, should nut result in a replacement
net loss of
The consideration of
detailsfederally-protected
and clarification. species need
details
used clarification.
their The docent should de the real
adversely affect twodetermination that scribe the survey
in theproject area. e endangeredplant Species witttpsuietablect aldnot
mans �Y occur a the Should habitat
commit to project area also
the strict during the acknowledge that
supplied by the strict
application of the warmer months and
protective measures
Thank You for the
opportunity
supplemental draft EIS.
Questions tpertainin o review to and comment i this
e
rFesources
d Office, at directed to. the Fish and Wildlife Service,and Raleigh
Telephone: 919/8at-48. O. Box 33726, rvice, Raleigh
FAX: [phone]e1gh, NC 27636-3726;
Sincerely,
7/. __—
James H. Lee
CC: Franklin Vick, P. E. —_
Regional Environmental Officer
NC Dept. Of Trans
P. O. Box 35201 Portation
Raleigh, NC 27611
: OEPC, 4ASO
FWS-ES , RO
NS, Raleigh 5

r-.: _
L1 S C-- ...w�
AS
, . ,� United States Department en c of the Interior y; 's. , .-`. '
'err- OFFICE OF THE a. ••.•: ._ ',:_:7-»
WASHINCTON SECRETARY _
D.C. : ;-
gR-55/181 a.= t... ;t„�- 1-
APR z i995 _: --.—
Mr. Nick 4 ;. ;, ----�'__.
Divisionolae L. Graff 0' ;
Federal Adminietra or •T:;•_;,.E.
Fe al Highway t -_.__
Fe New g S' Administration
r r ;:,:,•-
310 New North Avenue, Suite 410 --- __
orth Carolina 27601 `t.1 8 1 S
Dear Graff:
"V.__,!
This responds to the ---- 'Draft Environmental request forDepartment
Ironmental the De �'~'
US e r Impact partment of ,..
New Hanover Count Statement (DEIS) for the Interior's co �, �Y, North Carolina. the Wilmington B �e� 4s•_.,..., :, wl
E RAT C yp 8�
The proposed ....._•_
Projects which will mington YPase is
for thisbe covereddivided into
three segments segment Indicates that byh different several smaller
9menes w project
is only
documents.
especially hick will proposed cements,Y concerned eventually form roe The DRIP
especial Because the that the rent Wilmington ve Hof approximately
location and construction
segments
underthCrre seal
altarnativ gments must link up current review the We are
:file is es of the bypon of this segment wil dictatewith ithe locations central of totral
h
the
particularly fro of other
Thi new locations which troublesome because the
wetlands.particularly
ch could result a eastern se
for
oaatern segmentThe- U.S. Fish and Wildlifethe lossFlment has been
the FWS believes C ou1Q be constructed
Service of approximately DropOead
°nstructed by upgrading( q5) has r Y 80 acres of
cumulative environmentalt the DEIS is deficient exists recommended that
the FWS
consequences
in n9 rohe secondary
the
under review, corridors whiff quences of this project.
act. The the con
have been ads must physically connect with The impacts o u e and
under secondary and have notes impacts
act the of future
Statement mpaje be adQr seed in' ° FWS r
(PHIS) for this recommends en thataaptly
project. the Final Environmental these
Planning to avoid nmental Impact
alarme in a specified wetland losses includes five
applied
defined edsequence. This sequence of specific actions w
sits by the C� on Environmental Quality nand as opted by the P must be `
litigation Policy ( ental
fictions are avoidance, minimization,46 (15) :7656766and adopted by t1) . The mitigation
is DEIS lists several deli rectification, January 23, 1981) FWT in its
wetlands 9n and c featureswhichhe five n wetlands impacts. construction reduction, and compensation.
the bred These measures would
widh
ridges. The FWS strongly recof ommends
and the usalete „ reducing ould avoid and
fiends to �g median widths
�apite the use of the use of these aQown construction for
delimeasures, I
'Bees may occur, � and construction
proximately It is estimated features, some
'Pact is occur.
unavoidable. °: wetlands , I the Preferred Alternative
wetland
Y 1 8 that
tact i of e• The FWS enda thatt is clear what acres wouldl impact
developed ran in conjunction planning. The DEIS
s mitigation acreage of wetlands
I
°�del , junction with the corps�ZS states that planning should be
an
of �nQin�o,-o �,.__.mitigation ni e__ . _

The PWS believes that current plans for compensatory mitigation are inadequate
- i'' . recommends that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDCT)
evelop a comprehensive plan for unavoidable wetland impacts. The FWS further(
_ecommends that the comprehensive mitigation plan be included in the FE:S .
r
The proposed project would cross the area which has been designated as
environmental enhancement lands by the COE as part of the Wilmington Harbor.
Northeast Cape Fear River water resources development project. The FWS believes
that impacts to this area should be minimized to the maximum extent possible and
recommends a series of methods to reduce these impacts.
The DEIS presents an adequate discussion of potential impacts to federally-listed
species. The FWS is pleased that field searches were made for the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) . Based on information in the DEIS, the FWS
concurs that the project is not likely to affect federally-listed endangered or
threatened species. The FWS, however, believes that it would be prudent for the.
NCDOT to consider the 14 candidate species for Federal listing in project
planning, and we strongly encourage NCDOT to address this issue in the FEIS.
The FWS concerns related to wetland losses and secondary and cumulative impacte
of this project are substantial. Depending on the proposal included in the FSZS,
the FWS may recommend referring this project to the Council on Environmental
Quality under Section 1504 of the Councils Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. We do, however,
wish to coordinate fully at the earliest possible time and avoid any delays in
addressing transportation needs for this area, and preclude the necessity for
referral. Coordination can be initiated by contacting the Field Supervisor,
Division of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 3372c
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726, telephone (919) 856-4520.
The National Park Service (NPS) indicates that the DEIS provides an excellent
evaluation of the impact of alternatives on historic and archeological sites .
•
The NPS indicates that neither the Southern Preferred Alternative or the Northern.
Alternative will impact the Thornbury and Nesses Creak Plantation Archeological
Districts. The NPS also notes that there are no prehistoric sites identified
which would be affected by the Southern Alternative and that four sites may be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. In correspondence
included in the D$IS, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) indicates that these sites may be salvaged and are not site-significant.
."he NPS notes that the crossing of the Northeast Cape Fear River has potential
with either construction alternative to impact underwater archeological sites .
fowever, the NCDOT agrees to an underwater archeological survey on the selected
alternative. Therefore, based on the information presented in the DEIS including
:orrespondence from the SHPO, the NPS agrees with the determination in the DEIS
:hat there are no Section 4 (f) involvements with historic and archeological
cites. The DEIS does not identify that any recreational sites will be impacted
'or Section 4 (f) or Section 6 (f) involvements.
T$C:FIC COMMENTS
,agl'jia of the Alternatives nd the_ Selection of Prefer fad AZ ram,-I,, tIve paw
2 to 2-22
be DEIS presents an extensive discussion of the development of alternative
outer. The DEIS describes the process by which the 36 preliminary alternatives
ere reduced to two final alternatives, a Northern and Southern Alternative. The
CDOT has selected the Southern Alternative as the preferred route,
he FWS is very concerned about the selection of the Southern Alternative for
his section of Wilmington Bypass as it relates to the alignment of the other
egments . The Wilmington Bypass, as currently conceived, would have three
factions which are from northeast to southwest: (1) the link from US 17 to I-40
TIP No. R-2405) ; (2) the segment under current review from I-40 to US 412 (TIP

No. R-2633C) ; and, (3) the segment3
;shop• Because the terms from US 421 to rejoin US 17 near the
segment already constructed,termini of future segments must join the termini Town of any
haveg a significant snouted, the construction of the
the routes of the other two se5ment first will
In August 1994, the FwS reviewed the State Environmental Assesamentfo,
between US 17 and 1-40 hs engmen1 in (TIP Project No. R-2405) , nt for the link
this
acr a we an entirely new location which would iNCZOT mpact prop°°ad to build
wetlands and further fragment wildlife habitat.
a
that this segment could be constructed approximately g0
just thisa the two proposed 4gitxi The gwS recommended
were
ds
d north for an interchange p posed alternatives.upgrading existing ofoexi which were does not where Sidbu The upgrading currentlyexisting
have access to 1-40. This area is a Road ma(S ly o -half il meets; f the interchange which the NCD approximately
OT is now proposing.
Y one-half mile northbof The FWs finds the alternative analysis section of
The F selected for this asgean, the central the DEIS inadequate
Bypass, will influence the routes to be used part of the three-part
in that the it will have a direct influence on losses of by
other two pmrt Wilmington other two segments. segments and thusth
other
a eats. The
FWS r recommends that and wildlife habitat inu the
environmentalremaining the FFIS address the isshue r°
likely to result from the selection g parts of the Wilmington Bypass
This evaluation should of the various alternatives fotaw segment .are T R-2eva1 will Consider whether the Preferred S
bfe builtpreclude the upgradingoP orequir to i
Alternation in a new location. existing roads and require Alignment
will require If the aelection of4uire R-2405 to
location, the environmentalrethat the segment east the Preferredbut inouthern .
lorect
recation,
of the route selected impacts of the eastern segment gore be-40 built a
considered insegment would new
theu F' sel central segment, and these i a s
impacts must be
i
1
According to the DfiIS, -
Ace PSIS also the median for the proposed road is
indicates that if the roadwaymedian
Thel EI °also, nwetlandto losses would e reduced is reduced to 46 fly 70 feet .
the Preferred Southern Route. The FWS recommends that the NC set through
median width which by approximately 7 percent along
is consistent with safe highway �T use the smallest'
CCncerning the iBeue of design
it is stated bridging wetlands adjacent
River, to the Northeast wite the that bridging these wetlands for the Preferred Southern Route
The Ft proposed 70-foot median would reduce wetland i P Fear
P S wetlands recommends' that the NCDOT impacts by
The
riparian brid • up to 65 acres.
Q these important, valuable
The FwS strongly supports the use of the
construction which would minimise construction related wetlands losses .
for bridge
While thane three deli loaves .
While minimize wetlandsgn and construction techniques
mrm
ommitment losses', the NCDOT does not would help to avoid and
would beme t to
ir rdi impare lementation. Furthermore, theeexto haveea they
made
ud statel the not clearly stated. S exact areas in which they
clearlyc n features NCD a imp eme ti g ' thda that the
commitment to implgmanting ' thaaa FEIS
willl beu eiipnofea• that will minimize wetlands loss anddesign and
the arena where they
The DEIS states that the National Marine Fisheries Service
Division of Marine Fisheries have recommended a
Northeast CapeRiver from Marche i through and the North Carolinan
p Fear construction moratorium
adverse impacts on the in the
eesepassturgeon ;pawning and breedingJuly 1, in order to minimize
'hortnts the (Acipenser brevirostrumJ and f ef the federally-endangered
Th •-
proposed moratorium. other anadromoua t ' ge`ed
Leh. The FWS

Wetland L42.723 And >ii action. ?poet, 3 -43 tc 3-43 an4 j-51 to 4 -54
The proposed segment of the Wilmington Bypass will impact important wetlands .
It is indicated in Table 3 .13 that based on the 300-foot right-of-way, the
Preferred Southern Alternative would impact 178 acres of wetlands, a total of 62
percent of the area impacted. The highest wetlands impact would occur in pond
pine forests (101 acres) , bottomland hardwoods (31 acre!) , and mixed hardwoods
(18 acres) , the PWS recognizes that these losses are lees than those associated
with the Northern Alternative, which would impact 199 wetland acres . Based on
a consideration of only the final two build alternatives, the Preferred Southern
Route apparently would result in less wetlands impact. Wetlands- losses could be
further reduced by using the above-described design and construction techniques
and by employing mitigation in the context of the Council on Environmental
Quality' s National Environmental Policy Act regulations. .
Despite design and construction features to avoid and minimize wetland losses,
it is indicated that some unavoidable wetland losses will occur and compensatory
mitigation will be required. The FWS recommends that the lead agency include a
wetland mitigation plan for unavoidable wetlands losses, including direct,
indirect, and cumulative losses, associated with the project in the FEIS.. The !
PWS will evaluate this plan in accordance with our Mitigation Policy which
considers the Resource Categories of wetlands impacted. This plan, at a minimum,
must include the following parts:
•
a. the amount (in acres) and a measure of the habitat value for each typo
of wetlands lost based on the National Wetlands Inventory/cowardin
classification system;
b. the proposed mitigation for each wetland type: either in-kind or out.-o: -
kind;
c. the amount (in acres) of each community type to be used for compeneat.or
wetlands;
the location of areas to ba used for compensation wetlands;
e. the present use, condition, and wetland jurisdictional status of areas
to be used for Compensation wetlands;
f . the disposition of compensation wetlands (i .e. , who will own, manage,
and protect the compensation wetlands in perpetuity) ;
o. a work plan which details the initial procedures which will be used to
change the present condition of each type of compensation area into a
given wetland type lost during construction (i.e . , land clearing plans,
site preparation, species to be planted, etc. ) ;
n. a mitigation schedule which gives a timeframe for several intermediate
goals and a final goal for the conversion of each area used for
compensation to the desired functional wetland; and, a contingency plan
which will state the actions to be taken if the goals of the mitigation
schedule are not achieved.
Regarding the location of compensatory wetlands, the PWS considers areas in the
immediate vicinity of the wetlands lost to be preferable to off-site
compensation. The issue of replacing habitat value rather than simply replacing
lost acreage should be addressed in the mitigation plan.

T r
' r S
The Dfilg stataa n
hash been eta that both Build Alternatives would
area of approximately grated for use -
natedas environmental enhancement
through the area
area of Ca 2, 800 acres was nhancement lands which
and bufferte etas P Fear River designated as part off the COE. This
Harb
Resources Development on either aide reject. The area consists of the Wilmington
oDment Actof the Northeast wetlands, bluffs,
either fee simpleof 1986 directed Cape Fear River.
or conaery the COE The Water
in con ' ation easements to used
acquire this 1
Junction with the dredging project, be used forand through
beenn cdelayedonjunction
and the coneery •
"unscheduled. " current Funding for ac a.ion purposes
status of this Qtirvati n however,
conservation has '
The FWS believes that- a r project is
The
value believes
environmental a road
oadlthrou h
i
significantly g this proposed conservation Y minimized enhancement, However, area would reduce
following featureslyminimized through
certain design features, adverse impacts
folio ing brid gh the consery The Fwnds could be
(3) a atozzn gad' (2) no seconds conservation area: (1) all recommends the
be
runoff from water collection e a roads or other access should be should d.
upland the highway collection
the river hosed be constructedbe permitted;
areas which are not bridged, and its to ands , and,
highway at regular ged, animal adjacent wetlands; drect
along the river corridoala to allow passageways should be d°; and, (4) in
terrestrial wildlife placed under
to move the
r.
unhindered
= P
8 -4 °
The DbIS "61 n
s presents a thorough - 4-
pecies in gh discussion of
cted
species the primary area and the potential the Federal theed State
states that a survey species of concern is the�red-cockadeds of Poojpet en ttheae
epecDEIS s es hat sury s Conducted for this specie . As woodpecker. The
search,
theal HC OT concludedethat the
would not adversely impactction of e QithQr rho suet of this
Based on information in this species northern or
to adversely the DEIS, the FWS concurs
affect taderall that the
jurisdiction Y-listed en project
of the FWS. Therefore endangered rorequirements
nts ad ap cioanot likely
lop. cit . ) have been satisfied the
( p . be reconsidered if However, obligations
of Section 7under the
mutton that may (1) new information reveals mpact Section 7 of the Act
previously l affect 14etee ,� on reveals impacts manner Act
Nam not coneideredred, (I)' this acts is subsequently of this identified
or critical in this biological 4Uently modit$ied in i not
habitat date gjcal aseesement, or (3) a new a manner a
determined that may be affected which
The category species is listed
9 ry of Federal by the identified action.
`h any species candidate epeCjea
to an enact being considered (designee as either
but not yet the o by the FWS for Cl or CI) refers
Legally protected under thesubject of a proposed listing as endue
until formally or sub ' rule ThQaQ safes or
candidate species Y propO°he Act listed subject to its provisions including
are not
ct. their nionvwill legalas threatenedincluding Section
status and are or protection
alert you ofaccorded no protection Although
here=ore, it would bepotential prOpoaala or liatingder the
r their habitat.. prudent to avoid an
tsar protection a y adverse impact to
p_at, Sit can be 'species information and information
o candidate species '
a der Se State prot poet Office Box acquired by contactingNorth Carolinao on species
ac
filling ( Pro 733-7701. 687, Raleigh, North the Ntural
Carolina 276I: or by
I
I

0
'.'; COMMSNTS
S is concerned that the proposed project will adversely impact wetlands of ,
alue to fish and wildlife resources. In order to mitigate these losses the
commends the use of all feasible design and construction techniques and the
tantation of a comprehensive plan of compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
td losses.
meaiate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Si c 1 rely,
'
/ ..6,C64/. 4
Willie R. Taylor f
Director, Office of , nvironmental Policy
and Compliance
i. Franklin Vick
forth Carolina Department of Transportation
post Office Sox 25201
taleigh, North Carolina 27611

United Sta..es Department of the II. _;rior
r, ~r FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
/10;0
Raleigh Field Office RAINIMI
Post Office Box 33726 imminmommin
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
36 paw
fl24 INSTANT REPLY
Please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
formal letter. This form serves to provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recommendations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) .
Re: 'W1 •
'
Pro]e t Name ��� ••�+a-�1i F
lt�C !L-°r Jt�v�✓�
44 Q
Date of Incomi gimetter f cr C L -
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may occur within the project impact area.
__ The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur within the project impact area.
If the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to adversely
affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact this
office for further information.
Concur - Is not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed
endangered or threateded species.
Staffing limitations prevent us from conducting a field inspection
of the project site. Therefore, we are unable to provide you
with site specific recommendations at this time.
iestions regarding this form letter may be directed to the biologist who is
,ndling this project.
io /
Biologist Date
CONCUR: ` 4 /S-c _
Endangered Species Date
Coordinator

REVISED OCTOBER 10, 1991
2 PAGES
Brunswick County
Green sea turtle (Chelonia m das) - T
Shortnose sturgeon (Ac_ Dei nser brevirostrom) - E
Florida manatee (Trichechus manattus) - E
Bald eagle (HaliaeetuB
u
Piping plover (Charadriusmelodus) uQ)T- E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Pico ides 1� borealis) - E
Arctic (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle (Lemidochelvs kemcii
Wood peregrine afalcon ( co ere us ) - E
(-� amerii na) - E tundr. us) - T
t e
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lvgimach '
s asperulaefolia) - E
Cooley's meadowrue ( i
Thalictrum coolevz) - £
Eastern cougar (Felix concolor couauar) - E
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea) - E
American alligator (A1liaator miseiseinpiensis
- T S/A+
Sea turtles when "in the water" and the shortnose sturgeon are under the
jurisdiction of the National Marine contacted concerning your agency's Fisheries Service and should Endangered species Act. g Yes responsibilities under Section 7 be
National Marine eFisheries ir sService
of the
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
I

'Alunoo srui woj slaaA 0Z lsvai iv ur uawroads ou salvolpuI j
aou2aeacav 3o AgTaETTwTSJpaua:ea-=tiL+
zo - ( •ds EwagsogoTay) aTsno anTq aunt
Z0 - (ESgETb 'QTpjaT,oy) Tapogdse 'QuTTOaeo
Z0 - (eao13TsaEda obslurTd') uTEaUETd puPTauTd
zo - EEuaa4 BTToaAxo) auegnoo vuuvAes
- TIESTFr wnTTAgaoTaAH) TTo;TTwzaavm ascot"'
Z0 - EaoT3Tpuvab ETTTEgsavw) suoaanq e ,eaegaeg
LJ - (EuETuTToavo EapTagOEW) guTuaboq vuTTo:eo
Z0 - (sTTeATgsav 'QasIT ) aoTdspuod
LJ - (PTTTsnaaad BTTAgsTgwT3) gsna abuzz; B,sadseH
=Z0 - (avuTToavo BnaoTAawe0) sndoTAdweo VUUVAVS
Z' - (esn;uoo euETbaoab 'Qgaaour ) auvTdpvaT vuueAes
TO - (TaXTgaoq r?wosorTg) goT;uns AwbAd vuTTosvo
zo - (snTTo;T�aaa4 snTogoaoas) paasdosp ;vaTesTM
Z0 - ('Quaan obepTToy9 posuapTob buTsanoT;-buTzds
Z0 - (Esuogn3 ob2PTTcS) posuapTob vuTToaro
zo - (sTpTeOTTag eTxoagpnd) sanoT;auoo buToe;-uns
z0 - ('QsoasTav BTxagd) Agnvagnopvew paumy
Lo - (euE7uTTo3E0 'QTss'Qua'Qd) BnBBPUSvd-;o-sevab vuTTOSeo
Z0 - (TTuEwaego x_ ) abpae e.uvwdvq'
z0 - (sn— Trwn Bngausaswy) gauv:etuv govaq-vas
Z0 - (EauaTng ewaTgoad) saddTxs aavu
Zo - ('QoT;TubEw 'QTTagaouETcf) TTeus usogswe: auaoT;TubPH
Z0 - (UTTXF5 vavioaav 'Quell) boa; gnrmvao vuTTosr0
Z' - (BTTeATasaE ETT4 owTY) nozsvde B ,ueargove
.walla so;
op agbTar noA buT74 Auv aavToe:ddv pTnon eM 'aurr Uvaw aqa uZ -goy ega sapun
paaoaaoad eq TTTm Aegg eur ; goTgi av 'asngn; egg uT peasTT eq Avw BaToeds
asagy 'uOTaebT;Taou aouvepv no.0 buTITb ;o asodznd egg zo; vasv zoaCoad
egg uTgaTn sn000 Avw goTqn saToads eavpTpuvo ;o asTT noTaq egg bUTprAosd 8-TV
aM •paaabuPpua so pauaavasgg BY pageTT zo pasodosd ATTvwso; asv Aaga TT;un
uo-Zoas buTpnTouT 'suoTBTAosd eqT ;o AuP oa aoaCgns you asv puv 'goy
atp. sapun pagoagosd kTTEbaT 1.ou asv saToads (Z0 puv T0) .aavpTpuv0. asagy
-aoTnaas aqa Aq naTAaa Bnaras sapun ear 'pauagrasga ao paaabuepue se buT.sTT
ao; pasodoad ATTPTOT;;O aO peasTT nou aou gbnogaTv 'goTqn saToads a:E aaagi
Aaunoo xoTnsunae

i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 aauESPeadV 30 AaT.ETTulTs/pauaaEasy,i,+
ZOLEE EPTz°T3 'bzngsza;ad •qS
buTPTTng T2nna
J1 pavnaTnog aabox OSP6
aazammom ;o auatttazpda0 'son
aoTnzas saTzagsT3 auizlaw TPUOTgvN
:67 ssazppp zTagy -amy saToads pazabuppu3
aq4 go L uo?a0as aapun saTaTTTgTsuodsaa s,Aouabv znoA buTuaaouoo paaopauoa
aq PTnoya pup aaTnzas saTzat{8T3 auTZEM TPUOTapN aua 30 uOTµJTpfTznc
at;a zapun sT uoabznas asouazogs at;a pup „zaavm aqa uT„ uaum saTaanq vas
1 +K/S Z - (sTsuaTaa7ssissim soaubT
iTti) zoapbTTTp upoTzatuv
- (Fdfl s T5758T T a?) aTazna pas AaTPTU s,dmax
3 - (EaoeTsoo s Tayaouua0) BTazna pas Nmvgzag4v97
- (snpoTaut sntzpEZE4a) zanoid buTdTd
3 - (-aT°0a Lun. . TTE4.L) anamopvam s,Aai000
3 - (utnrasoaTnaaq aasuaaTav) uoabznas asouazog2
Z - (Ems a'SEa Eaaa3E3) aTaana PBB pY843851507
3 - (sTTsasoq sapzoo ) .DXoadpoom papvxooa-peN
z - (sEp ui ETuoTaua) aTaana pas uaazD
' Aaunoo zanoupg maN
S3Otid Z
T66T 'OT U3RO..JO 03SZA32I
I

twi Jr ,�� United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Officeammommommomom
-
a 157:
gra
�
"'W.. 1 Post Office Box 33726 immilimme
ammisommai
�.., .0 t Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 mom am
March 6, 1991
((fee,00.0.........44.s
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager 1C7 0 �.
Planning and Research Branch .'S 1.-: 7r. 1
Division of Highways rn .t u_ 1-1
N.C. Department of Transportation u' G
P.O. Box 25201 t7. › = o NZ'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 ` , Z) Gn
-'.: .., t•J
Subject: Scoping Comments for the proposed Wilmington p41aiin
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties; TIP No. R-2
,
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of February 15, 1991, requesting comments on
the proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance witt
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e) and Section 7 of Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543) .
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. At least eight stream and
wetland crossings are present in the study corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures.
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) and
threatened (T) species which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If
the proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30
years of age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted
for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat
within a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers
are observed within the project area or active cavity trees found, the
project has the potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker
and you should contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information: i
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed `
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be I
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped in
accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated. `
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be eliminated.

5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing any
relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any of the
proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
• Sincerely yours,
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Attachments

REVISED APRIL 5, 1990
Brunswick County
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mvs) - T
Short-nose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrom) - E
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) - E*
West Indian (Florida) manatee (Trichechus manatus) - E
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Piping plover (Char:drius melodus) - T
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Temp's (Atlantic) ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii ) - E
Peregrine falcon (Falco pereq.rinus) - E
Wood stork (Mvcteria americana) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle (Coretta caretta) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife.(Lvsimac;:ia asperulaefolia) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Act, pn=
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until the--
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose -of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might d�
for them.
Rath=1;'s sparrow - aest_ alis - ER
Caro-ina gopiler frog (Ran ar oiata ca`r:i � - SR
to'
Cape Fear ramshorn snail (Ha_'soma ma sniricu-,) - SR
Rare skipper (Problema hulenta) - SF.
Sensitive joint-vetch (Ae=cnvnomene r,rl. - SF'
Sea-beach pig.:eed (.� aranthus pumilus) - SR .
Riverbank sand grass (Calymay.lfa brevinilis: - SR
Chapman's sedge (Care:-: chanmanii ) - SR
Henslow's sparrow (Ammod_ra us hen__o: __ ) - SR
Harper's fringe-rush (i=;Tbris.?-1i=. ne--nus__:a) - Sr
Sarvis holly (lie:: rmelanchier) - SR
Carolina lilaeopsis (Lilaeonsis carolinensis) - SR
Loose watermilfoil la_:-un) - SF.
Carolina grass-of-Parnassus (Parnassia caro_iniana) - SR
Well 's pixie-moss (rxidanthera barbulata var. bre:'ifo ia) - SR
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhe::ia ari s tosa) - SF..
Sun-facing coneflower (Ftu3beckia helipsidis) - SR
Carolina goldenrod (Solidaao mulchra) - SR
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidaao verna) - SR
Wireleaf dropseed (Snorobolus tereti folius.) - SR
*Considered extipated in North Carolina.
11

REMISED APRIL 5, 1990
New Hanover County
Green sea turtle (Chelonia myr1 c) - T
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) - E
Piping plover (charadrius melodus) - T
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are. under status review: by the Service.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not Iegally protected under the Act, and
-
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7 , until they-
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review speciesad which noay yf occur w thin the
project area for the purpose of giving youwill be protected
species may be listed in the future, at which time they
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Carolina gopher frog (Rana areolata capitol - SR
Cape Fear ramshorn snail (Helisoma magnificum) - SR
Greenfield ramshorn snail (Taphius eucosmius eucosmiUs) - SR
Rare skipper (Problema bulenta) - SR
Sea-beach pio eed (Amaranthus pumilus) - SR
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - SR
Chapman's sedge (Care: chapmanii) - SR
Cypress knee sedge (Carex decomposita) - SR
Carolina lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis carolinensis) - SR ,
False cocoa (Pteroglossaspis ecristata) - SR
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidsgo verna) - SR
icl:erin^i i ) - SR
Pickering's morning glory (Stylisma pickerin,ii var. p
Carolina spleenwort (Asplenium heteroresiliens) - SR
White wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - SR

—� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMM
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administr`1
VATCNAL M.:nl`E FISHEPIESof
_ERVIC=
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive N
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
March 26, 1997
APR 2 1997
CIIU1Tnpy R
RdNry
Colonel Terry R. Youngbluth
District Engineer, Wilmington District I
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1390
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention Scott McLendon
Dear Colonel Youngbluth: ,
In accordance with Part IV, Section 3(a) of the current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Departments of Commerce and the Army, I am notifying you of the National Marine Fisheries
Service's (NMFS) intent to consider referral of Department of the Army (DOA) permit application I
199403552 dated February 27, 1997. At issue is the request by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation(NCDOT) to place fill material in waters and wetlands adjacent to the Northeast Cape
Fear River, Ness Creek, and other unnamed tributaries of the Northeast Cape Fear River to construct
the Wilmington Bypass north of Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. This letter
details reasons: (1) why there may be substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts to aquatic
resources of national importance; and (2) why issuance of the specified permit must be conditioned
or denied to protect these resources.
The proposed project consists of the construction of 7.8 miles of 4-lane median divided freeway from
east of I-40 to US 421 west of the Northeast Cape Fear River. The typical cross section includes a
46-foot-wide grassed median. A high rise bridge with a 65 foot vertical clearance will be constructed
over the Northeast Cape Fear River.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which was circulated in January 1995 described I
two alternative alignments for the highway, a Southern Alternative and a Northern Alternative. A
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), which addressed a new Central
Alternative, was circulated for review in December 1996. Based on substantial adverse impacts to
natural and cultural resources, the Northern Alternative was eliminated from further consideration
in April 1996.
Wetlands impacted by the project include a mixture of bottomland hardwoods, tidal, fresh, and
saltwater marsh, tidal cypress and gum swamp, pocosin, and wet pine flats. Total wetland impacts
would be 130 acres and 116 acres of wetlands for the Southern and Central Alternatives, respectively.

Weiland species commonly found in the project area include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
tupelo gum (Nvssa aquatica), black gum (Nvssa sylvatica), green ash (Fraxinus pennsvlvanica),
swamp black gum (Nvssa sylvatica), sweet gum(Liquidambar stvraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
wac myrtle(Mvrica cerifera), cattail (Typha sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and saw grass (Cladium
jamaicense). These wetlands perform a variety of important functions including providing habitat for
aquatic species and water quality maintenance functions. Wetlands adjacent to uplands function to
slow storm water run-off and trap excessive sediments, nutrients, and pollutants before they can reach
surface waters, thereby, aiding in the maintenance of water quality.' By removing excessive
sediments, nutrients, and pollutants from adjacent waters during periods of seasonal flooding,
seasonally and tidally flooded wooded wetlands and marshes also function to maintain water quality
in the Northeast Cape Fear River.2 These wetlands are also a source of primary productivity and
provide a source of detritus, an important component in the aquatic food chain supporting fishery
resources. When flooded these wetlands also provide important nursery area functions for a host of
estuarine dependent and anadromous fish and shellfish.'
The Northeast Cape Fear River and its tributaries and adjacent wetlands, including portions of the
project area, have been designated as primary nursery areas (PNA) by the North Carolina Division
of Marine Fisheries. PNAs are defined as those areas in which, for reasons such as food, cover,
bottom type, salinity, temperature, and other factors, young finfish and crustaceans spend the major
portion of their initial growing season.' This designation reemphasizes the importance of these
wetlands-to the continued production of fishery resources.
Commercially an and recreationally important, fishery resources found in the project area include
estuarine dependent species such as spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), flounders (Paralichthvs spp.),
Atlantic croaker(Ivficropogonias undulatus), striped mullet (Musil ceohalus), shrimp (Penaeus spp.),
and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). These species are identified in Section 906(e)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL 99-602) as species of"national economic importance". A
fishery management plan (FMP) for shrimp has been developed by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC) because shrimp stocks are reduced. Additionally, the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, in cooperation with the SAFMC, has developed FMPs for summer
flounder. The FMP for shrimp and flounder specify rigorous management and protection of the
managed species and their essential habitat.
'NC Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. 1995. Volume VI: Wetlands and Riparian
Areas. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC. p 60.
'Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The ecology of
bottomland hardwood swamps of the Southeast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,
Biol. Ser. Prog., Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81/37.
'Wiegert, R.G. and B.J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast:
a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.29). 70 pp.
'NC Division of Marine Fisheries. 1993. Description of North Carolina's Coastal Fishery
• Resources, 1972-1993. NCDEHNR 106pp.

Anadromous fishes including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa sapid_ ids=)
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), and Atlantic sturgeon (AciSef
oxvrhvnchus) also use the project area as nursery habitat. Anadromous fishery resources are
dependent on hardwood swamps for annual pulses of detritus which form :he basis of complex food
webs that support fish productivity in the ecological system.' In recent years, landings of these
important species have declined which has been attributed to declines in water quality and losses of
habitat.' Under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993, the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission is developing management plans for these species which include
protection of managed species and their essential habitats. Accordingly, we regard these fishery
resources and their associated habitat as aquatic resources of"national economic importance".
The NMFS has been involved with this project since its onset in 1989, including on-site inspections,
interagency meetings, and the review of the DEIS and SDEIS. Based on this involvement, we believe
that the wetland losses associated with either alternative will be detrimental to NMFS trust resources.
However, we believe that the Center Alternative is environmentally preferable to the Southern
Alternative since the overall wetland losses are less with the Center Alternative and it includes
bridging of all wetlands located adjacent to the Northeast Cape Fear River. The Southern Alternative
is totally unacceptable since it does not bridge riverine wetlands and involves the loss of more wetland
acreage.
Evertthough this project has been in the planning stage for a considerable time, there remains many
issues that must be resolved before the NMFS can recommend authorization for this work. The goals
of wetland avoidance and impact minimization, as well as provisions for adequate mitigation for
unavoidable wetland losses, must be achieved prior to federal authorization for this work. To
accomplish these goals the following criteria or standards must be met:
1. All riverine wetlands must be bridged with bridge design and construction techniques being
selected to minimize impacts to wetlands and fishery resources. Impacts associated with construction
techniques are of great concern to the NMFS in areas which support an annual anadromous fish
migration. The use of construction techniques which minimize impacts to fisheries is essential for
agreement on federal authorization by the NMFS.
Primary nursery areas must be protected from discharges of storm water run-of l~ both
temporary and permanent, as well as, other pollutants associated with highway and bridge
construction. f
3. Seasonal work restrictions protecting anadromous fishery resources, which include the
5Meeter, D.A, R.I. Livingston, and G.C. Woodsum. 1979. Long term climatoloeical cycles I
and population changes in a river-dominated estuarine system. pp. 315-338. In RI. Livingston (ed.)
Ecological Processes in Coastal and Marine Systems. Plenum Press. New Yorlc, New York.
'Epperiy, S.P. and S.W. Ross. 1986. Characterization of the North
Pamlico-
Albemarle Estuarine Complex. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC175.Carolina

endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostniml, must be in place and stric:iv adhered to.
Since the shortnose sturgeon is a likely inhabitant in the Cape Fear River system, in accordance with
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal
regulatory agency to review its activities and programs and to identify any activity or programs that
may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. Due to the possible presence of
protected species, consultation with our Protected Species Management Branch at the letterhead
address, must be initiated. If it is determined that these activities may adversely affect any species
listed as endangered or threatened, then formal consultation is required. To date, we have no record
of any coordination or consultation with our Protected Species Management Branch.
4. An acceptable mitigation plan to compensate for unavoidable wetland losses must be an
integral part of the project plans. Any mitigation proposed must be in accordance with the 1990
MOA Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the DOA concerning the Determination
of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines. As currently proposed,
neither alternative has demonstrated compliance with this MOA in the areas of wetland avoidance and
impact minimization. The SDEIS addressed a mitigation plan consisting of the purchase of 2,300
acres of wetlands located on both sides of the Northeast.Cape Fear River north of Wilmington, North
Carolina. This plan is almost totally preservation of existing wetlands. While the proposed
preservation area could be a component of a mitigation plan, preservation alone is unacceptable to
the NMFS as a total mitigation package. At a minimum, adequate wetland mitigation must provide
a 1:1 replacement ratio, in-kind and in the same river basin as that of the losses.
The public notice does not address the cumulative impacts associated with this, along with
approximately 12 other highway projects in the Cape Fear River Basin. We believe that a formal
accounting of NCDOT's overall impacts on this area is necessary for future planning in the area of
impact mitigation.
Based on the above, the NMFS believes that the Center Alternative will have the least impact on
NMFS trust resources. However, there are unresolved issues which must be addressed before this
work will be acceptable to the NMFS. Therefore, we recommend that federal authorization of this
work not be granted.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
y•--f--/ez 14/ Aar
. Andrieas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director
(�� Habitat Conservation Division

cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC
NCDEHNR, Morehead City, NC
SAFMC, Charleston, SC
F/SEO 13
F/SE02
f
r

•
66-1059 g
R LIElirST]1T�T ti.L.31 ti1]10-.1CUR.]Tl]1R THE FACE OF THIS�CUM[NT HAS A COI ORE BACKGROUND ON WHITE RAPER WARNINOI THIS MICR NUMBER BI EEDS THRII RINM TO THL BALM!II* 1GJT1001012 11tIl li 5
�� JJ 5
1
„AIT,-- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
_t' lc`= DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Warrant NO. 36851 5
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINAi �_ =
• MO. �' YR. AMOUNT
PAY TO !II $ ...
98 x*xx�**50 .0• 5
THE ORDER OF: _
N . C . DEPT . OF ENVIRONMENT AND _ .z alt..= `.r __ __::
0 NATURAL RESOURCES ,'�<; _
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT -r i -7� r . 5
EOM' 47<687 IGG+
RAEIGH . Yd . C 27611 : \i = ,1- .
7 :::_max - = =— .._ ... 5
_ _ 5
o PRESENT TO:STATE TREASURER
PAYABLE AT PAR THROUGH FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
7 _ �a rLa1yCuC7r BEFORE ACCEPTING THI CA,_1-E%AMINE FOR GENUI E WATERMARK 0&BACK THIS DOCUMENT O IAS VISIBLE FIBERS AND INVISIBL SCENT FIBERS illakildIcl@IcIJLf[elal dPirif(@ICr,E°
�� �' 0 1:0 5 3 L L 0 5 9 Ili: 5
u 3685L5 ' �