NCDOT 50-96 Peletier Creek

Permit Class
MODIFICATION/MINOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
V r r M t' t
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to N.C.Dept of Transportation P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611
Permit Numbcr
50-96
authorizing development in Carteret County at Peletier Creek, North of US 70 in Morehead City
as requested in the permittee's application dated letter dated 7/24/97.
This permit, issued on '�:l — 3— Q ! , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
1) This minor modification authorizes the additional clearing of wetland vegetation and the placement
of silt fencing up to a maximum of 10 feet outside of the slope stake line(s).
2) An as -built drawing(s) must be prepared and submitted to the Division depicting the increase in
wetland impacts associated with the additional clearing.
3) Following the determination of additional wetland impacts, the permittee must develop a mitigation
plan to compensate for the wetland losses. This mitigation plan must be submitted to and approved
by the Division of Coastal Management, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the N.C. Division of Water Quality, prior to project completion.
attached sheet for Additional
This permit action may be appealed by the pemtittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not
covered hereunder requires further Departmental approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31 1999
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
hat your project is consistent with the North Carolina
oastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEHNR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
�n - .Roger WSchecter, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

8f�
AMA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
August 5, 2002
V. Charles Bruton
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Bruton:
As discussed at the March 2002 annual mitigation monitoring report meeting, the N.C. Division
of Coastal Management (DCM) concurs with the N.C. Department of Transportation's (DOT'S)
request to close out the following mitigation sites:
Mann's Harbor, Dare County, TIP No. R-2304, CAMA Permit No. 27-92
Bogue Sound Mitigation Site, Carteret County, TIP No. U-2226, CAMA Permit
No. 50-96
DCM is pleased that the sites have met their goals and success criteria. We appreciate DOT'S
attention to DCM's comments and suggestions during the phases of planning, implementation
and monitoring.
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
CC: Mike Bell, USACE
Scott McLendon, USACE
Randy Griffin, NCDOT
Kelly Williams, DCM
John Hennessy, DWQ
Lynn Mathis, DCM
Tere Barrett, DCM
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: hftp://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50°h Recycled \ 100/6 Post Consumer Paper

,
NCDENR
JAMESB.HUNTJR,
GOVERNOR
I�`i �r-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Douglas A. Freese, Ph. D.
Triangle Wetland Consultants, L.L.0
P.O. Box 1211
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055
Y SSi
Dear Dr. Freese,
I am writing to you with regard to the Bogue Sound wetland mitigation project near the
mouth of the White Oak River, created to offset impacts to be incurred by the NC DOT
Highway 24 proposal. I visited the site on October 14, 1998, with Scott McLendon of the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Kelly Beissel, Wetland Restoration Specialist with the
Division of Coastal Management, and Ron Sechler of the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Before I address the findings of today, I want to address the basis of acceptance of the
mitigation plan. The plan proposed the creation of 3.57 acres of marsh, with 2.85 acres
of low intertidal marsh dominated by Spartins alterniflora, and .72 acres of high intertidal
marsh. In the "Existing Hydrologic Attributes" section of the February 1998 document,
it is stated that the elevations of existing salt marsh communities south and west of the
project site range from .2' to 1.9' for the low marsh communities dominated by Spading
Sltemiflora, and 1.8' to 2.3' for the high marsh communities. Again in the "Existing Plant
Communities" section, it states that the salt marsh community ranges in elevation from .2'
to 2.3', to include low and high marsh, with the low marsh dominated with Sgartiva
altemiQQTd ranging from .2' to 1.9', and the high marsh community ranging from 1.8' to
2.3'. In the "Proposed Actions" section of the document, it is proposed to create 3.57
wetland acres, with 90% being low marsh community at an elevation range of .2' to 2.0'.
Under "Proposed Hydrology", the document proposes establishing the proper hydrologic
regime by establishing elevations from .2' to 2.0'. While I realize that this is repetitive,
I reiterate it for a reason. The submitted mitigation plan was not accepted at face value,
but rather, it received extensive scrutiny by several agencies. The proposed low marsh
area was accepted as such based on the expected activity with the system, assuming
success. This level of function is based largely on elevation, which determines frequency
and duration of flooding. The document was accepted based, in part, on the proposal to
grade the area to finished elevations ranging from 0.0' to 2.0' at the outer perimeter.
As a matter of history, I visited this site on May 13, 1998 with representatives from the
DOT and representatives from TWC, as well as Kelly Beissel and Scott McLendon. It is
my recollection that this was the visit after grading was accomplished, but before planting.
At this time, we (the regulatory agencies) expressed our concern over the finished
elevations. Indicators at this time were such to show that a large portion of the project was
not receiving regular inundation. When compared to the finished contour survey, the field
MOREHEAD CITY OFFICE
HESTRON PLAZA 11 151-8 HIGHWAY 24 MOREHEAD CITY INC 28S57
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -SO% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

indications made sense. The area exhibiting features of regular inundation was below the 2.0' contour
line. While 2.0' was supposed to be the highest elevation in the project area, at the base of the berm, in
fact it was a mid point, with much of the site graded from 2.0' to 2.5'. At that time, we recommended
that prior to planting, the area be graded to the finished elevations proposed in the accepted mitigation
plan. We advised the representatives of TWC and DOT that it would be a risk of time, effort, and money
to continue to plant an area that did not appear to have acceptable elevations. On June 08, 1998, I again
visited the site with representatives from DOT and TWC, along with Scott McLendon and Kelly Beissel.
At this time, the site was planted. Again, all indicators were that only portions of the area designated for
creation of regularly flooded marsh was actually receiving regular flooding. The representatives from
TWC stated that they would install a monitoring well, and have results to us within two weeks to one
month. We received these results on August 19, 1998. The results showed that the average high water
level within the project area for the monitored period was 2.05'. At this level, it is questionable whether
the duration of flooding is sufficient for an area of elevation 2.0', but it is not sufficient for the portion
of the project that exceeds 2.0' in elevation. As a side note, the compiled information displayed in graph
form should be of the same scale for the reference marsh and the created marsh.
The following observations were made at the site visit on October 14, 1998. A large portion of the area
proposed for the creation of regularly flooded low marsh communities dominated by the presence of
Slartina alterniflora were being naturally colonized with Distichlis spicata. There were various other
species within the created marsh, such as Juncus roemerianus (planted), Tvnha latifolia, Scirpus spy,
Spartina patens (planted and colonizing sparsely within low marsh area), Panicum spp,., flat sedge, and
common Bermuda grass. Except for the freshwater species along the north side of the project at the base
of the dune, which appear to be incidental to a groundwater seep, the only species that is naturally
colonizing the "low marsh community" is Distichlis spicata. This would indicate that the area is not
receiving innundation sufficient in duration and regularity to constitute a regularly flooded low marsh.
It is more indicative of the evolution of a mixed marsh community than of an homogenous low marsh
community flooded by two daily tides on the average. The reference marsh in the location of the
monitoring well is vegetated with a mixed marsh community of Spartina alterniflora, Spa tins patens,
Bomchia frutescens, Limonium carolinianum, Distichlis spicatn, Salicornia s=, and Aster tenuifolia.
This is a natural marsh system with an elevation of 2.1' (according to a letter from Douglas Frederick to
Scott McLendon dated August 07, 1998).
There are areas on the north side of the channel where the ridges created by the grading of wet substrate
have caused an interruption in species and surface flow. This was addressed prior to planting, and we
were assured that the area would be leveled. Additionally, there are areas of ponding within the
westernmost portion of the project which were addressed prior to planting, with the same assurances made.
These areas are currently unvegetated, open water systems which will not serve as mitigation for impacts
to wetlands. The majority of wooded species planted along the transition perimeter are dead. The
exception is a small percentage along the dune ridge to the north. Silt fencing along the base of the dune
to the north is failing, with wash occurring into the the created marsh.
The contour changes in the created marsh, along with organic deposition, sediment deposition, and
substrate activity indicators exhibit infrequent flooding rather than regular flooding in most areas.
Combined with the colonization of Distichlis spicata throughout the project area, and the high water

demarcation on the vegetation, I would have to conclude that an extensive area proposed for the creation
of a regularly flooded low marsh community is functioning as an irregularly flooded marsh system, and
consequently not interacting with the system at the level of efficiency expected of a low marsh community.
Theses findings are supported by the above mentioned mixed marsh naturally occurring in the same system
at an elevation of 2.1'.
Based on the findings of May 13, June 08, and October 14, the following are the conclusions of the
Division: Because of the initial acceptance of the mitigation plan and associated plat as proposed, which
committed to finished grades within the project area ranging from 0.0' to 2.0', the Division will accept
the marsh communities at or below the 2.0' elevation contour as low marsh communities (assuming project
success and contingent upon all other conditions set forth in the plan and acceptance correspondence.) This
does not mean that the area serves as a bank and can be utilized for any project at any location, but it can
be used for the replacement of low marsh communities within the designated Highway 24 project. For
the areas ranging from the 2.0' to the 2.3' contour lines, assuming success and contingent upon all other
conditions set forth in the plan and acceptance correspondence, we will consider those portions of the site
acceptable mitigation for high marsh impacts incurred within this same project. Future use of any surplus
wetland area will have to be evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
It is your choice as to how to establish the two areas. We will accept a survey of the project area
delineating the 2.0' and 2.3' contour lines, with an overlay of species planted, or the above mentioned
individuals representing DCM, US Army COE, and NMFS will jointly flag an alignment acceptable to
all for the delineation of the two communities. This line can then be surveyed.
Please consider the above information and advise me as to how you wish to proceed.
Sincerely,
T. Barrett
Coastal Management Representative
tjb
cc: Ted Tyndall, DCM
Scott McLendon, COE
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Kelly Beissel, DCM
Phillip Todd, NC DOT
Douglas Frederick, Ph.D., TWC

Permit Class Permit Number
NEW 50-96
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resource
and FRA
��;
Coastal Resources Commission
1996�
Permit,µ
for ••""'�"
% Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
777
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to NC Dept. of Transportation, Div. of Highways, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh NC 27611
authorizing development in Carteret County at Peletier Creek, North of US 70 in Morehead City
as requested in the permittee's application dated 11/14/96 including attached
workplan drawings, 16, dated received 11/17/95
This permit. issued on APRIL 11, 1996 is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to a fine, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Mitigation
1) Prior to initiation of construction, a final mitigation and monitoring plan for the sites described
in the permittee's November 1995 preliminary mitigation plan must be submitted to and
approved by the Division of Coastal Management.
Water Ouality
2) The Division of Environmental Management authorized the proposed project under 401 Water
Quality Certifiction No. 3061, which was issued on 4/2/96. Any violation of the conditions of
the certification will be considered a violation of this CAMA permit.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the
issuing date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work
initiation or continuance, as the case may be.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not
covered hereunder requires further Departmental approval.
All work rnuecemaseer hen T694rmit expires on
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEHNR and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
2�'-->' Q'0"' '�"
--roger WSchecter, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Perm ittee

NC Dept. of Transportation
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Excavation and Fill
Permit #/50-96
Page 2 of 3
3) A silt fence shall be placed between all areas to be excavated and the existing creek(s), and a
24 hour period after completion will elapse prior to removal of the silt screen to prevent
unnecessary siltation into the adjacent waterbody.
4) No vegetated wetlands will be excavated or filled outside of the area indicated on the workplan
drawings.
5) The temporary placement or double -handling of excavated or fill materials within wates or
vegetated wetlands is not authorized.
6) All excavated materials will be confined above mean high water and landward of regularly or
irregularly flooded marsh behind adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent spillover
of solids into any marsh or surrounding waters.
7) All backfill material will be obtained from a highground source and confined to the permitted
roadway alignment.
8) The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants, except in trace quantities. Metal
products, organic materials, or unsightly debris will not be used.
General
9) All riprap material must be free from loose dirt and other pollutants. Riprap must consist of
clean rock or masonry materials such as, but not limited to marl, granite and broken concrete.
10) The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that the
turbidity in the waterbody is 25 NTUs or less in all saltwater classes are not considered
significant.
11) No vegetated wetlands may be crossed when transporting construction equipment to the project
site.
NOTE: The permittee and his contractor is urged to meet with a representative of the Division
of Coastal Management prior to project initiation.
NOTE: This project may create mosquito breeding problems. For information regarding
appropriate mosquito control measures, contact the Public Health Pest Management
Section at [phone].

NC DOT
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit #50-96
Page 3 of 3
NOTE: The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has assigned the proposed project COE Action ID.
No. 199602568.
NOTE: The N. C. Department of Transportation has assigned the propsed projet TIP No. U-
2226.

r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 9, 1998
Mr. Charles Jones
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Div. of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Sir:
b
R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and NC 24
in Morehead City, TIP No. U-2226, State Project No. 9.8022831, Bogue Sound
Mitigation Site, Annual Monitoring Report
The Annual Monitoring Report for the Bogue Sound Mitigation Site is attached hereto. The mitigation site
is located in Carteret County, approximately 3,500 feet south of Morehead City and 4,000 feet west of the
bridge connecting Morehead City and Atlantic Beach. Refer to Figure 1 for the site location. Mitigation
involved creation of 5.9 acres of salt marsh.
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, vegetative monitoring must be conducted until success
criteria is met. Success criteria is 75% frequency and cover of Spartina alternii fora with respect to the
reference areas.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Schiller at [phone] ext. 280.
Enclosures(3)
cc: (with one copy of enclosure)
Mr. John Parker, DCM
Ms. Cyndi Bell, DWQ
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACOE
Mr. David Franklin
Sincerely,
2e
Thomas E. Devens, P.E.
Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
Planning and Environmental Branch

Bogue Sound Mitigation Site
I. Project Description
Site located approximately 3,500 feet south of Morehead City and approximately 4,000
feet west of the bridge connecting Morehead City and Atlantic Beach. This site consists
of 5.9 acres of salt marsh creation of the following marsh grass species:
Spartina alterniflora (5.9 acres)
II. Project Association
This mitigation project is to offset marsh wetland impacts associated with project U-
2226.
III. Project History
Site Constructed and Planted
Hurricane Bertha
Vegetation Monitoring
Hurricane Fran
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring
IV. Success Criteria
May 6 - June 4, 1996
July, 1996
August 1996
September, 1996
October 1996
August 1997
• 75% frequency of Spartina alterniflora with respect to the reference areas.

Results:
Reference
totals/(avg)
Planted
totals/(avg)
Transect
Frequency
Coverage
lR
50.0%
35.3%
21K
33.3%
1.7%
3R
50.0%
37.5%
4R
$3.3%
62.5%
511
100.0%
71.0%
5 transectsl
63.3%
1 41.6%
Transect
Frequency
Coverage
Freq. Req.
Cover. Req.
1?
0.0%
0.0%
47.5%
41.6%
2P
0.0%
0.0%
47.5%
41.6%
3P
33.3%
5.5%
47.5%
41.6%
4P
0.0%
0.0%
47.5%
41.6%
5P
0.0%
0.0%
47.5%
41.6%
5 transects
6.7%
1.1%
47.5%
41.6%
Notes from Report:
• Biolog has been damaged by Hurricane Bertha (July, 1996) & Hurricane Fran
(September, 1996), but appears to be stable.
• Biologs are working well, accumulating sand. Approximately 8 inches of sand
accumulated along biolog.
• Biomats have been damaged and covered with sand, but at present appear to not be
needed.
• Plants appear to have been washed away or covered up with accumulating sand.
• The plants which have survived, are thriving, showing new growth and spreading.
VI. Summary
There are 5.9 acres of salt marsh creation on this site. There were 10 transects established
throughout the island, 5 within the planted area and 5 within a reference area. Along each
30 meter transect involves 6 (1.0 meter square) sample plots at 6 meter intervals were
surveyed. Each sample plot was surveyed for frequency and percent coverage as shown
above in the table. The average frequency of the reference transects is 63% and average
area coverage is 42%. The success criteria requires the planted area to be 75% or greater
in frequency and coverage than the reference area. While success within the transects
appears to be poor, success of the overall site appears to be marginal at this time. Due to
the slow regrowth of plant material that was covered during the Hurricanes of _199_6, She - _
Department plans to supplemental plant the area in Spring 1998.� I(" IC, IJ
I JAN 13 1998

VII. Proposed Remedial Action
Supplemental planting of the 5.9 acre island with Spartina alterniflora will take place in
May/June 1998. Plant material will be installed at a rate of approximately 5000 plants
per acre spaced randomly across the site.
IU
I� JAN 13 1998
COASTAL MANAGEIN1r_S:T

� Bogue Sound Wetland Site
.x
O NSE �1s iEPDDW iDYU 1179
GAZE
\ N
MRELL
ELIN
8 IN W m M RTLE \
I / �I V
U
Bogue Sound Island
Wetland Mitigation Site
NS
Hoop Pole Creek
HOOP
58
Oct
0-1997C)eI:orme.=Sheet Atlas.USA,.
N KINSTON--
BOKEN --
SOUNo--
Crab Point Bay"
Willis Creek
Crab Poind
I
�RRO
''co Creek - -
BAY
Nr`'f'—�tior Channel "
i
JAN 1 3 199P
y I
L
1%, Moneylsland Bay
Allen Slough
a T Tar li/a
8C z a u 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOXWo
1
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROROLINA 28402.7890
December 2, 1997
IN REPLY REFER M
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 199800290, TIP U-2226, Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City,
North Carolina
Bamxs Construction Company
ATTN: Mr. Chet Harrison
Post Office Box 399
Kinston, North Carolina 28502
Dear Mr. Harrison:
Reference our letter dated November 12, 1997, in which we directed that all work in
wetlands on the Bridges Street project in Morehead City and at the borrow site for this project,
located near the intersection of US Highway 70 and Hibbs Road, Newport, cease until such time
that the requested remediation work was completed.
On November 13, 1997, Mr. Scott McLendon of my staff met with Mr. Kemp Ipock of
E. R. Lewis Construction at the borrow site. The inspection revealed that, with the exception of
the items listed below, restoration of wetlands on the site has been satisfactorily completed. As
discussed with Mr. Ipock, and subsequently with Mr. Dwayne Alligoode, Resident Engineer,
you may resume work in wetlands on this project and at the borrow pit contingent upon
completion of the corrective measures listed below:
a. Construct an earthen dam at the outfall of the backfilled borrow pit on the south-east
end of the property.
b. Remove remaining overburden of sand to original wetland grade and elevation on west
side of existing and backfilled borrow pits.
c. Complete the re -distribution of root -mat material between the existing borrow and the
backfilled borrow pit.
d. Install earthen plug at outfall of existing borrow pit.

-2
As discussed with Mr. Ipock, maintenance of all sediment and erosion control measures,
including seeding and check dams, will be critical to the prevention of additional sediment from
entering Cedar Creek Swamp. It will be the responsibility of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and E. R. Lewis Construction Co, Inc., to ensure that sufficient measures are
taken to prevent the further loss of sediment from the site.
The extremely cooperative and professional attitude displayed by Mr. Kemp Ipock,
Mr. Johnny Garrison, and Mr. Reggie McCabe were appreciated during this restoration effort.
Questions or comments regarding this correspondence may be addressed to Mr. McLendon,
Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Assistant Chief
Regulatory Division
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Garland Garrett
Secretary of Transportation
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section -Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. Charles Jones, District Manager
Morehead City Regional Field Office
Division Coastal Management
Hestron Plaza Two, 151-B, Highway 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

State of North Carolina "/
Department of Environment,
IWA
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p FEE H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director August 7, 1997
MEMO TO: Eric Galamb, DWQ Y
FROM: Doug Hug
gett
SUBJECT: NC DOT - Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City -'r1
�-----------
Attached is correspondence from NCDOT in which a modification to CAMA permit No.
50-96 is requested. NCDOT has determined that on this project silt fences can not be effectively
placed at the toe -of -fill line through wetlands, and is therefore asking for authorization to move
the silt fence line back as much as 10 feet, which will also include additional clearing of
wetlands. The Division of Coastal Management has no objections to the proposed modification,
but will require that as -built plans be provided which depict the new silt fence line, and the
additional impact acreage will be added to the mitigation requirements for the project.
Due to the fact that additional wetlands will be impacted under this modification, CAMA
permit No. 50-96 will not be modified until such time as Water Quality Certification No. 3061
(issued on 4/2/96) is modified to reflect the proposed changes. Please review the submitted
information and contact me if you have any questions or concerns. If a revision to the Water
Quality Certification is deemed appropriate, please provide a copy of the modification to this
office. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
cc: Charles Jones, DCM - Morehead City
P.O. Box 27687, 7�FAX [phone]
C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 N�
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/10% postconsumer paper

MEMO
To: Doug Huggett (�
From: Charles S. Jones�.�asl s�
Subject: Request for Permit Modification - AMA Permit No. 50-96 issued to DOT, Bridges
Street Extension
Date: July 28, 1997
Attached is a request from the DOT to modify CAMA Permit No. 50-96 in order to allow for the
placement of silt fences in an area up to 10' outside of the permitted slope stake line. During our
pre -construction meeting it was agreed upon that it would be extremely difficult (if not
impractical) to place the silt fence at the toe of the slope and be able to maintain the silt fence in
good working order. DOT has agreed to mitigate any additional wetland impacts which may
occur with this modification and this determination will be made after the filling has been
completed and stabilized.
I have no objections to this modification but we should include a requirement for additional
mitigation for any additional impacts. The amount and type of required mitigation shall be
determined by COE and DCM staff, in consultation with DOT, after the fill area has stabilized.
Enclosure
cc: Preston Pate
Scott McLendon, COE (w/enclosure) RECEIVED
JUL :3 0 1997
COASTAL MANAGEMENT

�..
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TI ANSPORTATION
JAmEs B. HuNT JR- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GAunNt1 B. GARRm Jn.
GOVERNOR 211 South Glenburnie Road SEcarrAKy
New Bern, N.C. 28560 [phone]
July 24, 1997
Mr. Charles S. Jones
District Manager
Division of Coastal Management
Hestron Plaza 11, 151 B, Highway 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Jones:
Post4t, Fax Note
7671
mate
�►
7p , 11D
UU
FAm
Co.�DePt
GO.
Iwo
P"°m®
7-333C
Fax a
FM R
Project 9.8022831 (U-2226)—Bridges Street Extension from NC 24 to existing
Bridges Street in Morehead City
I am requesting the Coastal Resources Commission's permit number 50-96 for this
project be modified to allow the placement of silt fence in wetlands up to a distance of ten
feet outside of the slope stake line. As discussed in our on site meeting on July 18, the
additional impacts of this permit modification, if any, will be evaluated at the completion
of the project.
By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Department's Planning and Environmental Unit.
forward a check for fifty dollars to you to cover the permit modification fee.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Dwayne H. Alligood, PE
Resident Engineer
cc: Mr. C. E. Lassiter, Jr., PE, Division Engineer
Mr. H. F_ Vick, PE, Manager —Planning & Environmental Branch
Mr. J. C. Manning, PE, Roadway Construction Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
�. 0

STATE OF NOI
DEPARTMENT OF
JAMES B. HUNT Ja.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Charles S. Jones
DIVISION O
211 South Gh
New Bern, N.C. 28560 [phone]
August 18, 1997
District Manager
Division of Coastal Management
Hestron Plaza II, 151 B, Highway 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Jones:
Project 9.8022831 (U-2226)—Bridges Street Extension from NC 24 to existing
Bridges Street in Morehead City
Attached is warrant number 142827 for fifty dollars to cover the cost of the permit
modification I requested on July 24. The requested modification is to the Coastal
Resources Commissions permit number 50-96.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Q*' Al.
Dwayne H. Alligood, PE
Resident Engineer
DHA:jlj
Attachment
cc: Mr. C. E. Lassiter, Jr., PE, Division Engineer
Mr. H. F. Vick, PE, Manager --Planning & Environmental Branch
JR

"+m.s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JP_ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETr JP_
GOVERNOR 211 South Glenburnie Road SECRETARY
New Bern, N.C. 28560 [phone]
July za (; E C F
/
Mr. Charles S. Jones
✓G
District Manager AUG, 14 1997 `30 /9
Division of Coastal Management 9%
Hestron Plaza IL 151 B, Highway 24 �.. NX O.ii.I. w,. = _ „as
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 \ ih
Dear Mr. Jones:
Project 9.8022831 (U-2226)—Bridges Street Extension from NC 24 to existing
Bridges Street in Morehead City
I am requesting the Coastal Resources Commission's permit number 50-96 for this
project be modified to allow the placement of silt fence in wetlands up to a distance of ten
feet outside of the slope stake line. As discussed in our on site meeting on July IS, the
additional impacts of this permit modification, if any, will be evaluated at the completion
of the project.
By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Department's Planning and Environmental Unit
forward a check for fifty dollars to you to cover the permit modification fee.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Dwayne H. Alligood, PE
Resident Engineer
cc: Mr. C. E. Lassiter, Jr., PE, Division Engineer
Mr. H. F. Vick, PE, Manager --Planning & Environmental Branch
Mr. J. C. Manning, PE, Roadway Construction Engineer
Mr.. Scott McLendon, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

y� /011
MEMO
To: Doug Huggett (�
From: Charles S. Jones��'°`� s
Subject: Request for Permit ModificationWAMA Pen -nit No. 50-96 issued to DOT, Bridges
Street Extension
Date: July 28, 1997
Attached is a request from the DOT to modify CAMA Permit No. 50-96 in order to allow for the
placement of silt fences in an area up to 10' outside of the pemutted slope stake line. During ouc
pre -construction meeting it was agreed upon that it would be extremely difficult (if not
impractical) to place the silt fence at the toe of the slope and be able to maintain the silt fence in
good working order. DOT has agreed to mitigate any additional wetland impacts which may
occur with this modification and this detemunation will be made after the filling has been
completed and stabilized.
I have no objections to this modification but we should include a requirement for additional
mitigation for any additional impacts. The amount and type of required mitigation shall be
determined by COE and DCM staff, in consultation with DOT, after the fill area has stabilized.
Enclosure
cc: Preston Pate
Scott McLendon, COE (w/enclosure)

YM�j Wks
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAmm B. HUNT JR.
GovnwoR
Mr. Charles S. Jones
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRm ]R-
211 South Glenbumie Road SECRED
New Bern, N.C. 28560 [phone]
July 24, 1997
District Manager
Division of Coastal Management
Hestron Plaza 11, 151 B. Highway 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Jones:
Post4r Fax Note
7671
Effie _9
p#Of
rb
&UD
aNN
l.W
From
CaMept
00.
Dhow #
Phom #
7- 33 3 C
Fax #
FU#
Project 9.8022831 (U-2226)—Bridges Street Extension from NC 24 to existing
Bridges Street in Morehead City
I am requesting the Coastal Resources Commission's permit number 50-96 for this
project be modified to allow the placement of silt fence in wetlands up to a distance of ten
feet outside of the slope stake line. As discussed in our on site meeting on July 18, the
additional impacts of this permit modification, if any, will be evaluated at the completion
of the project.
By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Department's Planning and Environmental Unit
forward a check for fifty dollars to you to cover the permit modification fee.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Dwayne H. Alligood, PE
Resident Engineer
cc: Mr. C. E. Lassiter, Jr., PE, Division Engineer
Mr. H. F. Vick, PE, Manager —Planning & Environmental Branch
Mr. J. C. Manning, PE, Roadway Construction Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

Annual Monitoring Report
1996
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TRIP roProP ect um r -2226
Carteret County
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
COE Action ID Number 199602568
CAMA Permit Number 50-96
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
February, 1997
MICR 1' 1 976 '

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling approximately 1.02
acres (0.41 ha) of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black needlerush (Juncus
roemerianus). The wetland mitigation plan that was submitted with the permit application
specified that approximately six acres (2.43 ha) of salt marsh would be established by
planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) on the intertidal portions of two islands in
Bogue Sound as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP
Project U-2226. The purpose of this report is to comply with the detailed monitoring plan for
the mitigation site that was submitted on April 25, 1996.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The mitigation site is located approximately 3,500 feet (1067 m) south of Morehead
City and approximately 4,000 feet (1220 m) west of the bridge connecting Morehead City
and Atlantic Beach (SR 1182). The location is shown on Figure 1. Although the mitigation
plan specified that salt marsh would be established on two islands in Bogue Sound (Site A
and Site B), conditions encountered at the time of planting dictated that all mitigation
activities take place on Site A.
3.0 SAMPLING TRANSECTS
Five sampling transects were established on May 29, 1996, within the planted area.
Each transect was 30m long and oriented north -south. The ends were marked with wooden
stakes driven firmly into the ground. Taansects were numbered I (Planted) through 5P.
Five identical transects were established to the west of the planted area in existing marsh.
These transects were numbered 1R (Reference) through 5R and this area was to be used as a
reference for the determination of success. Transect locations and establishment was
coordinated with Mr. Ted Tyndall of the Morehead City office of the Division of Coastal
Management. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 2.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The mitigation site was monitored on August 22, 1996, and again on October 14,
1996. After discovering that the August monitoring was conducted prior to the September
schedule as specified in the monitoring plan, a second monitoring trip was scheduled for
September. However, Hurricane Fran delayed that trip until October. Thus, two sets of data
were collected; the first a week early and the second two weeks late. Table 1 summarizes
data collected in August, 1996, and Table 2 summarizes data collected in October, 1996

Table 1. August, 1996, Monitoring Results
Reference Area
,Transec't;' s .;';
, , $te uen "` %
Avera a Covera e.
1 R
33.3
30.8
2R
33.3
33.3
3R
50.0
35.8
4R
83.3
83.3
5R
100.0
39.8
Avera ge
69:0
Success Cnteria
F 45A"
e r 33.5
Planted Area
1P
16.7
0.7
2P
33.3
1.3
3P
50.0
2.7
4P
33.3
2.0
5P
16.7
0.7
=Avera ke:
30.Os
1.5
Ir
Table 2.October, 1996, Monitoring Results
Reference Area
:Transect Fre nen ';'. % n Avera
1R 30.0 25.8
2R 30.0 15.8
3R 30.0 13.3
4R 66.7 53.3
5R 100.0 42.5
Average .^' c' S3.3', 30:0 _
Success, -Criteria
Planted Area
Transecf.-_
,�Rre uen ", % , ; '
. " Avera a Covera a %.
1 P
0.0
0.0
2P
0.0
0.0
3P
16.7
0.7
4P
0.0
0.0
5P
0.0
0.0
0.13 ��,

In August, the frequency of occurrence of the reference area was 60.0 % and the
average cover was 44.6 %. The success criteria is that the respective variables in the
planted area be at least 75% of these values, (45.0% and 33.5%, respectively). The
frequency of occurrence of the planted area was 30.0 % and the average cover was 1.5%.
In October, the frequency of occurrence of the reference area was 53.3 % and the average
cover was 30.0 %. The frequency of occurrence of the planted area was 3.3 % and the
average cover was 0.13%.
Although the success criteria for frequency was nearly reached during the August
monitoring period (30.0 vs. 45.0%), the average cover of 1.5% was far below the required
value of 44.6%. This would be expected in newly established areas where the plants
occur as individuals but have not had time to develop maximum foliar density. Although
the value for frequency in the reference area in October was only slightly lower than that
during August (53.3 vs. 60.0%), frequency in the planted area decreased significantly
from August to October (30.0 to 3.3).
Hurricane Bertha passed through the area on July 12, 1996, although damage to
the site appeared to be minimal. Sand accretion was noted along the east side of the
planted area, primarily in areas near the biologs. As shown in the As -Built Report,
spartina plants were well established over most of the site. However, Hurricane Fran
(September 5) and tropical depression Josephine (October 9) apparently caused more
extensive -damage, as the frequency and average cover of both the reference and planted
areas declined.
During the October monitoring, only one clump of spartina was observed on the
five transects in the planted area. However, removal of several inches of sand from the
surface in bare areas usually revealed the presence of plants, indicating that sand
accretion rather that spartina mortality was the cause of the low values of frequency and
cover.
NCDOT personnel discussed this issue with Dr. Steve Broome, Professor of Soil
Science at NC State University. Dr. Broome's opinion was that the sand accretion would
probably not affect the dormant rhizomes, and that the plants would probably appear
during the onset of the 1997 growing season. Also, the accretion of sand over the site
may have a positive effect and increase plant growth.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The dynamic nature of the estuarine system, the apparent increase in elevation
resulting from sand accretion, and the presence of buried plants provide an opportunity
for increased growth of spartina on the mitigation site. Considering the unusual
occurrence of two hurricanes and a tropical depression within a three-month period, the
site appears to have fared reasonably well. Scheduled monitoring during 1997 and 1998
will be conducted.

6.0 PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of the mitigation site were taken concurrent with the October
monitoring. These are reproduced in Photos 1- 7.

-_y

s
1.
i g
�
?Y 7
af
R 1 S
c
I1�,
' a {`r�4Y�:..•.'."
1•�
�O
f
t s
� e

*m � IT
'GA�l�,p54
11"..
t Hr j _
!, f a � ilr 1 i y�1w kf 1j
3X }d�� t �Y1�pI• _ l�(1 = f M ^'1 y. . "� t t L�'A.� •. �.
Al 1.04.p1
Photo 7. V ie�A iovoard south in reference area. October. 1996.

�J<<,
I�
U.2POSf0� 1531
1uv w - s 1 . d as y�, ((fa ",L""¢•i ,l F°
1 T CRESi!.
u .i \
w 3 C
MOREHEA5 CITY °a
- - PELET I E R ,..' "-._�"`°; .q .vx R ,.°„�,� y nn_ .,... POP r.159 '§c>:
CREEK _ ...'�'�"' z"
--------- --- ----
-- --- --- - -------------- —_ --
IYTRACO{STAG —P
_—�--�-- _
MITIGATION
AREA A _ SITE -
B 0 o u B
N
tia
i:lillll.l":II:
qliq
B O �'M �� E , + ^T.n i ATLANTIC BEACH �`.�•�� s n,
POP. 911
SCALE
1 0 1 WI
Figure 1. Location of Mitigation Site for TIP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County

iZ-1 rtU-2226p I I
Approxlnwte locatlon of lntertldal Island at low
50 0 _r
ExlsfIng Marsh r r r r
Planted Marsh May -June 1996
Monlforing Transects —2R
RI SCALE Figure 2.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Dept. Of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
o?
1�
[:)EHNFR
May 28, 1996� rp
0
uJ(Lf��L-JJ L;
Please reference Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit No 50-96, which
authorized the extension of Bridges Street, in Morehead City (NCDOT TIP # U-2226). Condition
1 of this permit stated that;
"Prior to initiation of construction, a final mitigation and monitoring plan for the sites described
in the permittee's November, 1995 preliminary mitigation plan must be submitted to and
approved by the Division of Coastal Management."
In accordance with this condition, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan was
submitted to this office on April 25, 1996. After extended coordination and staff review, it has
been determined that the submitted mitigation and monitoring plan adequately satisfies the
requirements of Condition 1. Division of Coastal Management staff remain available for further
coordination, as needed. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
0 Ai
Doug Huggett
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
cc: Charles Jones, DCM-Morehead City ►�
P.O. Box 27687, y� FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 N%f
`Cf An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

L.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENT%k10F May 22, 1996
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199602568 and State Permit No. 50-96
NC Department of Transportation
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your application for a Department of the Army permit to the
excavation of and placement of fill material into approximately 1.6 acres of
tidal marsh and bottomland hardwood wetlands for the purpose of constructing
the Bridges Street extension, in Peletier Creek and its tributaries, between
Arendell Street and NC 24 in Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Your proposal has been reviewed and found to be consistent with fhe
provisions and objectives of general permit No. 198000291. Therefore, you may
commence construction activity in strict accordance with applicable State
authorization and the enclosed plan. Failure to comply with the State
authorization or conditions of the general permit could result in civil and/or
administrative penaltids.
If any change in your work is required because of unforeseen or altered
conditions or for any other reason, plans revised to show the change must be
sent promptly to this office and the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management prior to performing any such change or alteration. Such action is
necessary as revised plans must be reviewed and the authorization modified.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Jeff Richter, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

Copies Furnished with enclosure:
Chief, Source Data Unit
NOAA/National Ocean Service
Attn: Sharon Tear N/CS261
1315 East-West Hw., Rm 7316
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
r. Charles Jones, District Manager
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
3441 Arendell Street
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
General permit No. SAWC080-N-000-0291
Name of Applicant GENERAL PUBLIC
Effective Date February 11, 1991
Expiration Date February 10, 1996
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GENERAL PERMIT
A general permit to perform work in or affecting navigable waters of the
United States and waters of the United States upon the recommendation of the
Chief of Engineers, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of
March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), is hereby re -issued under authority of the Secretary of the
Army by the
District Engineer
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
To authorize those construction activities that receive prior approval from
the State of North Carolina in the form of the following authorizations:
.1. Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit.
2. Permit to Dredge and/or Fill.
3. Water Quality Certification (Section 401 of the Clean Water Act).
This general permit applies in Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret,
Chowan, Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow,
Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties,
North Carolina, U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington.
1. Operating Procedures:
a. Applications for State and Federal authorizations will be accepted
directly and simultaneously by both the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (NCDCM) and the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps).
Receipt of a complete application by the NCDCM will initiate field review to

-2-
include a site visit and preparation of an Environmental Consultant's Field
Report. Receipt of an application by the Corps will initiate Federal review.
Immediately upon receipt by the Corps, an application will be assigned an
identification number, acknowledged, and the appropriate Corps Area
Coordinator will examine the application to assure that it can be processed
pursuant to this general permit. The applicant and the NCDCM will be
furnished written notification of the Area Coordinator's determination.
Notification to the applicant will include a brief description of the
administrative process. For those proposals which may result in a discharge
into the waters of the United States, the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM) and the applicant will be informed regarding
the applicant's need to obtain a Water Quality Certification in accordance
with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
b. The NCDCM Environmental Consultant's Field Report will be furnished by
the respective NCDCM, Regional Offices to the Corps. The Corps will provide
copies of this Field Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Receipt of the Report will initiate the Federal
agencies' review. The agencies will be provided sufficient time by the Corps,
normally 30 days, before their comments or recommendations, including any
recommended modifications.or conditions necessary to make the proposal
acceptable, must be received by the Corps. Should the agencies not comment
within the review period, it will be assumed they offer no objections.
Extensions of time will be granted for agency review only if justified by
unusual circumstances. If an extension is granted that would delay a NCDCM
decision by the date on which an NCDCM decision must be made, the application
may be removed from this general permit.
c. The permit review process conducted by the NCDCM is a public process
involving public notices in local newspapers, public hearings, and various
public appeal procedures. In order to further inform the public, the Corps
will distribute, at intervals of approximately two weeks, an additional public
notice listing those permit applications received and being considered by
NCDCM and the Corps of Engineers under this general permit since the preceding
notice. The notice will invite, for a period of not less than 15 days, public
comment and/or requests for additional information and for public hearings.
All comments will be considered in the overall State/Corps decision on the
permit.
d. This general permit does not, in any way, alter established procedures
or responsibilities, as required by Federal laws, memoranda of agreement, or
administrative regulations with respect to the Corps' coordination with the
review agencies. The applicant will continue to have the opportunity to rebut
objections to the proposal.

-3-
e. After agency comments are received, they will be reviewed by the Corps
and a coordinated Federal position will be prepared and furnished to the the
NCDCM, Raleigh, within 45 days after receipt of the State Environmental Field
Consultant's Report. The coordinated Federal position will include all
conditions (including recommendations for denial) recommended by the three
Federal agencies listed in paragraph b. (above) unless a changed or omitted
condition has the prior written agreement of the affected agency.
f. In those cases where the Corps does not concur with conditions or
recommendations of one or more of the three listed Federal agencies, no
coordinated Federal position will be furnished to NCDCM until and unless
Federal agency agreement has been reached including, if necessary, entering
into the referral procedures outlined by current memoranda of agreement
between the Army and the respective agencies. The three agencies will be
furnished a copy of the coordinated Federal position at the time they are
furnished to NCDCM.
g. If the conditions (including recommendations for denial) from the
review agencies are unacceptable to the NCDCM, the NCDCM will contact the
Corps within 10 days of receipt of the Federal position to resolve the
conflict. If resolution of the conflict involves changes,to the conditions;or
recommendations provided by the Federal agencies, the provisions of paragnaphs
e. and f. (above) will apply, including the procedures of, the memoranda of,
agreement, if appropriate. If the conflict is resolved to the satisfaction:of.
the Corps and other affected review agencies, the NCDCM permit will be issued
and the authority of the general permit will apply.
h. If the conflict is not resolved within the time necessary for a .,
decision by NCDCM, NCDCM may proceed, independently, to conclude the State
action without inclusion of the Federal position. In this case, the applicant
and the NCDCM will be notified immediately in writing that the State permit
does not satisfy the Federal permit requirements and that the project in
question may not proceed in the absence of Federal authorization.
i. If the coordinated Federal position is not in conflict with State
agency positions, law, regulation, or policy and is otherwise acceptable to
the NCDCM, a State permit will be developed by the NCDCM fully incorporating
the State and Federal positions. Copies of the permit will be furnished to
the applicant and the Corps. When required, a copy of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will be furnished to the applicant and the Corps.
Issuance of both the NCDCM permit and the NCDEM 401 Certification, if
required, must precede validation of this general permit by the District
Engineer or his representative.

-4-
j. If the NCDCM permit or Section 401 Water Quality Certification is
denied, the applicant will be informed that Federal authorization is also
denied.
k. Following issuance of a NCDCM permit, the project will be monitored by
NCDCM personnel and inspected for compliance in accordance with normal NCDCM
regulations and procedures. Monitoring and periodic evaluation will also be
conducted by Corps personnel. If at any time a violation of the NCDCM permit
is discovered which would also have been a violation of the Federal position,
enforcement action may be taken by both the NCDCM and the Corps in accordance
with their respective regulations and policies.
2. General Considerations:
a. All activities identified and authorized by this general permit must
be consistent with the terms and conditions of this authorization. Any
activity accomplished, but not specifically identified and authorized herein,
may constitute a violation of Federal statute and result in legal proceedings
as may be considered appropriate by the United States Government.
b. All activities authorized by this general permit which involve the
placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States or ocean
waters shall be consistent with the water quality standards and management
practices established pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1413), and
applicable State and local law. To assure preservation of water quality,
before any work is authorized by this general permit, a property owner, if
required to do so, must apply for and obtain a Water Quality Certification
from the NCDEM in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
c. This general permit does not authorize any activity which might affect
a threatened or endangered species as identified by the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531) or adversely modify critical habitat of such species without
consultation with the USFWS.
d. When using this general permit, a property owner must make every
reasonable effort to prosecute the work in a manner so as to minimize any
adverse impact of the work on fish, wildlife and natural environmental values.
e. When using this general permit, a property owner must prosecute the
work in a manner so as to minimize any degradation of water quality.
f. A permittee will allow the District Engineer or his representative to
make periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to assure that
the activity is being performed in strict accordance with the terms and
conditions of this general permit.

-5-
g. The property owner will maintain any structure authorized by this
general permit in good condition and in accordance with approved plans and
drawings.
h. This general permit does not convey any rights, either in real estate
or material, or any exclusive privileges; and it does not authorize any injury
to property or invasion of rights or any infringement of Federal, State, or
local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the requirement to obtain any
other Federal, State, or local assent required by law for the activity.
i. Authorization provided by this general permit may be modified,
suspended, or revoked in whole or in part if the District Engineer, acting on
behalf of the Secretary of the Army, determines that such action would be in
the best public interest. Modification, suspension, or revocation may occur
as a result of the evaluation of the permitted activities and their individual
or cumulative adverse impacts. Unless subject to modification, suspension, or
revocation, the term of this general permit will be 5 years. Any
modification, suspension, or revocation of authorization will not be the basis
for any claim against the U.S. Government.
j. If subsequent to performance of the work, should any information„or,
data furnished by the applicant prove to be false, incomplete, or inaccurate,
the authorization may be modified, suspended, or revoked -in whole or in part,
and the U.S. Government may institute appropriate legal proceedings.
k. There will be no unreasonable interference with navigation or the,
right of the public to riparian access to navigable waters by the existence or
use of the activities authorized by this general permit.;
1. A property owner, upon receipt of written notice from the District
Engineer of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of,this general•
permit will, within 60 days, without expense to the U.S. Government and in
such manner as the District Engineer may direct, effect compliance with the
terms and conditions or return the worksite to prework conditions.
m. This general permit does not apply to activities that would adversely
affect an area listed in the National Register of Historic Places or an area
which the Secretary of the Interior through the keeper of the National
Register of Historic Places would determine eligible for inclusion in the
Register. Proposals under this general permit will be furnished by NCDCM to
the State Historic Preservation Officer for his comments prior to final permit
activity authorization. Also, this general permit does not apply to
activities proposed to be located on wild and scenic rivers established
pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1278).
n. This general permit does not authorize the interference with any
existing or proposed Federal project, and the permittee will not be entitled

to compensation for damage or injury to the structures or work authorized
herein which may be caused by or result from existing or future operations
undertaken by the United States in the public interest.
o. Any work performed in any area under the regulatory jurisdiction of
the Corps which does not comply with the terms and conditions of this general
permit must have prior approval under the customary regulations administered
by the Corps as found in 33 CFR 320-329.
3. Conditions and Procedures:
a. General. The aforementioned, detailed Operational Procedures apply to
construction activities that, prior to issuance of this general permit,
required State authorization in the form of a Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) permit for major development and/or a permit to excavate and/or fill
and Federal authorization as required by Section 10 of the River and Harbor
Act (33 U.S.C. 403) and/or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 CFR
U.S.C. 1344).
b. Application. Any member of the general public proposing to accomplish
construction activities under the authorization of this general permit must
submit an appropriate, complete application with drawings to the Wilmington
District Engineer and the appropriate regional office of the NCDCM.
c. Validation. No work may proceed under this general permit until and
unless the District Engineer or his representative provides written validation
that the procedures and conditions of the general permit have been satisfied.
4. Exemptions•
a. This general permit will not be applicable to proposed.construction
when the District Engineer believes that authorization may be warranted but
that the proposed activity would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
b. This general permit will not be applicable to proposed construction
when the District Engineer determines, after any necessary investigations,
that the proposed activity would adversely affect areas which possess
historical, cultural, scenic, conservation, or recreational values.
Application of this exemption applies to:
(1) Rivers named in Section 3 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(15 U.S.C. 1273); those proposed for inclusion as provided by Sections 4 and 5
of the Act; and wild, scenic, and recreational rivers established by State and
local entities.
(2) Historic, cultural, or archaeological sites listed in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historical Places as defined in the

-7-
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its codified regulations and in
the National Historic Preservation Amendments Act of 1980.
(3) Sites included in or determined eligible for listing in the
National Registry of Natural Landmarks.
(4) Endangered or threatened species or habitat of such species as
determined by the Secretaries of Interior or Commerce and conserved in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531).
c. At his discretion, at any time during the processing cycle, the
District Engineer may determine that this general permit will not be
applicable to a specific construction proposal. In such case, the procedure
for processing an individual permit in accordance with 33 CFR 325 may be
initiated.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
/s/
THOMAS C. SUERMANN ;
LTC, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
b

K/-2
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
March 25, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Raleigh. NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
................. ...........
4L
The Division of Environmental Management hereby acknowledges receipt of the required
plat work concerning the proposed extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and NC
24 in Morehead City, Carteret County (TIP No. U-2226).. This information was received by this
office on March 15, 1996, and appears sufficient to allow for renewal of the processing of your
application for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) pemut. This letter will also serve as
notice that the standard review time is extended an additional 75 days, as allowed by G.S. 113A-
122(c). The projected deadline for making a decision is now May 30, 1996although we expect
to take action prior to that time, and will do so as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me
at [phone] if you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
J�'q
Doug Huggett
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
cc: DCM-Morehead City
P.O. Box 27687, N�C FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 1, An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer r
Voice 919-733-2293 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina � I(v
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Awwawoowftft.= A
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E> E
Roger N. Schecter, Director �� (_ n
January 30, 1996
Mr.-H. Franklin_Vick_
N. C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Sus:
0 E f996
This letter is in response to your application request under the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA) to construct a new 2-lane roadway paralleling US 70 adjacent to two prongs of
Peletier Creek in Morehead City (TIP # U-2226). Processing of your application is nearing
completion. However, it has been determined that additional information will be required of the
applicant prior to the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) taking final action on your
application. Specifically, DCM requires information on the relocation of a portion of the railroad
which parallels the proposed roadway. The required information is summarized below:
1) If the railroad relocation is being done at the discretion of the East Carolina Railroad (ie.
the existing railroad can adequately function at the same level of safety and service that
currently exists, but East Coast Railroad still wishes to carry out the relocation), then •
documentation from the East Carolina Railroad stating such is required.
2) If the new roadway construction necessitates the relocation of the railroad, then any
environmental impacts associated with the relocation, including but not limited to wetland
impacts, must be provided to this office for consideration in the review of the CAMA
pemut application for the proposed roadway.
In accordance with T15A:07J.0204(d), which states that processing of an application may
be placed on hold if additional information from the applicant is necessary to adequately assess the
project, processing of your application must be terminated until such time as documentation on
the above items is provided to this office. As required by T15A:07J.0204(d), during the pendency
of any termination of processing, the permit processing period will not run. Following receipt of
the requested information, processing will begin at the point where it was terminated.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

1f you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at (919)
733-2293, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611.
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
cc: DCM - Morehead City

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSWffAL/PROCESSING RECORD Y A) APPLICANT: NC DOT - Bridges Street Ext. COUNTY: Carteret
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Peletier Creek on the north side of NC Hwy 70 and the Atlantic & East
Carolina Railroad, in Morehead City
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: November 17, 1995
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached - NO To Be Forwarded - YES
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached - NO To Be Forwarded - YES � \ 2- \3- q5)
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Mercer DISTRICT OFFICE: Morehead
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
B) DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED IN RALEIGH:
pv�•.
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D:
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D:
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO:
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE:
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE
po
FEE REC'D:$ 5 O ,
END OF NOTICE DATE: ) - 5 - Q t,
DEED REC'D:
ON:
150 DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE:
FED. COMMENTS REC'D:
DENY
DRAFT ON
AGENCY
DATE COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management Dist. Office
Div. of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section
Div. of Env. Management
State Property Office
Div. of Archives & History
Div. of Env. Health
Div. of Highways
Wildlife Resources Commission
Div. of Water Resources
Div. of Marine Fisheries

To: John Domey
Planning Branch DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT X9
p
�/
CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS K✓ N d
REVIEWER: GREGSO ��
WQ SUPERVISOR: ADKIre
DATE: February /, 1
6 MO9
WETLAND INFORMATION FOR CENTRAL OFFICE TRACKINGPERMIT YR: 95 PERMIT NO.: 951239 COUNTY: Carteret
PROJECT NAME: NC DOT - Bridges Street Extension PROJECT TYPE: Road PERMIT TYPE: CAMA
COE #: N/A DOT#: N/A
RCD FROM CDA: DCM DATE FROM CDA: November 27, 1995 sews- .w.......�w�A
REG OFFICE: WiRO RIVER AND SUB BASIN#: 030503
*STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: Peletier Creek
CLASS: SB# STREAM INDEX #: 20-36-11
*OPEN OR CLOSED: Closed
WL IMPACT: Yes WL TYPE: BM BLH
WL REQUESTED: 2.84 WL ACR EST: Yes
WL SCORE: N/A
MITIGATION: Yes MITIGATION TYPE: Enhancement
MITIGATION SIZE: 6 RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: Other
STORMWATER PLAN REQ'D: Yes
IF YES, DATE APPROVED:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NC DOT proposes to extend Bridges Street approximately 2.9 miles west
of its present location.
WATER QUALITY CERT. (401)
CERT. REQ'D: Yes
IF YES, TYPE: General Certification #3025
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED: N/A
TO BE PERMITTED BY: N/A
IF BY DEM, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBABLE: N/A
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL - WATER: 2,750 sq. ft. WETLAND: 2.84 acres
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE? Yes
DREDGING
IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS
OF RESOURCE? N/A
IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? N/A

951239.Feb
Page Two
AIR NA
ARE THE FOLLOWING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: N/A MARINA SERVICES: N/A
OXYGEN IN BASIN: N/A CLOSURE OF SHELLFISHING WATERS: N/A
(ATTACH A MARINA USE ATTAINABILITY EVAL.)
RECONEVIF.NDED CONDITIONS OR PERMIT RESTRICTIONS•
The applicant are proposing to mitigate for the unavoidable wetland losses associated with this
project by fanting approximately 6 acres of Spartina alterniflora marsh on existing intertidal
sand flafs in Bogue Sound. While this type mitigation may be appropriate for impacts to salt
marsh, this Office feels that impacts to bottomland hardwood type wetlands should be mitigated
in -kind and as close to the project area as possible, preferably within the Peletier Creek
watershed. We also understand that future relocation of a railroad crossing as a result of this
project may result in additional impacts. These impacts should also be included in this permit
application.
cc: Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office Files
DCM-Mercer
John Parker

P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh. North CarolinO 27626-OM Telephone [phone]p15 PAX 919-733-2495
+ An Equal opppl„n�yAffirmative Action Emp
loyer 50%feCyCl9d% 10%postcano,xnerpaper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governoriiiiiii�
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C)I E H N iI
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 26, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Huggett, DCM
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb if
Subject: Application from NCDOT for the Bridges Street Extension
Carteret County
TIP # U-2226
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
has reviewed the permit application for the Bridges Street Extension in Carteret
County. DOT proposes to impact 1.02 acres of brackish marsh and 1.82 acres of
bottornland hardwood forest. On January 18, 1996, DEM asked whether the railroad
paralleling the proposed road extension will be relocated. DEM was informed that the
railroad will be relocated. Since the railroad relocation is a direct result of the
proposed road, DEM believes that impacts to wetlands from the railroad and the road
must be included in an application. Therefore, the present application is incomplete
and should be modified to include those impacts. Until that occurs, I hereby request
that the Division of Coastal Management place this project on hold.
DEM has reviewed the draft mitigation plan for this project. The proposed plan
describes the planting of 6 acres on portions of two islands in Bogue Sound with
Spartina aftemifolia. DOT has contacted two experts for assistance to develop this
plan. DEM requests that the final plan.discuss the following?
A) DEM believes that impacts to bottomiand hardwood forest (BLH) wetland
should be compensated by the same wetland type. The BLH wetlands are
filtering nutrients and other pollutants prior to entering Peletier Creek and
Bogue Sound. Other functions that the BLH will provide that the brackish
marsh does not provide is amphibian habitat, and water storage. A portion of
Morehead City's stormwater is treated by this BLH. The brackish marsh in
Bogue Sound will not provide these functions. Therefore, a draft plan to
compensate for the BLH impacts for the railroad and the road will be required
by DEM. We are aware of a ood BLH restoration site on Hull Swamp for this
purpose (contact John Dorney).

4
TO:MOREHEAD
MAR-M-196 MION 15:26 ID:
TEL NO:
-G4 V
Doug Huggett memo
January 26, 1996
Page 2
B) How will the site support vegetation when the site is currently devoid of plants?
Has the waveltidal energy been reduced? If so, by what means?
C) WIII the vegetation be planted with a type of met similar to those presented in
the COE's workshop on Wetland Development and Restoration? Will the mats
be placed parallel to shore on contour?
D) The method for calculating the stability of the site should be to discuss the
range of elevation changes and not average all elevation readings.
E) The success criterion is unsatisfactory in the draft plan, Determining success
criteria are different for herbaceous species than for woody ones. It can be
difficult to determine survival rate if the species Is able to spread quickly
through vegetative reproduction or is mufti -stemmed. We suggest that the
frequency of plots in which a species occurs and the cover of the species be
used. An aerial coverage of 25% at the end of three years is too low. A cover
of at least 75% is more appropriate, and could include those wetland species
that become established naturally.
F) Since monitoring details are sketchy, we suggest the following:
Determining species abundance for rhizomatous or multi -stemmed herbaceous
species can take considerable time. Although abundance (or density) is an
appropriate measure for woody species, it is usually not determined for
herbaceous species. All species present in a sample plot should be identified
to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Time spent counting stems of species
such as grasses would be better spent sampling additional plots. Species
cover can be estimated visually. Usually cover is dstimated as the percentage
of ground surface covered by vegetation when looking down from above.
Cover represents the vertical profectlon of plant parts (stems and leaves) onto
the ground and approximates the area over which a species exerts influence
Cover of a species may range from 0 to 100% in each plot, Because of
species overlay, total cover for all species may be greater that 100%.
Therefore, the area of ground not covered by vegetatton should also be
estimated. Plot sizes of one meter square may be inadequate when species
are planted on two foot centers. There is no definite suggestion on determining
the best size sample plot. We feel that one square meter is too
small and
suggest a i x 2 meter sample plot.
DEM has provided these comments to assist DOT in developing a successful
mitigation -plan. Please call Eric Galamb at 733.1786 if you need clarification on any
of these comments.
bridges.mem
cc: David Robinson, DOT
Stephanie Briggs, DOT FAXED
Jeff Richter, Wilmington COE
David Cox, WRC JAN 2 91996

TO: MOREHEAD
=;u,R-25-196 MDN 15:25 ID:
TEL NO: #600 P02
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Memorandum
March 21, 1996
To:
Frank Vick
NC DOT
Through:
John Dorne v
From:
!!!ii
Fric Gala..b4
Subject:
Bridges Street Extension
Carteret County
Tip No. U-2226
AV
: -
IDF-= IN
On March 18, 1996, DEM, DCM, WRC and DOT performed a site
inspection of the proposed railroad storage relocation in
Carteret County. The railroad is being relocate, due to the
extension of Bridges street. There are two smal_ wetlands that
would be impacted by the railroad_ Since the areas of impact are
small, DEM will not require that these areas be delineated and
included in the Bridges Street Extension permit application. In
addition, wetlands are adjacent to the fill slopes but should not
be impacted. ,
Compensatory mitigation is still an unresolved issue_ DOT
has not responded to our January 26, 1996 memo (attached). DEM
will not be able to issue the 401 Certification until the
mitigation issue is satisfactorily resolved.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 733-1786.
bridges2.mem
CC: !
Jeff Richter, COE Wilmington r [U
Alice Gordon, DOT

TO: JOHN R. PARKER
FROM: JAMES L. MERCER
SUBJECT: COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
NC DOT / BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
PELETIER CREEK / MOREHEAD CITY
DATE: December 13, 1995
There appears to be three factors that extenuate the direct loss on
coastal wetlands: 1) it has been well documented that the proposed
roadway alignment is the most reasonable case possible;
unfortunitely, bridging the wetland was cost prohibative, 2) the
proposed extension will provide a very significant improvement in
vehicular traffic flow, a real public benefit not only to the
residential population but also to the tourist coming and going
from points east, such as Atlantic Beach and Beaufort, 3) the
mitigation plan offers a generous 4 to 1 return on the amount of
coastal marsh to be created on intertidal habitat in Bogue Sound.
I have no problems supporting the proposed project with the
following conditions offered to safe guard the estuarine system
during construction:
#1 The permittee shall submit for review and approval the
wetlands mitigation plan prior to intitiating activities at the
site.
#2 An earthen plug or silt screen will be left between the areas
to be excavated and the existing creek(s) and a 24 hour period
after completion of the excavation will elapse prior to the removal
of the plug or silt screen to prevent unnecessary siltation into
the adjacent water body.
#3 The temporary placement or double -handling of excavated or
fill materials within waters or vegetated wetlands is not
authorized.
#4 All excavated materials will be confined above mean high water
and landward of regularly or irregularly flooded marsh behind
adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent spill -over
of solids into any marsh or surrounding waters.
#5 All riprap material must be free from loose dirt and other
pollutants. Riprap must consist of clean rock or masonry
materials such as, but not limited to marl, granite and broken
concrete.
#6 All backfill material will be obtained from a highground
source and confined to the permitted roadway alignment.
G.C1�/ug.

COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
NC DOT / BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
PELETIER CREEK / MOREHEAD CITY
PAGE #2
#7 The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants,
except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials, or
unsightly debris will not be used.
18 No marsh grass will be excavated and/or filled upon outside of
the permitted roadway alignment.
NOTE: The permittee and/or his contractor is urged to meet
with DCM and COE representatives prior to project initiation.
cc: Charles S. Jones
Corps of Engineers

REPLY TO
ATTENTK)N OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 18, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199602568, State Project No. 9.8022831
NC Department of Transportation
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
DEC 2 0 1115 tl
rwwM��N! i��r+MM1111MR
On February 11, 1991, we renewed general permit No. 198000291 (copy
enclosed), which provides Federal authorization for construction activities
that receive authorization from the State of North Carolina.
A review of your application received November 24, 1995, for Department
of the Army authorization to authorize the excavation and placement of fill
material in approximately 1.6 acres of tidal marsh and bottom land hardwoods
adjacent to Peletier Creek, between Arendell Street and NC 24, for the
construction of the new Bridges Street extension, in Morehead City, Carteret
County, North Carolina, indicates it to be a candidate for Federal
authorization under this general permit. AcG,ordingly,.W administrative
processing of your application will, -be accomplished by'fhe'North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management. Comments from Federal review agencies will be
furnished to the State.
If your application must be withdrawn from this general permit process
for any reason, you will be informed regarding its further management. If
there are no unresolved differences in State -Federal positions or policies,
the final action taken on your application by the State will result in your
receiving written notice from us that your application is consistent with the
general permit and you may commence your activity. Only after receiving such
confirmation should you begin work.
On February 6, 1990, the DA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to
determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean
Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding
impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging,
practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to
minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To
enable us to process your application in full compliance with this MOA, we
request that you provide the following additional information:
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are
available only if the proposed work is the least environmentally damaging,
practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least
damaging to water or wetland areas.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical
steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done,
I
3
PM1M W 0 Rwyded Pe

-2- -
especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed
construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practical mitigation will be
required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate
and practical minimization has been employed. Please indicate your plan to
mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide
information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practical measures.
This information is essential to our expeditious processing of your
application and it should be forwarded to us by December 29, 1995. Also, a
copy of this information must be sent to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management to enable them to adequately evaluate your
application for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act.
Your application, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act and
Section 404 of the clean Water Act, has been assigned Action ID No. 199602568
and will be coordinated by Mr. Jeff Richter in our Wilmington Field Office.
Mr. Richter may be contacted at telephone [phone]. ,
Sincerely,
-•-
Ernest Jahnke
Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure

-3-
copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611=7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
/ Mr. Charles Jones
✓ Area Office Manager
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

r "%�
DEPARTMENT OF THE
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
December 18, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199602568
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Parker:
Reference the application of NC Department of Transportation for a
Department of the Army permit to the excavation of and placement of fill
material into approximately 1.6 acres of tidal marsh and bottomland hardwood
wetlands for the purpose of constructing the Bridges Street extension, in
Peletier Creek and its tributaries, between Arendell Street and NC 24 in
Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as presented
by the application and your field investigation report.
We recommend that the following condition(s) be included in the State
authorization:
All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict
compliance with the permit plans.
All excavated materials will be confined landward of the mean high water
(MHW) elevation contour and any regularly or irregularly flooded vegetated
wetlands.
All excavated materials will be confinedlandward of the mean high water
(MHW) elevation contour and any regularly or irregularly flooded vegetated
wetlands within adequate dikes or other retaining structures to prevent
spillover of solids into any vegetated wetlands or surrounding waters.
No excavated or fill materials will be placed at any time in any
vegetated wetlands or waters outside of the footprint of the proposed
construction.
The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants except in
trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials, or unsightly debris will
not be used.
The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in
conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The permittee is
not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the permitted activity without
having it transferred to a third party.
The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a
significant increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or
PnMw w ® Re cle Paper

construction -related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the
waterbody is 50 NTD's or lees in all rivers not designated as trout waters by '
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or -
less in all saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTQ's or
-less in trout waters, are not considered significant.
If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or
archeological remains while accomplishing the authorized work, he will
immediately notify the Wilmington District Engineer who will initiate the
required State/Federal coordination.
bfi 4y
e v P k
a
This Department of the Army permit does not obviate the need to obtain
other Federal, State, or local authorizations required by law. ='
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Jeff Richter, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely, _
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
•,ti �✓tti
"i
2

Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. L. R. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina ' 28516
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr, Charles Jones, District Manager
` forehead City Regional Office
VNorth Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
3441 Arendell Street
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Blind Copy Furnished:
CESAW-CO-E/Ramel
3

I
9
TO: John Parker
FROM: Kathy Vinson
SUBJECT: Consistency Determination, Major Permit Application, NC
DOT - Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City, Carteret
County
DATE: December 13, 1995
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to extend
Bridges Street in a westerly direction for a total distance of 2.9
miles. The project will parallel Highway 70 and cross two prongs of
Peletier Creek on the north side of the East Carolina Railroad, in
Morehead City, Carteret County.
AECs impacted by the work include Estuarine Waters, Coastal
Wetlands, and the Estuarine Shoreline. In addition, 1404' wetlands
will also be impacted by the work. Waters at the project site are
classified as SB and are closed to the harvesting of shellfish. The
area is not a Primary Nursery Area.
I have reviewed this proposal for consistency with the 1991 Town of
Morehead City Land Use Plan (LUP) Update and offer the following
comments.
The general area of the project is classified as Developed, while
the AECs and '404' wetlands impacted by the work are classified as
Conservation.
The Morehead City LUP discusses the Conservation classification on
Page 73. Generally, Morehead City concurs with CAMA AEC and federal
standards for development in the Conservation classified areas.
Applicable Resource Protection Policies contained in the LUP
include those for development in AECs (Pages 49-50). This section
of the Morehead City Land Use Plan reiterates the Town's acceptance
of the CAMA Use Standards for development in Coastal Wetlands, with
certain exceptions, none of which appear to be applicable to this
project. The Plan specifies that appropriate uses within the
Estuarine Shoreline include those authorized by Morehead City local
ordinances and CAMA Use Standards. Likewise, with the exception of
marina construction in Primary Nursery Areas, the Town concurs with
the 7H Use Standards for Estuarine Waters.
The Town's policies for development in 1404' Wetlands are discussed
on Page 51 of the Plan and state support for the regulatory program
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Economic and Community Development Policies in the LUP support the

Bridges Street Extension project. General Land Development Policies
are included on Page 56 of the Plan and describe the Town's
intentions to strive to provide a safe, efficient, and well -
maintained street system consistent with the Town's adopted
thoroughfare plan. The 1991 Thoroughfare Plan is discussed on Page
29 of the Plan where this project is specifically mentioned as a
major transportation issue facing the Town. The Town's policies
regarding Commitment to State and Federal Programs (Page 58) are to
assist and cooperate with state and federal offices in local
development programs and specifically refer to support for
transportation improvements.
Based on the above policies, this project appears to be consistent
with and supported by the 1991 Town of Morehead City Land Use Plan,
provided all local, state and federal standards can be satisfied.
CC: Preston Pate
Charles Jones
Jim Mercer
Linda Staab

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
December 7, 1995
Carteret News -Times
Legal Advertisement Section
P.O. Box 1679
Morehead City, NC 28557
�l
AFT
ft
0-ftftwoo"WM00 MILAM
IDEHNR
Re: Public Notice - NC DOT/Bridges Street Extension, Carteret County
Dear Sir:
Please publish the attached Notice in the Sunday, December 10, 1995, issue of the
Carteret News -Times.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of
Publication prior to payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the affidavit, an
original copy of the published notice, and an original invoice to Kris Horton, Division of
Coastal Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, Telephone (919)
733-2293.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions,
please contact me at our Morehead City office.
Sincerely,
James .Mercer
Field Representative
JLM/dh
Enclosure
cc: John Parker
Kris Horton
Charles S. Jones
Rick Shiver, DEM/Wilmington
P.O. Box 769, 3441 Arendell St., Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 Courier #11-12-09
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper

NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources hereby gives public
notice as required by NCGS 113A-119(b) and 143-215 3(a)(1)(c) that the NC Department of
Transportation, filed an application on November 17, 1995, for a permit from the Division
of Coastal Management to develop in an Area of Environmental Concern and for certification
from the Division of Environmental Management that a discharge of fill material in project
wetlands will not violate applicable water quality standards.
According to said application, the applicant proposes to extend Bridges Street in a
westerly direction for a total distance of 2.9 miles. The project will parallel Hwy. 70 and
cross two prongs of Peletier Creek on the north side of the East Carolina Railroad, in
Morehead City, Carteret County.
A copy of the entire application and additional information may be examined (or
copies furnished upon request and payment of reproduction costs) during normal business
hours at the office of Jim Mercer, Division of Coastal Management, located in the Division
of Marine Fisheries Building, Morehead City, N.C., [phone], and/or the office of
Rick Shiver, Division of Environmental Management, DEHNR Regional Field Office,
Wilmington, N.C., [phone].
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take final action on this
water quality certification on or before January 5, 1996. The issuance of the CAMA Major
Development permit and the Section 401 Certification may deviate from this projected date
depending upon the nature of the comments submitted and subsequent hearings that may
result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in writing to Roger N. Schecter,
Director, Division of Coastal Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to
December 31, 1995 for consideration in the CAMA permit decision, and to Preston Howard,
Director, Division of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611,
prior to December 26, 1995 for consideration in the water quality certification decision.
Later comments on the CAMA application will be accepted and considered up to the time of
permit decision. Project modifications may occur based on review and comment by the
public and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in this matter will be
provided upon request.
PUBLISHED ON: Sunday, December 10, 1995

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
I. APPLICANT'S NAME: NC Department of Transportation / Bridges Street Extension
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Peletier Creek on the north side of NC HWY 70 and the Atlantic
& East Carolina Railroad in Morehead City, Carteret Co.
Photo Index - 1989: Strip #154 Frame #28 Q OP-13 and RS-6
State Plane Coordinates - Site III X: 2666450 Y: 365300
Site V X: 2668650 Y: 364500
USGS Topographic Quadrangle - "MANSFIELD" PR 1983.
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA / DREDGE & FILL
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - Pre-Appl. 1994 / Permit Review Nov. 1995
Was Applicant Present - YES NO
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - November 17, 1995
Office - Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Town of Morehead City LUP Up -date, December 1991
Land Classification From LUP - Developed / Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shoreline, Coastal Wetlands
(C) Water Dependent: No
(D) Intended Use: Government / Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - NONE
Planned - 2-Lane Roadway Fills With Culverts
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: NONE
Source - Stable Saltmarsh with adjacent 404 Wetlands.
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DRF.T)C;F.i) RTT T Prl nmricn
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
Cordgrass, Needlerush, Cattail
same
Site III / West Prong
9,583 sq. ft.
(9,583 sq.ft.)
Site V / East Prong
34,848 sq. ft.
(44,848 sq.ft.)
(B) Non -Vegetated Wetlands
Peletier Creek:
same
Site III / West Prong
750 sq. ft.
(750 sq.ft.)
Site V / East Prong
2,000 sq. ft.
(2,000 sq.ft.)
(C) Other
404 Wetlands:
same
Site III / West Prong
29,185 sq. ft.
(29,185 sq.ft.)
Site V / East Prong
1,306 sq. ft.
(1,306 sq.ft.)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 123,324 ft.2±

1
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT:
NC DOT / BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
PAGE N2
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: continued
(E) Primary Nursery Area: NO
(F) Water Classification: SB Open: NO
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The NC Department of Transportation proposes create a 2-Lane roadway
by extending Bridges Street in a westerly direction for a total distance of 2.9 miles. The project will
parallel HWY 70 and cross two prongs of Peletier Creek on the north side of the East Carolina
Railroad. The roadway "Fill" material will be used to cross the existing saltmarsh and other wooded
wetlands while concrete box -culvert will maintain tidal influence and upland drainage.
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: The project vicinity is well developed with HWY 70 and the
railroad bisecting the area. Downstream of the project, Peletier Creek is characterized by excavated
alterations to the natural shoreline. A mix of commercial marina facilities and private residential
ownership utilize the waterfront. Upstream, the highground drainage basin associated with Peletier
Creek is occupied by extensive single family subdivisions, Morehead City's Swinson Recreational
Park and the new Elementary School.
The NC DOT has targeted 6 environmentally sensitive areas that the proposed roadway will intersect.
Typically, the sites contain small, non -tidal ponds and tree covered wetlands. Only sites III and V
involve Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) which are associated with the upper reaches of
Peletier Creek. These 2 sites are the subject of the CAMA permit review. The referenced aerial
photography and the USGS topographic map provide an excellent overview of the Bridges Street
extension. Site III can be accessed from 4540 Arendell Street, the property of LEADER Mobile
Home Sales. Site V is located behind Wickes Lumber Company at 4252 Arendell Street. Walking -in
access can also be accomplished by following the railroad tracks to those points where the proposed
roadway will intersect the east and west prongs of Creek. A natural buffer of land and vegetation 70
to 90 feet wide will be maintained between the 100 foot Right -of -Way and the railroad tracks. The
elevation of the proposed roadway will average 20 to 25 feet above the natural grade.
SITE III is located on west prong of Peletier Creek at the upper end of estuarine system where tidal
water meets runoff waters from the upland drainage basin. The coastal wetlands on the north side of
the railroad tracks have the appearance of typical saltmarsh dominated by Spartina alterniflora, Juncus
roemerianus and Baccarharis halimifolia. The marsh vegetation directly involved with this segment
of the project measures about 150 feet long by 65 feet wide. The tidal creek is well defined and
averages about 2 to 5 feet wide as it runs almost straight through the marsh `pocket. Other wetlands
of the 404 type have been identified adjacent to the saltmarsh and surrounding the upland drainage.
A mixture of water oaks, multi -trunk maple, black willow, sweet gum and pond pine characterize the
tree covered wetlands. As proposed, a (6 ft. by 6 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC)
measuring 138 feet long will be installed on the general alignment of the creek bed in order to
maintain adequate hydrologic conditions above as well as below the new roadway. It has been
estimated that approximately 9,583 square feet of coastal marsh will be directly displaced by this
segment of the proposed project. The roadway alignment will first be excavated of all hydric soils.
The project alignment will then be backfilled with imported material suitable for roadway
construction. Similarly, an estimated 29,185 square feet of wooded wetlands will also be displaced
by this section the of project. As the workplat drawings indicated on sheet 5:11, the wetlands follow
the upland drainage contours on the west side of the creek.

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT:
NC DOT / BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
PAGE #3
SITE V is found on the east prong of Peletier Creek. The wetland pocket on the north side of the
railroad tracks measures about 400 feet long by 160 feet wide. It contains specific areas of saltmarsh
vegetation and other adjacent wetlands. Workplat drawings, sheet 8:11 illustrate in detail the
estuarine resources involved with this segment of the roadway project. The applicant has estimated
that approximately 34,848 square feet of coastal wetlands within the CAMA AEC will be directly
displaced by the proposed crossing at Site V. Only a small area of 404 Wetlands will be displaced
by the road construction. The tree covered area, approximately 1,306 square feet, is located on the
upland banks of the creek, on the northeast side of the project. The tidal creek averages 5 to 10 feet
wide as it meanders diagonally through the wetland pocket. The marsh vegetation is dominated by
Black needlerush Q. roemerianus) mixed with some Saltmarsh cordgrass (S. alterniflora). The
referenced aerial photography shows clearly the distinctive patch of Cattails (T. latifolia) that
occupies the upper end of the pocket marsh. Once the roadway alignment has been de -mucked, a 6
ft. by 6 ft. RCBC measuring 158 feet long will be installed to connect the natural creek bed above
and below the project.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS: It is noted that other environmental impacts may occur at the other 4
designated sites elsewhere on the project alignment; they are beyond the immediate scope of this
CAMA permit review. Although highways are not considered a "water dependent" use with in and
AEC, there are no other viable alternatives to the proposed alignment. Other construction techniques
such as "bridging" were considered but cost consideration far exceed the option to mitigate the
resource loss. It has been estimated by the applicant that approximately 77,672 square feet of
estuarine habitat and associated wetlands will be displaced by the proposed extension of Bridges
Street at Sites III and V. A combined area of some 44,431 square feet of coastal wetlands dominated
by saltmarsh cordgrass, black needlerush and cattails will be removed from the estuarine system.
This figure includes the actual tidal creek beds that account for about 2,750 square feet of open
intertidal habitat at the two sites. In addition, approximately 30,401 square feet of adjacent wetlands
'in the upland drainage will be lost to construction of the roadway. The NC DOT has designed the
RCBC to meet the predicable tidal requirements of the remaining marsh and the anticipated levels of
upland runoff and stormwater. During the course of construction, the potential adverse effects from
silt and sediments to downstream resources can be reduced by providing adequate sedimentation and
erosion control measures.
The Division of Coastal Management and the Corps of Engineers have coordinated closely with the
NC DOT to develop off -site mitigation for the anticipated lose to wetlands and other estuarine
resources. At this time, it is planed to create some 4 acres of saltmarsh by sprigging Spartina
alterniflora on an intertidal sand flat in Bogue Sound just west of the Atlantic Beach Bridge. This
represents, an off -set ratio of 4 recovered acres for ever 1 acre of lost recourse.
PREPARED BY: JAMES L. MERCER
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1996

FORM•DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b.
City, town, community or landmark
1.
APPLICANT
Morehead City
C.
Street address or secondary road number
a.
Landowner:
Bridges Street Extension
Name N.C. Dept. of Transportation
d.
Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? X Yes No
Address P. O. Box 25201
e.
Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
City Raleigh State NC
river, creek sound, bay) Peletier Creek
Zip 27611 Day Phone [phone]
3.
DESCRIPTION &PLANNED USE
Fax [phone]
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
b.
Authorized Agent:
a.
List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
Name
and excavation and/or filling activities.
Build_ a roadway.
Address
City. State
Zip Day Phone
b.
Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
Fax
New work
C.
Project name (if any) U-2226 Bridges
C.
Will the project be for public, private or
Street Extension
commercial use? Public Transportation
d.
Give a brief description of purpose, use,
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
methods of construction and daily operations
andior project name.
of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages.
Public Transportation
See enclosed cover letter
2.
LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Carteret [I.uj-i.t`':
N 0 V 1 `;t (aaa
Revised 03/95
Mr n

FORM DCM-MP-1
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
4.
LAND AND WATER
Morehead City Wastewater Treatment
CHARACTERISTICS
Facilities
a.
Size of entire tract N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
b.
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
C.
Approximate elevation of tract above MHW
effluent, "wash down", and residential
or NWL 25
discharges.) Surface runoff
d.
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
_
Wando-Seabrook-Kureb Complex
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
e.
Vegetation on tract Marsh grass and'
Morehead City Water Supply
upland forest
f..
Man-made features now on tract Railroad
roads, residential storage buildings
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
g.
What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use
In addition to the completed application form, the
plan) I
following items must be submitted:
_ Conservation X Transitional
Developed _ Community
* A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
Rural Other
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
h.
How is the tract zoned by local government?
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
Primarily 0 and I
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
i.
Is the proposed project consistent with the
from the owner to carry out the project.
applicable zoning? X Yes —No
:(Attach zoning compliance certificate, ifapplicable)
" An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
j.
Has a professional archaeological assessment
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
been done for the tract? X Yes _ No
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 710203 for a
If yes, by whom? NCDOT Archaeolo isg t
detailed description.)
k.
Is the project located in a National Registered
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
Historic District or does it involve a National
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue -line
Register listed or eligible property?
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
Yes X No
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U. S. Army Corps of
1.
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes _ No Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
Coastal (marsh) X Othef X
�, �_drawings�Eb sit location map is a part of plat
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
v irecjdijements an ust be sufficiently detailed to
�:.
(Attach documentation, ifa ailable)
lit
I:
i guide agency persel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95,'....`-/
.—--------------- -- �...,

FORM DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
number, landmarks, and the like.
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
* A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in. which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name See Attached
Address
Phone
Name _
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
* A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
NIA
A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
* A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
A statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act.(N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Revised 03/95
6. CERTIFICATION AND
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON
LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described
in the application. The project will be subject to
conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the.best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I fiuther certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the -2�1—lday of, 19
Print Name H. Franklin Vick P.E.
Signature '
andowner orAuthmzedAgent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
X DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE. Please sigh and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Li�
�0V !:

Form DCM-NIP-2
T -t _
.j j d
Ed 3
AND
{
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other *
(Exclud'urg
shotetine
stabilization)
Average Final
Existing Project
Leneth Width Depth Depth
1260'
106'
*Fill placed in wetlands
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MHW or NWL in cubic yards 15750 c.y.
b. Type of material to be excavated undercut
wetland ,naterial
c. Does the area to be excavated include coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? X Yes _ No.
d. Highground excavation in. cubic yards N
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area Upland site to be
determined by contractor.
b. Dimensions of disposal area N/A
c. Do you claim title to disposal area? N/A
Yes _ No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? —Yes —No N/A
If yes, where?
i
Rev6ed 03195

Form• DCM-MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands? N/A
Yes No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes No N/A
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION, N/A
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
(Source of informapon)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap
(2) Bulkhead backfill
h. Type of fill material
i. Source of fill material
If yes,
(1) -Amount of material to be placed in the
water
(2) Dimensions of fill area N/A
(3), Purpose of fill N/A
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area 1260' x 106'
(2) Purpose of fill To construct roadway
embankment
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material: be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Silt fence and
silt basins
b. What type of construction equipment will be used r
(for example, dragiine, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
Standard roadway construction equipment
c. Will wetlands be cussed in transporting. equipment
to project site? _ Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
n)
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to slt�
X Yes No
Revised 03195
I,rrYYw ..iww w.�wwL wLLl.iiLp..'

FORM DCM-MP-3
UPLAND,
DEVELOPMENT
(Construction and/or land disturbing activities)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major h. Projects that require a CAMA Major Development
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all Pernut may also require a Stormwater Certification.
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to Has a site development plan be submitted to the
this proposed project. Division of Environmental Management for review?
Yes X No
a. Type and number of building, facilities, units or If yes, date submitted
structures proposed N/A
i. Describe proposed methods of sewage disposal.
N/A
b. Number of lots or parcels N/A
j. Have the facilities'described in Item i. above
C. Density (give the number of residential units and received state or local approval? - N/A _.
and the units per acre) N/A (Attach appropriate documentation)
k. Describe location and type of proposed discharges to
d. Size of area to be graded, filled, or disturbed
waters of the state (for example, surface runoff,
including roads, ditches, etc. "2.9 miles x 120'
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent,
42 acres
`wash down" and residential discharges).
Surface runoff
e. If the proposed project will disturb more than one
acre of land, the Division of Land Resources must
receive an erosion and sedimentation control plan
at least 30 days before land disturbing activity
1. Describe proposed drinking water supply source
begins. If applicable, has a sedimentation and
(e.g. well, community, public system, etc.)
erosion control plan been submitted to the N/ A
N/A
Division of Land Resources? _ Yes . - No
If yes, date submitted
m. Will water be impounded? _ Ycs ' X No
f List the materials (such as marl, paver stone,
If yes, how many acres?
asphalt, or concrete) to be used for paved surfaces.
Asphalt
n. If the project is an oceanfront development, when
was the lot(s) platted and recorded? N/A
g. Give the percentage of the tract within 75 feet
of MHW or NWL, or within 575 feet in the NCDOT - U-2226 (Bridges Street Extension)
case of an Outstanding Resource Water, to be Applicant or Project Name
covered by impervious and/or built -upon
surfaces, such as pavement, buildings, rooftops,
or to be used for vehicular drive
parking. 0.02% _i.`.
Signature
ins .. _ _ •. - - [�
Revised 03195
Date
----------------------

,Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to
this proposed project.
1. BRIDGES N/A
a. Public Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL
C. Will proposed bridge replaceian existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
Revised 03195
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
g. Length of proposed bridge
h. Width of proposed bridge
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
j.
k.
Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
Navigation -clearance underneath proposed bridge
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? Yes No
If yes, explain
M. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes No
If yes, explain
n.
Have you contacted the U. S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
0.80O.aW"M66 akruoalbi&�

Form DCM-MP-5
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
Northeast & Northwest Prongs of Peletier Creek
and associates tributaries
b. Number of culverts proposed 5
C. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
Reinforced concrete box culvert - Sites 3 & 5
Reinforced concrete pine - Sites 1, 2 & 6
a
e.
Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert 1-120% 2 & 3-138':
5-158; 6-170'
g. Width of proposed culvert 1-24": 2-18": 3 & 5-6'
6-36"
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL 3'
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
Revised 03/95
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential?
If yes, explain
Yes X No
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 30'
(2) Width of area to be excavated 12'
(3) Depth of area to be excavated 2'
(4) Amount of materia) to be excavated in cubic
yards 30 cubic Yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
X Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetland:
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 266'
(2) Width of area to be excavated 12'
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 450 cubic vards
C. Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
require any bighground excavation?
Yes X No
If yes, '
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
Unland area to be determined by contractor.
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes No N/A
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
�w.r.00-..--..--.....,..n1.14..

-Form l)GM-MP-5
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? _ Yes No NIA
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? _ Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
C. Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
C. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? X Yes No
MHW or NWL? Yes X No If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
X Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 266'
(2) Width of area to be filled- 12'
(3) Purpose of fill Construct roadway
embankment
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Silt fences and silt
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Standard roadway construction
equipment
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on h.
highground? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Mitigation plan is
enclosed Revised 03195
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization? -
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail _
NCDOT - U-2226 (Bridges Street Extension)
Applicant or Project Name
Signature

n 7 " . " 7 &AT T I Un
RirAAlan Lanv
Atlantic and East Coast Railroad
8 North Jefferson Street
Roanoke, VA 24042
Harry M. Smith
4806 Ladies Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557
Robert H. Davenport
1779 A Highvay.24 East
Newport, KC 20S70
Carteret County Planning Department
Courthouse Square
Beaufort, NC 28516
Fir
...........

,, W PO R
JFc
s 0
-w.
B
Br,
Mr. 646.
47
r TTI
VICINITY.AP
LZ
----------
ITEM 12"
SITE
ATE a, &T
17
1 T
G1.
pm I
MAN N TM,0 it
lAl
N.
---- ---------- ----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CARTERET COUNTY
PROJECT 9 ' 8022831 U-2226
B 0 G u E BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
L4 SHEET -I- OF I-L

DENOTES AREA OF FELL IN NOW
a
T 1 o Al- WETLAND 0.66 a
SCALE
O JQ 100
PLAN VIEW
SIT''=IL
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CARTERET COUNTY
PROJECT 9.8022831 U-2226
BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
SHEET ti OF 1

40-
0 '0
0. 2 0 0
12
7z- xx
10-
137 I 38
SITE IF
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLANDS
HORIZONTAL
39
PROFILE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
SCALE! DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CARTERET COUNTY
PROJECT 9.8022831 U-2226
BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
SHEET 3 OF I I

y
60 40 20 0 20 40 60
-26
PROPOSED -24
ROADWAY
EMBANKMENT
-22
,.. i / .20
18
K7=.. DENOTES FILL
IN WETLANDS
Y
.a SECTION n-n -14
40+00 --
.�
0 20 N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
_........ HURZ, SCALE DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CARTERET COUNTY
V E RT SCALE PROJECT 9.8022831 U-2226
0 2 13RIDGES STREET EXTENSION I
SHEET 5< OF i I f

U)
m
NOTES AREA OFF ILL IN
MARSHLAND O-P-e-
DENOTES AREA OFFILLINN.Ufq�
TIDAL WETLANDS.
A
SCALE
0 50 100

I
ai
a.
Il l O
co crj
> io
w X
mcr
(Y
Cj! CL
i
�0
0
uo
o
LAI
w
J
J
Q
Q
J
J
�
U
C)
�_
o
N
w
J Ln
p
LA_ Z
a
V1 J
W F-
� ui
O
Z
w Z
CD -
—
�ITE =
N. C. DEPT.' OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS j
CARTERET COUNTY i
PROJECT 9.8022831 0-2226.;
BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION'
SHEET .6- OF jL_

wro
H O C�
l7ti t7 e
a tz3 H
to m 0 0 < t7
W V .3 > tri
M zmro
M NtOH HH
HH- trf0-
;acoMz
4.,mom O
MNP30'*1
O H co 0 H
0 x Xl
x�cH>
H 707,
M Hxcn
zr... :cro
H N En;3
O N a
m H
60 40 20
1 1 1
SECTION A -A
20 40 60
1 I 1
OTES FILL
NNWETLANDS
0 20
HORIZONTAL. SCALE
VERTICAL SCALE
0 10
—20
— 10

U
_
Ln LLI I
W 1
cC M
0
Z Qo
o�
SITE
/r
I
Nn
f
L'
1 � �,SPORT-kT'
�`'DEPT • OF TR:
C" , SIO?3 OF HIGHWAYS
DIN I COUti'
CO2283,2226
ARET U_
I PROJECS STREET.%T'NSIOA
BRIDG EN OF
SHE-�``—

—1— —/ —
PROF LE
DENOTES FILL
E7= IN WETLANDS
7
PROP.
6RADL -
BED ELEV. 0.57'
PROP. 6 X 6 RCBC
o
10
'� N.G,
50
m HORIZONTAL SCALE
I M�" VERTICAL 5CALF 10
i 0
{.i

60 40 20 (L 20 40 60
—20
r Pk'0110SE D
ROADWAY AND
EMP-ANKMEN T
— 10
SECT 10N A --A
�ro DENOTES FILL
H o IN WETLANDS
G4 l7•
n( w0C�ti to
�]aHh7
tz7tocn�33HH [
H�3• m0• m
r° M N H 0 m b ti HORIZONTAI SCALE
0 H w 0 H ! -
1
" A0Ha M-0y VERTICAL SCALF.
10
M -3 x M a
C.4. Sao
x3
m H i Gib yyAAdd ,
v:
I

SUMMARY SHEET
SITE
STATION
PROPOSED
EAPACTED
INTACTED
FILL IN
STRUCTURE
MARSHLAND
UPLAND
SURFACE
TYPE
WETLANDS
WATER
I.
15+93 -L- TO
24" RCP
0.11 AC.
16+50 -L-
H.
37+50-L- TO
18" RCP
0.66 AC.
41+40 -L-
III.
57+47 -L- TO
6' X 6'
0.22 AC.
0.67 AC.
60+90 -L-
RCBC
IV.
63+50 -L- TO
0.27 AC.
66+30-L-
V.
84+80 -L- TO
6' X 6'
0.80 AC.
0.03 AC.
87+30 -L-
RCBC
VI.
92+70 -L- TO
36" RCP
0.19 AC.
0.11 AC.
TOTALS
1.02 AC.
1.82 AC
0.22 AC.

WOODS
--- WOOnso
_----- „----------'--- _F
�J
0—
rr�c M!1' ili IOP
A 5 '. ..
-----1.
71
l
' I �.1�1�{+�j'�'�� I' 41-Id:1' I! � �li_til' P''t:.�-'1'-ty-'i' t.r'y' t;rJ l' w 'r w r. � ' qr.•r-->�-r-ter ; • , 0 0 i J
6tito�n-�
0 h , ATLANTIC & EAST.. CAROUNA RR ; pp
r ,
r n
,jam �ft•
�'IIr(1, 111 �lllifl�lll II, III�III III III III III III ,II I�I�.11�I�i.f 1�I�ll' Il(0Iff 6111b' i 1. Y.iJI� 10.4110!11'
i`iq, k1
,
. S.i00�
93 Ry
.

6703115611 E
�I �OIW• / ... -
D � II1 tJ 111 tJ llloo
��ll "' ��
—1K gin
QD
+...�,:i 1,61�o5s
II
I I "ASs L NED U 6i
I f
1ilL • I SEA, 1. I, IIU }
I �III�111�111�1 I `
I � �I� � III III � III � III��II � lll,� III � III � III of 111 tJ ll1 � 111� 111 � 111

WOODS
C) In ~
f3
/z W � woods 300, TIER
ISFD
Lam„\
�x
S 67°31'5 " E
— eE \ N �. a .- _ ..,a 3�' E� ', '�. ,i „ �• � .. .`:. ,:.:_:.' a
77
IIII I FDO
n 1 i yam_.1 aZZ
III
r 1
4—J)
---- IE5 Co gP ` 6 f0E Le���pIV Ors , $ Iiflif iFtt tI
\ tZA
o\ll^ill�IITQi,NI�W�('ip' I' 6i IF {i' 'r S� r'
I , c c " iPU 113 It5
P j AIL r -" ,�+°t j'.ip i'{f"'hr• r\'si c�'t
ATLANT/C�& E HIIIGARQIJHA�RR11?I' f
)MOR iY A ti.i.
a
IS �•. i rE. ` t,t �drt, it r36i�C NCf'�'� r`"5 i t
I _.: ° cif<iyl•N �j�;O11s'•, `•= Ili

.1 300'.'TAPER'
III
o0-�
il,
woods � _ \
ATLANTIC & EAST
A)
A.yap
We 1q..1
IP
Elp
350' FULL 0
(b
om!z:--
L_§7031'515'.'E M/LTrrr
14:1
WOODS a �, t.-I � 1,
V6. -1 It
sni, FX7 .07 IV PIP aft, "J'r,
90 -30 -
t
os
TEL PED
CAROUNA RR 11 111.0
3.61 CONC 1-1 �V&�
\�l OR OL10
RR
ic

Z 411 558 016 j
I
Receipt for
Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided
�,.®® Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
mbecl
i1nA
K6 214 C
.1 Star a
ku it
fCode
G S,�O
Postage
Cedified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee'
Return Receipt Shaking
to Wham & Data Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, and Addressee's Address
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
Postmark or Date
a
4:11 558 ❑17
Receipt.for
Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided
eenol.'a..n, Do not use for International Mail
.aa..,.v....r (See Reverser
m
m
t
O
O
eo
rp7
E
`o
LL;
a,
At
In
ff
Ir I Nn
1 0., SI le and ZI
C 2 557
Postage
$
Certified Fee
Special D.1ivcry'Fee
Restricted Dr;li.ery Foe
nature Recnipt Showing
le Whpu, & Dale Delivered
Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Dale, .,.it Addressee's Address
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
is
Postmark or Dale
u-AXA(o
s.
o�
he
c
0
sea
m �
�•
r-9
O
- to m
it..�o=
OU
al.•, U w N
Lin
Al'° > >
Lin
'p) y'a w o
C
(L C
d d o o 0
r9
It C.) z ❑ U—)
S
I3�
Z 411 558 0.118
Receipt for
Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided
wlr- Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
in
• m
t
U
ro
O
O
to
till
IL.
N'
a;
L
3e
o
m a
m a
u 1
pY
b
aj
U O
O �
Cv
�•
y
��41ino'
CCCc1vVVV
`
o
,°,
e E
°
d
Is
E66L 43)eW r008E W1Od Sol,
60i 1504
CtLlrolifir,
2V-
e'
or hJe Shepf
ate an
ZIP Cod VA
1 _{I..LJ 1
P stage
$
Ce•Idied cee
Special Delivery Fee
Resuiclod Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
II, Whom & Data Dclivured
Return Receipt Showing to Whom.
Date, and Addressee's Address
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
Postmark or Date
t
19
Is
Y
44,ai a

r�rai EI t' ���'•
�dC1J 1 1095
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA "W=`Z;LzU W
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION mra••`........nnaaaraai4itll
James B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX25201, RALEIGH. N.0 27611-5201
November 8, 1995
Mr. Charles Jones
N. C. Division of Coastal Management
P. O. Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Jones:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Subject: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and NC 24,
in Morehead City; TIP No. U-2226, State Project No. 9.8022831
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to extend Bridges Street (2.9
miles) in Morehead City between Arendell Street and Country Club Road east of NC 42 (see
enclosed site map). This new four lane 52 foot roadway will be adjacent to the North side of the
Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad.
Find enclosed a copy of the CAMA Permit application, drawings, proposed Mitigation
Plan and copy of the fee check for the above referenced project. As the application indicates, the
project will result in impacts to 2.84 acres of wetlands and 0.22 acres of surface waters at six sites
along the current alignment. The impacts to wetlands include 1.02 acres of brackish marsh (sites
III and V) which are adjacent to two tributaries of Peletier Creek and 1.82 acres of bottomland
hardwood forest. The drainage of this creek is to the south under US 70 eventually discharging
into Bogue Sound.
Construction of bridges at Sites III and V was evaluated. It was determined that this
alternative would add an additional 1.2 million dollars to the project. Therefore, it was concluded
that bridging of these sites would not be economically feasible.
As a result of the above mentioned unavoidable impacts, NCDOT is proposing mitigation
on two intertidal islands within Bogue Sound to compensate for these impacts. The proposed
mitigation areas are located approximately 3,500 feet south of the terminus of the project. The
N

2
enclosed mitigation plans discusses our proposal to plan0approximately 6 acres of these two
islands with smooth cordgrass (SSpartina alterniflora)
As a result, NCDOT is requesting that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal
Area Management (CAMA) Permit. By copy of this letter we are requesting a review and
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC Division of Environmental
Management and Section 404 and Section 10 Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers. If
you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call Scott P. Gottfried at
919-733-3141, Ext. 307.
Sincerel
Z A //j/-
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Scott McClendon, COE
Mr. John Dorney, DEM
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics
Mr. John Smith, PE Structure Design
Mr. Rick Shirley, Division 2 Division Engineer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E:) E H N Ri
Roger N. Schecter, Director
November 21, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning & Environmental Branch
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
RE: Bridges Street Extension
Dear Mr. Vick:
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application
for State approval for development of your property located on the north side of NC Hwy. 70
and the Atlantic & East Carolina Railroad in Morehead City, off Peletier Creek, Carteret
County. It was received on November 17, 1995, and appears to be adequate for processing at
this time. The projected deadline for making a decision is February 1, 1996. An additional 75-
day review period is provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If
you have not been notified of a final action by the initial deadline stated above, you should
consider the review period extended. Under those circumstances, this letter will serve as your
notice of an extended review. However, an additional letter will be provided on or about the
75th day.
NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the
proposed development. Enclosed you will find a "Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must
be posted at the property of your proposed development. You should post this notice at a
conspicuous point along your property where it can be observed from a public road. Some
examples would be: Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of-
way fronting your property; or at a point along the road right-of-way where a private road would
lead one into your property. Failure to post this notice could result in an incomplete application.
An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be
contacted by the appropriate State or Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any
P.O. Box 769, 3441 Arendell St., Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 Courier #11-12-09
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

November 21, 1995
Page #2
questions and notify me in writing if you wish to receive a copy of my field report and/or
comments from reviewing agencies.
Cordially yours,
James L. Mercer
Field Representative
JLM/dh
Enclosure
cc: John Parker
Charles S. Jones

Mitigation Plan
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
November, 1995

.a .
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Description of Proposed Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to extend Bridges
Street (SR1176) in Morehead City from near its present intersection with Arendell Street (US 70)
west -northwestward to the intersection of NC 24. The cross-section of the proposed project is a
four lane, 52-foot wide roadway with curb and gutter on both sides; its length is approximately
2.9 miles. The alignment of the project is north of and generally parallel to the tracks of the
Atlantic and East Carolina Railroad (formerly the North Carolina Railroad). The environmental
impacts of the project were reviewed in the Natural Resource Technical Report (NCDOT 1990)
and the State Environmental Assessment (NCDOT 1991). These documents addressed several
alternate corridors, including a no -build option. A Finding of No Significant Impact for the
proposed project was issued in 1994 (NCDOT 1994).
1.2 Methodology
Natural communities and anthropological resources of the preferred corridor (Alternate 2)
were inventoried during site visits in the spring of 1990 by NCDOT personnel (NCDOT 1990).
Additional investigations of the site were conducted through a search of the literature and other
pertinent resources. Wetlands were delineated using the parameters provided in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (87 Manual)" (DOA 1987). This delineation was verified
by the US Army Corps of Engineers in August, 1994.
During the summer and fall of 1993, NCDOT and Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) personnel initiated`a search for potential wetland mitigation sites to compensate for
unavoidable impacts to existing wetlands resulting from the proposed project. The initial
suggestion was to plant smooth cordgrass on two islands in Bogue Sound. However, other
mitigation measures were discussed and investigated, including expansion of the impacted marsh,
excluding horses from and revegetating portions of Shackleford Banks, or restoring portions of
the Open Grounds Farm. After evaluation of these and other measures, DCM and NCDOT
personnel agreed on a plan to expand an area of intertidal salt marsh on unvegetated portions of
two islands in Bogue Sound to mitigate the proposed project's wetland impacts (Figures 1, 2A,
and 2B).
2.0 Impacted Wetland Resources
A total of 2.84 acres of wetlands and 0.22 acres of surface waters will be impacted by the
construction of the Bridges Street Extension The impacted wetlands consist of 1.02 acres of
brackish marsh dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). Other species present in
lesser amounts are giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), saw grass (Cladium jamaicense),
cat -tail (Typha latifolia), and saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). Under the wetland
classification system utilized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al.
1979), this habitat is classified as E2EM1P (Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Persistent Irregularly

IQ
� 9+tA�i44rJ� Y �n4 m \.r
m y S J
A Wl is
IY1�L.;:Fs•,�? rs��
rr�. ISr'Y
—
1 CREME
in W16.0 ral A Ei'° a. Me �,.
__ PELETIER.�r_
Y MOREHEAD Cl
____________ CREEK ______ _ _
--- ______
V ,
/NTRALYSISTAL-----------
MITIGATION
MITIGATION--" -
AREA A SITE r - --
e 0 c
AREA B ( _
�.' \ h�
IWI71 ��li��l l 11 xr 1 r iol r5:, L,Wrw.
U IIPd4 V'" t , w y fR a+ P%w.�bir 'd•, &i'
0 0 G III �''II r' + ATLANi
P ddaull� lu yllTl'Iy7�r' pr,r i ' I PO9 IR
..+ roI� rvm1Pl4 „ i 6 :r;%/ f . 1 r.P it /.ax
i-0�'4gb9i i�t^AS:u.'14 r,�niPm i. L'`.11� ..._ Y.. .. . ....t i ...,.yi �ru...-.5...� r4,:y�.:i�G'
SGl!
Figure 1. Location of Mitigation Site for TIP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County

w
(ROGUE SOUND
J
IMATE LIMITS OF MITIGATION
AREA A AT LOW TIDE
LOWER E
F ADJACEI
EXISTING•
MARSH '//////////////////. (± 9.2 AC)
0 feet 250
Figure.2A. Mitigation Area A for TIP Pr(ject Number U-2226, Carteret County
I

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF MITIGATION
BOGUE SOUNDAREA B AT LOW TIDE
LOWER ELEVATION
OF ADJACENT
MARSH ±P•e AC
.AR rNJJ
., •Ji.Qp6/x .
J
•vitiw J�'� r4r �7�7
•`uJ4r,4 yt•}K V JA ��^rK r4'1414 yr •� •4. "C
r,"II\ 'ViK r4.W H � /n•4•'4!t i \ .4�hVI
IhJY
Figure 2B. Mitigation Area B for TIP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County

Flooded). This wetland type occurs in two locations immediately north of the railroad tracks
adjacent to the two streams that converge to form Peletier Creek.
Impacts to bottomland hardwood forest wetlands (Cowardin types PFOl/4A and
PFO7/4B, Palustrine Broad -Leaved Deciduous/Needle-Leaved Evergreen/Evergreen,
Temporarily Flooded,Saturated) are 1.82 acres. This community occurs at five sites along the
proposed project corridor, varying in size from 0.03 to 0.67 acres. Dominant canopy species are
red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciva), swamp black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica var. biflora), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), water oak (Quercus nigra), and red bay
(Persea borbonia). Important understory, shrub, and herbaceous components include many of
the species present in the canopy along with Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), sensitive
fern (Onoclea sensibilis), paw -paw (Asimina triloba), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum),
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
3.0 Mitigation Site
As suggested by personnel of DCM, establishment of salt marsh by planting smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alternijlora) on the intertidal portions of two islands (Areas A and B, Figures
2A and 2B) in Bogue Sound is proposed as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts
wetlands as a result of TIP Project U-2226. The proposed islands approximately 3,500 feet south
of Morehead City and approximately 4,000 feet west of the bridge connecting Morehead City and
Atlantic Beach (SR 1182): , The total area proposed for planting is approximately six acres. The
actual acreage will depend on the areas of the islands that lie within the elevation range for
smooth cordgrass survival and growth The locations of the two islands and the areas proposed
for planting are shown on Figure 1.
3.1 Preliminary Studies
3.1.1 Island Dynamics
NCDOT personnel contacted Dr. Edgar W. Garbisch of Environmental Concerns, Inc., to
discuss environmental factors that needed to be evaluated prior to planting smooth cordgrass.
One of the primary factors identified was the long-term stability of the soil surface, that is,
whether the surface is rising or filling. As a result of this -information, NCDOT personnel
designed and conducted a study to evaluate this factor by measuring the elevation of the soil
surface using reference elevations.
Before recording the surface elevations, 38 1-inch diameter plastic pipes were driven into
the soil in unvegetated portions of the mitigation site until they were firmly set. Each pipe was
then cut off so that approximately three feet projected above the surface to provide'a stable
reference elevation for determining the soil elevation. Readings consisted of placing a rigid
straight edge on the soil at the base of each pipe at several angles and recording the distances .
from the top of the pipe to the straight edge during portions of the tidal cycle when the islands
were above the elevation of the water. By this method, the scoured hole that developed at the
base of each pipe was ignored and an average measurement was obtained. Reference elevations

of the areas proposed for planting were taken from April 4, 1994, through January 12, 1995
(Table 1).
The results of the readings indicate that both islands are elevationally stable. Although
some of the points were destroyed or obviously tampered with during the study, the corrected
data indicates that the larger island (Area A) increased in elevation by 0.15 inch and the smaller
island (Area B) decreased in elevation by 0.19 inch. These changes were considered insignificant
and it was concluded that both islands were stable.
3.1.2 Elevations of Proposed Planting Areas
An additional factor affecting the establishment and growth of smooth cordgrass is the
elevation (relative to the tidal range) of the proposed planting area. Smooth cordgrass generally
grows between the elevations of mean tide and mean high tide, although exposure to wave action
can affect the actual elevation range. In the Bogue Sound area of North Carolina, the range of
these elevations is approximately 1.5 feet. On February 28, 1995, a second study was conducted
by NCDOT personnel to determine how much of the unvegetated portions of the two islands lalls
within this range.
Wire flag stakes were placed around the proposed mitigation areas at the edge of the
water when the tide fell to the elevation of the lower limit of nearby existing smooth cordgrass.
After the areas proposed for planting were delineated, they were measured by standard techniques
(coordinate determinations by stadia distances and azimuths) with standard survey equipment.
The areas suitable for planting were then calculated using a survey program on a computer.
The results of this study revealed there are two portions of each island above the elevation
of the lower limit of adjacent stands of smooth cordgrass. These have a combined area of
approximately 12 acres and are depicted on Figures 2A and 2B. However, portions of these areas
are only slightly higher (4-6 inches) than the lower elevation of adjacent stands of smooth
cordgrass and may be only marginally suitable for its establishment. NCDOT personnel contacted
Dr. Stephen Broome, Professor of Soil Science at North Carolina State University, to obtain his
recommendation on how much of the area should be planted. After visiting the proposed
mitigation site, he suggested planting only the highest portions of the 12 acres to increase the
chance for successful establishment of smooth cordgrass. The total area identified as being most
suitable for planting was reduced to approximately six acres. This includes five acres on Area A
and one acre on Area B (Figures 2A and 2B).
3.2 Mitigation Site Existing Conditions
3 2.1 Soils
The soils of the mitigation site are Carteret sand, which is described in the soil survey for
Carteret County as very poorly drained and nearly level (USDA 1987). This soil typically occurs
in the intertidal zone on the sound side of the Outer Banks at elevations below 1 foot (mwl). The

v
Height from Top of Pipe to Estimated Surface
Area of the Sand (In Inches) for the Given Oates
(Larne Island%
Point Number
4/19/94
6/2 1194
8/3194 9/20/94
10/17/94
11121/94 1l12/95
11
15
15
Point
Mlssin
" 12
24
23
23
24
23
23
22
13
24
12
24
23
23
25
22
14
20
17
17
18
18
17
18
15
30
31
29
28
28
28
28
16
16
28
28
31
31
32
31
17
24
24
30
30
28
31
27
18
21
20
20
22
22
25
23
19
29
27
27
26
30
31
29
20
25
13
23
23
25
27
24
21
20
20
21
21
21
22
21
22
21
22
25
26
27
28
26
23
21
24
26
24
25
28
27
24
12
10
Missin
25
23
21
18
18
24
25
1 24
26
20
19
14
46
46
1 42
27
23
21
22
Missin
28
20
Missing
21
25
29
21
Point Lost
21
30
31
24
23 livissingi
Missing
18
16 1
Missing
Missing
Area B
(Small Islandl
Point Number
4119/94
6121194
8/3194
9/20/94 10/17/94
11/21/94 1/12/95
32
12
13
10
miss]n
33
22
38
36
38
37
37
35
34
20
22
15
.18
20
35
21
18
21
21
19
22
36
19
18
18
19
19
- 26
37
25
24
28
32
25
30
22
38
23
24
26
29
27
25
26
39
24
22
24
22
23
23
40
22
21
11 21
22
22
22
22
41
20
23
23
21
22
21
42
23
20
26
Point Lost
17
43
13
17
16
18 1 15
17
44
18
Missing
45
15
15
Mlssin
46
13
13
Mlssin
47
22
Missin
48
14
14 15 Missin
Changes In Elevation (in inches)
oed...r r
Apr -June
June -Au
Au -Se
Se -Oct
Oct -Nov
NovJan
Chaise
0
0.0
0
1
0.3
Error
Error
1
0
-2
3
0.5
3
0
-1
0
1
•1
0.3
-1
2
1
0
0
0
0.3
Error
0
-3
0
•1
1
-0.6
0
-8
0
2
-3
4
-0.5
1
0
-2
0
-3
2
-0.3
2
0
1
-4
.1
2
0.0
Enor
Error
0
-2
-2
3
-0.3
0
.1
0
0
=1
1
-0.2
-1
-3
.1
•1
-1
2
-0.8
-3
.2
2
•1
-3
1
•1.q
2
2.0
2
3
q
.6
-1
1
-0.2
1
6
Error
3.0
2
0
Error
0
0
Error
Imn
0
Error
uveran Average 0.15
Apr -June
Ju a -Au
Au •Se t
Se -Oct
Ocl Nov
Nov -Jan
Change
-1
3
1.0
Error
0
- -2
1
0
2
0.2
-2
7
.3
0
.5
3
-3
2
0.7
1
0
-1
0
•7
-1.4
1
-4
-4
7
S
8
0.5
-1
-2
-3
2
2
.1
•0.5
Error
-2
2
-1.
0
-0.3
1
0
.1
0
-3
0
2
-i
•0.5
3
.6
.1.5
.4
1
.2
3
•0.5
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
-1.0
yvm an Average •U.19
Table 1. Reference Elevations of Mitigation Areas A and B, April 4, 1994 - January 12, 1995

water table is at or near the surface continuously, and the soil is flooded daily by ocean tides. Salt
concentration is 25 to 30 parts per thousand, and the dominant vegetation is smooth cordgrass.
3.2.2 Vegetation
As described previously, the majority of the proposed mitigation area is currently
unvegetated. On Area A (the larger island, Figure 2A), a few scattered individual seedlings
and/or culms emerging from smooth cordgrass rhizomes occur at the western end of the area
proposed for planting. Area B (Figure 2B) is totally unvegetated and is separated from adjacent
areas of existing smooth cordgrass by a 4-to-5 foot deep channel.
3.2.3 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Under the wetland classification system utilized by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (Cowardin et a11979), the mitigation site is classified as wetland type E2US2N
(Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore Sand Regularly Flooded). This classification of
habitat is described as sand flats usually derived from beach overwash and thus located leeward of
barrier islands; exposed during low tides. Portions of the site may contain unconsolidated
dredged material from the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway and thus would be classified as
E2US3P (Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore Mud Irregularly Flooded, NCDNRCD,
1988), although there is no visual indication of past dredge spoil disposal on the mitigation site.
3 2.4 Ownership
According to the Carteret County tax records and property maps, Area A is owned by
NCDOT. Area B, although not owned by NCDOT, is under the ownership by the State of North
Carolina by virtue of being below mean high tide.
4.0 Mitigation Plan
4.1 Hydrological Restoration
Because both Areas A and B are below the elevation of mean high tide, no hydrological
restoration is proposed or needed. As described by the Soil Survey for Carteret County (USDA
1987), the water table is at or near the surface continuously.
4.2 Plant Community Establishment
Approximately six acres of the mitigation area (Five acres of Area A and one acre of Area
B) will be planted with smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) during the spring of 1996. Local
plant material will be utilized and planted on a 2'x2' grid spacing, resulting in a density of 10,890
plants per acre. Depending on availability, planting material will be either greenhouse -grown from
seed or collected from existing marshes in the region. A slow release fertilizer will be applied to

{
a
1
each plant at the time of planting to enhance growth and survival. Areas planted will be restricted
to those where smooth cordgrass has not become naturally established.
5.0 Monitoring Plan
5.1 Hydrological Monitoring
No hydrological monitoring is proposed because no hydrological restoration is proposed.
5.2 Vegetation Monitoring
5.2.1 Reference System Plots
Prior to the time of planting the mitigation site, reference plots will be established in
existing, adjacent stands of smooth cordgrass. The purpose of these plots will be to determine
baseline conditions for the success of smooth cordgrass in the area.
NCDOT will utilize qualified consultants to determine the number of plots required and
the environmental variables to be measured, such as density, height, and biomass. Other variables
possibly to be measured are elevation, soil conditions, and exposure to wave action. The
variables to be measured will be determined after consultation with appropriate resource and
regulatory agencies and the consultant(s).
5 2.2 Mitigation Site Plots
Sample plots will be placed within the planted areas of both areas of the mitigation site to
evaluate the results. The variables measured in the reference plots will also be measured in these
plots. The precise number and locations of these plots will be determined after consultation with
appropriate resource and regulatory agencies and the consultant(s). The sample plots will be
monitored during late summer each year for three years after planting.
5.2.3 Success Criteria
The success of the mitigation site will be based on the measured variables in the sample
plots falling within 25% of those of the reference plots at the end of three growing seasons. If the
success criteria are not met, then NCDOT personnel will confer with appropriate resource and
regulatory agencies to develop an appropriate plan ofremediation, if needed.
6.0 Report Preparation and Submittal
An annual report for the mitigation area, including photographs, will be prepared each fall
after field monitoring activities are completed. Copies of this report will be submitted to the
appropriate resource and regulatory agencies by January 31 of the following year for three years
after planting the mitigation site.

7.0 Dispensation of Property
No dispensation of the mitigation site is proposed. The proposed mitigation areas of both
islands are below mean high tide and are thus not subject to private ownership, development, or
predicted man -induced disturbances.
8.0 References Cited I
-
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department
of Interior.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (NCDNRCD).
1988. National Wetlands Inventory. Notes to Users. 8pp. Unpublished notes.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1990. Natural Resource Technical
Report U-2226. Westward Extension of Bridges Street (SR 1176). TIP Project # U-2226,
State Project Number 9.8022831, October 22, 1990. 24 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1991. State Environmental Assessment.
Morehead City, Bridges Street Extension Between Arendell Street and NC 24, Carteret
County. 39 pp. plus Appendices.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1994. Administrative Action. Finding
of No Significant Impact. Morehead City, Bridges Street Extension from Arendell Street
to NC 24, Carteret County, State Project 9.8022831, TIP # U-2226. 12 pp. plus Figures,
Tables, and Appendix.
Page, R. W. and L. S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement Between EPA and the DOE
Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act, Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Washington, DC.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1987. Soil Survey of Carteret County, North Carolina,
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service.
10

D
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
DEPARTMENT OF
JAMES B. HUM JIL
GOVERNOR
M&IvIORANDUM TO:
I
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX2520L RALEIGH. N.0 27611-5201
March 11.1996
File
Alice Gordon
Planning and Environmental Branch
5 1996
GARLAND B. GAaaerr JR
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between
Arendell Street and NC 24, in Morehead City; TIP No.
U-2226, State Project No. 9.8022831
There will be a meeting to review the proposed site of the relocation of the Norfolk
Southern Corporation, Edgewater storage tracks from their existing site to a location
approximately 1.5 miles west. Wilber Smith and Associates, consultants to Norfolk
Southern has evaluated the proposed site and determined that no wetlands are present.
The purpose of the site visit is to confirm their findings. We will meet in the parking lot of
the North Carolina, Marine Fisheries Building on Arendell Street in Morehead City at
11:00 am on Monday, March 18. Attached are maps depicting the proposed site and the
location of the meeting.
Thank you for your continued assistance with this project. If anyone has any questions,
please contact me at [phone], extension 307.
cc: Eric Galamb, DEM, Raleigh
David Cox, WCR, Raleigh
Jim Mercer, DCM, Morehead City
Doug Hugget4 DCM, Raleigh
Scott McLendon, USCOE, Wilmington
Catherine Doak, USFWS. Raleigh
David W1lver, Wilber Smith and Associates, Raleigh

i+ -
r V � ,.. ... ,.

�j
T CrNi
�� f •,t � 1 .. f��
lY • tY
r
I. ���>:+Y41, -rye R_J F,n• i �� i+'M` +% � S • \ '� . � � R ���
MoREHEADGI�y
�...,� a`q
sp ,,
010
a, w�plTaL � it. ' j ��TH CAPOLNAM
` • NINE``
1I�
ROJECT LIMITOLL _ ,• F��'� s
�1
i
4F--IR�
•PftEND-rise �+.�:,.3""��"
i + vO CHOLYA DPROP
ST
DIVISION '.".WA"
�
-- s' ��-N.. •`IHAVNINC AVD&\YfRDNN}:vTAL � r.
3' BRANCH C
-`� - US TO,. UNIVERSITY OF Ya MOREHEAD CITY
I_ NORTHCAROUNA�
RESEARCH ESEARCN LAB BRIDGES STREET EXTENSION
`^��R+r} BETWEEN ARENDELL STREET AND NC 21
^,. CARTERET GOMMUNITYPCOLLECE'' RM CARTERET COUNTY
U-2226
1 \mil i t._ I •R
�g_2 MAR1S1996 I{

w
- .. - . �.. - — •..-. +c^g,.:r_,..— a _. ..
t �•At �,�

v �/ • �Ysaa«.
211
SCALE 1:12,000 WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
[ EOGEWATER STORAGE TRACKS RELOCATION
AR 1 5 tATiIE MOREHEADPROJECT 98IT�� ORTH �ROLINACOUNTY
6110I 00*0,40d.„••4§ ii&i ,.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Charles Jones
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 29, 1996
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
3411 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Jones:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Subject: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and
NC 24, in Morehead City; TIP No. U-2226, State Project No. 9.8022831
This letter is in response to your request for additional information dated January 30, 1996
for the subject project. The Norfolk Southern Corporation has opted to relocate the
Edgewater storage tracks from the existing location near the project site to a location
approximately 1.5 miles west. The potential for wetlands at the relocation project was
evaluated by Wilbur Smith Associates, consultant to Norfolk Southern Corporation. On
January 19, 1996 Wilbur Smith Associates conducted a field reconnaissance of the area
for the proposed improvements associated with the 1,308 feet of relocation of the
Edgewater storage tracks. In addition, wetland inventory mapping was reviewed. The
field and mapping investigations revealed that impacts to wetlands, as a result of the track
relocation, were not anticipated.
A copy of the information from Wilbur Smith Associates is enclosed with this letter. We
understand that following receipt of this information and in compliance with
T15A:07J.0204(d), the permit processing clock will begin at the point where it terminated.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844, Ext. 307.
Sincer
lHv
. Franklin Vlck, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Enclosures:
OW
OW
cc: Doug Huggett, DCM, Raleigh

- -- -�_ E,-96 TUE 14:23 WIL.BUR. SMITH ASSOCIATES P.02
-� ASSOCATES
P.
X 2418 .IGIi 81 f , : • , ENGINEERS PLANNERS
St.ttE 9 t o ltAi.'•!�;!.!. r'!i : � 7n: i�• '
rAX
1 d32•e798
February 6, 1996
. Phil Decker
DeSiP & Construction
Norfolk Southern Corporation
99 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
SURIECT: Morehead City, North Carolina
Proposed Relocation ofEd(;ewater Storagc Tracks
Carteret County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Drake:
on January 19, 1996, Wilbur Smith Associates conducted a field reconnaissance of the area for the
Proposed improvements associated with the 1,308 feet of track relocation relative to the Edgewater
storage tracks in Morehead City, NC. Also, wetland inventory inuring was reviewed. Thtisc
investigations revealed that impacts to wetlands, as a result of the proposed improvements, are not
anticipated.
Copies ofth@ wetland inventory map and photographs 01 the project site are included for ynur files.
Should you require additional information, do not hasitate to contact us.
Respectfidly submitted,
WELBUR SMITH ASSOCIATFS
� � r
David L. Wilver, P.E.
Project Engineer
DLW/al
vvA FA6Mk rtP.LM
Attachments
ANV-NV . AMANOl•()IJ (.Mk(:.Ir.YI• :'iii�I•i 4e. C:
:J51ON. iX •IV PJ NI . JA:..VVINVII I I . II.xvgl., !r. ... ......
INfgPpl'S. I,RJ NrFNAII. WI - NIW tiAVIN..'I .. Aru ..
fK71.NC • NIC7M(1JIS,VA . 12V'Itllr,('!. • IK::.I! t ...LJ:I�+;.;... ... ..
:. '�:... IA11g r•l luCt Jl, IN IIONC ItVN(;
•II `.: ` , :.^.hA% It:ti ANt;I n rA . MI.9M1, I't
1111 I, NI I !•!Ipyll Sl Nf'r, 2
I;IaPtOVEF-OWNED COMPANY

• .�
�:.�.�.v.��s T.+.�.- .�-�-y .emu \�..�n�.r...�
.....r'..s �...'eY..i. �-"ceY>�S"s!� - :. �F �.7 +Vs._.r-:un..� � q, y.{E. w

IUE 14:24 .WILBUR 8PIIT" ASSOCIATES
F_ 03
�• mar
Ili? • ! .i' .:� ,.�:: •••� � •.''- .•ti � ,:�;
Rt
SITE.
ti•' -i, � .,¢-' :. .•` Wit.. u. :.:� •f a � �.
: '�• ..ice P'.Z'. `. .• •' ' '•% • '•7• If
7/a �P119 i • •.
SCALE 1: 12,000 WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP
- EDGEWATER STORAGE -TRACKS RELOCATION
STATE PROJECT 9.8022831 - CARTEHET COUNTY
MOREHEAD CITY, NORTH CAROLINA

NLUUI L MIKUL ULNV Fax: [phone](b1 Mar Lu -w 13;ub r.ui
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE
211 SOUTH GLENBURNIE ROAD
NEW BERN, N.C. 28560
TEL. NO.: (919) 5144759
FAX NO.: (919) 5144761
TO: Qyn4ld
FAX #: o?Y7-33 30
LOCATION:
FROM:
TITLE:
SUBJECT: _
PROJECT NO.:
COMMENTS:
TODAYS DATE: -"120
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 3
ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW: YES NO

NLDUI WWaIRULUUN Fax:91`l-514-41bl mar Yu 'yr 10:u0
:tee'
SPATE OF NORTH CAROI.INA
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.
GovrRNOR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
211 South Glenbumie Road
New Bern, N.C. 28560 (919)5144759
March 20, 1997
Mr. Jim Mangus
Barrus Construction Company
Post Office Box 399
Kinston, North Carolina 28502
Dear Mr. Mangus:
r. Uc
GARUIND B. GARam JR.
SkL=ARY
Project 9.8022831 (U2226) — Bridges Street Extension From NC24 To
Existing Bridges Street In Morehead City
The Preconstruction Conference for this project is scheduled for Tuesday, March 25,
1997 at 10:00 A.M. at the Craven County Maintenance Yard located at 231 South
Glenburnie Road, New Bern, N.C.
Sincerely,
Q( , Al. d#,*
Dwayne H. Alligood, PE
Resident Engineer
DHA:swc
cc: Mr. C.E. Lassiter, Jr., PE, Division Engineer
Mr. L. A. Sanderson, PE, State Highway Construction and Materials Engineer
Mr. E. B. Latham, PE, Division Construction Engineer
Mr. H. L. Davis, PE, Bridge Construction Engineer
Mr. J.C. Manning, PE, Area Roadway Engineer
Mr. R-W_ Reaves, PE, State Materials Engineer
Mr. Ted Sherrod, Area Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. Albert Joyner, Division Right -of -Way Agent
Mr. Aydren Flowers, Right -of -Way Utilities Department
Mr. Greg Stevens, Utilities Section
Mr. Bill Watson, Section Materials Specialist

NCDOT CONSTRUCTION Fax:919—bI4-4(b1 mar zu 'w is:ur r.u3
December 2Z,1995
Page 2
cc: Mr. Keith Harrell, Division Two QA Supervisor
Mr. Charles Jones, CAMA Representative
Mr. Scott McLendon, Army Corp of Engineers
Mr. Greg Groce, Norfolk Southern Railway
Mr. Bruce Nobles, Carolina Power & Light
Mr. John Meiton, Sprint/Carolina Power & Light
Mr. Joe Clayton, Town of Morehead City
Mr. Joe Green, Time Warner Cable
Mr. John Hill, Carteret/Craven S.M.C.

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Mr. Charles Jones
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 769
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Sir:
March 18, 1997 L
1 9 1997 "!i1
SUBJECT: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and NC 24
in Morehead City, TIP No. U-2226, State Project No. 9.8022831, Bogue Sound
Mitigation Site, Annual Monitoring Report
The Annual Monitoring Report for the Bogue Sound Mitigation Site is attached hereto. The mitigation site
is located in Carteret County, approximately 3,500 feet south of Morehead City and 4,000 feet west of the
bridge connecting Morehead City and Atlantic Beach. Refer to Figure I for the site location. Mitigation
involved creation of 5.9 acres of salt marsh.
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, vegetative monitoring must be conducted until success
criteria is met. Success criteria is 75% frequency and cover of Spartina alterniijlora with respect to the
reference areas.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Schiller at [phone] ext. 280.
Sin cerely( 10-A-
Thomas E. Devens, P.E.
Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosures (3)
cc: (with one copy of enclosure)
Mr. John Parker, DCM
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACOE
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., NCDOT, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. Bill Johnson, NCDOT, State Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., NCDOT. State Hydraulic Engineer
Mr. Neal Lassiter, P.E., Division Engineer, Division 2
A

MAR 1 9 1997
Annual Monitoring Report s��,tu�LSl] 17Lj;J
1996�°°a°' ° •tawwaaaaarrs
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
. Carteret County
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
COE Action ID Number 199602568
CAMA Permit Number 50-96
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
February, 1997

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling approximately 1.02
acres (0.41 ha) of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black needlerush (Juncus
roemerianus). The wetland mitigation plan that was submitted with the permit application
specified that approximately six acres (2.43 ha) of salt marsh would be established by
planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterni.Jlora) on the intertidal portions of two islands in
Bogue Sound as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP
Project U-2226. The purpose of this report is to comply with the detailed monitoring plan for
the mitigation site that was submitted on April 25, 1996.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The mitigation site is located approximately 3,500 feet (1067 m) south of Morehead
City and approximately 4,000 feet (1220 m) west of the bridge connecting Morehead City
and Atlantic Beach (SR 1182). The location is shown on Figure 1. Although the mitigation
plan specified that salt marsh would be established on two islands in Bogue Sound (Site A
and Site B), conditions encountered at the time of planting dictated that all mitigation
activities take place on Site A.
3.0 SAMPLING TRANSECTS
Five sampling transects were established on May 29, 1996, within the planted area.
Each transect was 30m long and oriented north -south. The ends were marked with wooden
stakes driven firmly into the ground. Transects were numbered I (Planted) through 5P.
Five identical transects were established to the west of the planted area in existing marsh.
These transects were numbered 1R (Reference) through 51Z and this area was to be used as a
reference for the determination of success. Transect locations and establishment was
coordinated with Mr. Ted Tyndall of the Morehead City office of the Division of Coastal
Management. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 2.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The mitigation site was monitored on August 22, 1996, and again on October 14,
1996. After discovering that the August monitoring was conducted prior to the September
schedule as specified in the monitoring plan, a second monitoring trip was scheduled for
September. However, Hurricane Fran delayed that trip until October. Thus, two sets of data
were collected; the first a week early and the second two weeks late. Table 1 summarizes
data collected in August, 1996, and Table 2 summarizes data collected in October, 1996

Table 1. August, 1996, Monitoring Results
Reference Area
T I-angect" -,� ,
i
7�g6tvv�rk�( 0,
IR
33.3
30.8
2R
33.3
33.3
3R
50.0
35.8
4R
83.3
83.3
5R
100.0
39.8
Ave ge'
-6
44.6 %
j Stic6ess,Cntena= J
45A
.5
Planted Area
ranse
-F
'Aveiake Coverage�`(O/o)
IP
16.7
0.7
2P
33.3
1.3
3P
50.0
2.7
4P
33.3
2.0
5P
16.7
0.7
7Xviiiiie T"T 'j,
L
f3
Table 2. October, 1996, Monitoring Results
Reference Area
F reque cy
oVerag4N.""
IR
30.0
25.8
2R
30.0
15.8
3R
30.0
13.3
4R
66.7
53.3
5R
100.0
42.5
-Avers ge
300
22-.5
Planted Area
nsect
",7'.Ere quency,(,0/o'
Co era '(
Average rage; %
IP
0.0
0.0
2P
0.0
0.0
3P
16.7
0.7
4P
0.0
0.0
5P
0.0
0.0
fe -13
013

In August, the frequency of occurrence of the reference area was 60.0 % and the'
average cover was 44.6 %. The success criteria is that the respective variables in the
planted area be at least 75% of these values, (45.0% and 33.5%, respectively). The
frequency of occurrence of the planted area was 30.0 % and the average cover was 1.5%.
In October, the frequency of occurrence of the reference area was 53.3 % and the average
cover was 30.0 %. The frequency of occurrence of the planted area was 3.3 % and the
average cover was 0.13%.
Although the success criteria for frequency was nearly reached during the August
monitoring period (30.0 vs. 45.0%), the average cover of 1.5% was far below the required
value of 44.6%. This would be expected in newly established areas where the.plants
occur as individuals but have not had time to develop maximum foliar density. Although
the value for frequency in the reference area in October was only slightly lower than that
during August (53.3 vs. 60.0%), frequency in the planted area decreased significantly
from August to October (30.0 to 3.3).
Hurricane Bertha passed through the area on July 12, 1996, although damage to
the site appeared to be minimal. Sand accretion was noted along the east side of the
planted area, primarily in areas near the biologs. As shown in the As -Built Report,
spartina plants were well established over most of the site. However, Hurricane Fran
(September 5) and tropical depression Josephine (October 9) apparently caused more
extensive damage, as the frequency and average cover of both the reference and planted
areas declined.
During the October monitoring, only one clump of spartina was observed on the
five transects in the planted area. However, removal of several inches of sand from the
surface in bare areas usually revealed the presence of plants, indicating that sand
accretion rather that spartina mortality was the cause of the low values of frequency and
cover.
NCDOT personnel discussed this issue with Dr. Steve Broome, Professor of Soil
Science at NC State University. Dr. Broome's opinion was that the sand accretion would
probably not affect the dormant rhizomes, and that the plants would probably appear
during the onset of the 1997 growing season. Also, the accretion of sand over the site
may have a positive effect and increase plant growth.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The dynamic nature of the estuarine system, the apparent increase in elevation
resulting from sand accretion, and the presence of buried plants provide an opportunity
for increased growth of spartina on the mitigation site. Considering the unusual
occurrence of two hurricanes and a tropical depression within a three-month period, the
site appears to have fared reasonably well. Scheduled monitoring during 1997 and 1998
will be conducted.

6.0 PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of the mitigation site were taken concurrent with the October
monitoring. These are reproduced in Photos 1- 7.

O�
.--�
p
O
U
N
C,
Fri
W
tom.
.�
b
3
0
3
.�.
Vl
O
.�
a
"t
O�
O�
.-.
N
O
N
Ca
Fri
W
H
.�
c
3
0
3
O
Qr

Photo 7. View toward south in reference area. October. 1996.

P9 'u low t � a' ,nernn,.� ., __.—++�. >' rv� P y VZ�`q/
uu a +f AR1iE'^x•414
r s RIP a ur 1. d an ` U,
_, '• � a . �. 9Q � �-� t S� cRess:�� �
i ,W o.n nr 0 s. .� LQ -te. P�J} � •dew f. �� ♦ t Y^'!h`- 1\
o,
_..uivmu 8 Im r.a+ ru
a
PELETIER
.£k f'FHfbG YjY,$'^yse.S. 3Px y,.X 1
ram^
LLJ
4 K
_---------_-_-_-_-_-_-_-CREEK ____:."_______`y`.";� _
u>. MOR
__________ HEAD Clrr�
ru
Y;
_ a.
a ,
L\TRACOASTAL _____i__,:;'____ � \`.. T�`Z� `�= :�vq• r�
MITIGATION i---
AREA A SITE ate`
e o G U e� 1
O --_
milli i,61111IIN 1.1h,
ei , f \' f ! .....,!ram• �6. ,� - r
p G A if E w.. a, „rya• l
B Y IATLANTIC BEACH a'��,r �.� ��. ' f "•
k POP 941
SCALE
0 IM4!
Figure 1. Location of Mitigation Site for UP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County

r:
T
Approxlmote location of intertidal Island at low
m m m
RI SCALE
R.0
U-2226
r
Existing Marsh
Planted Marsh May -June 69%
Monitoring Transects 2R
rigure 2.

MAR 1 9 1997
Annual Monitoring Report "Lu-7
1996 •••••••••••'••••••+••.r.••.rr
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
COE Action ID Number 199602568
CAMA Permit Number 50-96
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
February, 1997

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling approximately 1.02
acres (0.41 ha) of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black needlerush (Juncus
roemerianus). The wetland mitigation plan that was submitted with the permit application
specified that approximately six acres (2.43 ha) of salt marsh would be established by
planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) on the intertidal portions of two islands in
Bogue Sound as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP
Project U-2226. The purpose of this report is to comply with the detailed monitoring plan for
the mitigation site that was submitted on April 25, 1996.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The mitigation site is located approximately 3,500 feet (1067 m) south of Morehead
City and approximately 4,000 feet (1220 m) west of the bridge connecting Morehead City
and Atlantic Beach (SR 1182). The location is shown on Figure 1. Although the mitigation
plan specified that salt marsh would be established on two islands in Bogue Sound (Site A
and Site B), conditions encountered at the time of planting dictated that all mitigation
activities take place on Site A.
3.0 SAMPLING TRANSECTS
Five sampling transects were established on May 29, 1996, within the planted area.
Each transect was 30m long and oriented north -south. The ends were marked with wooden
stakes driven firmly into the ground. Transects were numbered 1P (Planted) through 5P.
Five identical transects were established to the west of the planted area in existing marsh.
These transects were numbered 1R (Reference) through 5R and this area was to be used as a
reference for the determination of success. Transect locations and establishment was
coordinated with Mr. Ted Tyndall of the Morehead City office of the Division of Coastal
Management. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 2.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The mitigation site was monitored on August 22, 1996, and again on October 14,
1996. After discovering that the August monitoring was conducted prior to the September
schedule as specified in the monitoring plan, a second monitoring trip was scheduled for
September. However, Hurricane Fran delayed that trip until October. Thus, two sets of data
were collected; the first a week early and the second two weeks late. Table 1 summarizes
data collected in August, 1996, and Table 2 summarizes data collected in October, 1996

Table 1. August, 1996, Monitoring Results
Reference Area
Transecf. .
µ.. „_. Fre uen . % , . :r .
Avem a Coyera ile
1R
33.3
30.8
2R
33.3
33.3
3R
50.0
35.8
4R
83.3
83.3
5R
100.0
39.8
Ayerage:,
'66.0
44i6
Success Criteria
45.0 , . -, _`
.' 315
Planted Area
.: Z
ransect,.::
Fre uenc " %
" -Avera a 6vera e' % `.:'
1P
16.7
0.7
2P
33.3
1.3
3P
50.0
2.7
4P
33.3
2.0
5P
16.7
0.7
Av_era e"
30A f
1.5- t
Table 2.October, 1996, Monitoring Results
Reference Area
Transect . ;."'
_=m .= Fre nen % .. nws
n.;
"'"Avers" a Go`vera C`
I
30.0
25.8
2R
30.0
15.8
3R
30.0
13.3
4R
66.7
53.3
5R
100.0
42.5
verage
Success Criteria .
40.0,,F, 4
22.5
Planted Area
Transecf''
Ayers a CoXera `e %-:
1 P
0.0
0.0
2P
0.0
0.0
3P
16.7
0.7
4P
0.0
0.0
5P
0.0
0.0
Fi'vera' a
7 _13 . 7
0.13

In August, the frequency of occurrence of the reference area was 60.0 % and the
average cover was 44.6 %. The success criteria is that the respective variables in the
planted area be at least 75% of these values, (45.0% and 33.5%, respectively). The
frequency of occurrence of the planted area was 30.0 % and the average cover was 1.5%.
In October, the frequency of occurrence of the reference area was 53.3 % and the average
cover was 30.0 %. The frequency of occurrence of the planted area was 3.3 % and the
average cover was 0.13%.
Although the success criteria for frequency was nearly reached during the August
monitoring period (30.0 vs. 45.0%), the average cover of 1.5% was far below the required
value of 44.6%. This would be expected in newly established areas where the plants
occur as individuals but have not had time to develop maximum foliar density. Although
the value for frequency in the reference area in October was only slightly lower than that
during August (53.3 vs. 60.0%), frequency in the planted area decreased significantly
from August to October (30.0 to 3.3).
Hurricane Bertha passed through the area on July 12, 1996, although damage to
the site appeared to be minimal. Sand accretion was noted along the east side of the
planted area, primarily in areas near the biologs. As shown in the As -Built Report,
spartina plants were well established over most of the site. However, Hurricane Fran
(September 5) and tropical depression Josephine (October 9) apparently caused more
extensive -damage, as the frequency and average cover of both the reference and planted
areas declined.
During the October monitoring, only one clump of spartina was observed on the
five transects in the planted area. However, removal of several inches of sand from the
surface in bare areas usually revealed the presence of plants, indicating that sand
accretion rather that spartina mortality was the cause of the low values of frequency and
cover.
NCDOT personnel discussed this issue with Dr. Steve Broome, Professor of Soil
Science at NC State University. Dr. Broome's opinion was that the sand accretion would
probably not affect the dormant rhizomes, and that the plants would probably appear
during the onset of the 1997 growing season. Also, the accretion of sand over the site
may have a positive effect and increase plant growth.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The dynamic nature of the estuarine system, the apparent increase in elevation
resulting from sand accretion, and the presence of buried plants provide an opportunity
for increased growth of spartina on the mitigation site. Considering the unusual
occurrence of two hurricanes and a tropical depression within a three-month period, the
site appears to have fared reasonably well. Scheduled monitoring during 1997 and 1998
will be conducted.

6.0 PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of the mitigation site were taken concurrent with the October
monitoring. These are reproduced in Photos 1- 7.

I

M
CI -I

C.
-NA
tt

V-
Photo 7. View toward south in reference area October. 1996.

-4,
iz,
Or
UM
MOREHEAD Cl
PELETIER-'-'-" M, MP. 4,359
------------------- CREEK ---------
---------------
------------------------------ -------
aL
--------
INT COM .AL ---
MITIGATION
AREA A SITE
B 0 G U E
Y
0
`4
7 1
W
14,
0 G E E., i ATLANTIC BEACH
MP.941
SCAU
0 WI
Figure 1. Location of Mitigation Site for TIP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County

U-222
Approximate location of Intertidal Island at low
50 0 Existing Marsh r r-r r }
Planted Marsh May -June 1996
Monitoring Transects —2R
RI SCALE Figure 2.

OCT 1 6 1996
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.0 27611-5201 SECRETARY
Mr. Charles Jones September 30, 1996
(t C"
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 56 , 9
Dear Mr. Jones:
SUBJECT: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and
NC 24 in Morehead City, TIP No. U-2226, State Project No. 9.8022831,
Wetland Mitigation As -Built Report
Please find enclosed three copies of the as -built for the above -cited project. This
report describes the mitigation site as it was constructed during the period from May 6-
June 20, 1996.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please
contact David Schiller at 733-7844, Extension 280.
Sincere
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Enclosures (3)
cc: (with one copy of enclosure)
Mr. John Parker, DCM
Mr. John Domey, DWQ
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACOE
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., NCDOT, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. Bill Johnson, NCDOT, State Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., NCDOT, State Hydraulics Engineer
Mr. Rick Shirley, Division Engineer, Division 2

_. ...:3,.� �
t
i
tv� �'

As -Built Report of Wetland Mitigation
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
COE Action ID Number 199602568
CAMA Permit Number 50-96
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Trahsportation
September 18, 1996

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation .
(NCDOT) applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling
approximately 1.02 acres (0.41 ha) of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). The wetland mitigation plan that was submitted with
the permit application specified that approximately six acres (2.43 ha) of salt marsh
would be established by planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) on the
intertidal portions of two islands in Bogue Sound as compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP Project U-2226. The detailed monitoring
plan for this mitigation site was submitted on April 25, 1996.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The mitigation site is located approximately 3,500 feet (1067 m) south of
Morehead City and approximately 4,000 feet (1220 m) west of the bridge connecting
Morehead City and Atlantic Beach (SR 1182). The location is shown on Figure 1.
Although the mitigation plan specified that salt marsh would be established on
two islands in Bogue Sound (Site A and Site B), conditions encountered at the time of
planting required that all mitigation activities take place on Site A. The elevation of Site
B was determined to be too low for survival of smooth cordgrass. Also, the area of Site
A that appeared suitable for marsh establishment appeared to have expanded over that
previously determined. Thus, no planting was carried out on Site B.
3.0 MITIGATION SITE ESTABLISHMENT
3.1 Planting Materials and Methods
Smooth cordgrass was obtained from Pinelands Nursery of Columbus, NJ. All
plants were grown for one year in containers in a greenhouse and acclimated to a saline
environment by irrigation with water gradually increasing in salt content prior to planting.
Approximately 65,000 smooth cordgrass plants were delivered and planted over
the interval of May 6-June 4, 1996, by personnel within NCDOT's Roadside
Environmental Unit. Plants were established on the island designated as Site A (Figure
2). Planting consisted of establishing the plants on a 2-foot (0.6 m) grid by opening a
hole in the substrate with a dibble (tree planting bar), inserting the plant material, and
kicking the hole shut. Approximately one ounce (28 grams) of slow release fertilizer was
placed in each hole with the plant.
3.2 Biolog Installation
Approximately 1066 linear fit (325 m) of 12-inch k30 cm) diameter biodegradable
fiber "biologs" (manufactured by Bon Terra, Inc., Boise, Idaho) were installed along the

east and south perimeter of the mitigation site at the time smooth cordgrass was planted.
The purpose of these was to reduce wave impacts and aid in the accretion of sand on the
mitigation site. In addition, seven biolog baffles were established at an angle to the axis
of the biologs along the east perimeter. All biologs were installed in 20 ft (3 m) sections
in shallow trenches and held in place with pairs of wooden stakes driven into the
substrate. Strong cord was used to secure each pair of stakes together, passing over the
biolog. Details of the installation are shown in Photos 4 through 6.
3.3 Biomat Installation
Approximately 2,800 ft (260 mZ) of 1/4 in (6 mm) thick fiber "biomat" (also
manufactured by Bon Terra, Inc.) was installed at two locations in the planted area near
the east perimeter. The biomat was installed in two sections, each 14 ft x 100 ft (4.25 in
x 30.5 m) and was secured to the surface with 12 inch (30.5 cm) wire staples. One
section was instailed.in the northern portion of the planted area and the other was
installed in the southern portion: The purpose of these mats was to prevent erosion in
planted areas adjacent to existing marsh.
4.0 SAMPLING TRANSECTS
Five sampling transects were established on May 29, 1996, within the planted
area. Each transect was 30m long and oriented north -south. The ends were marked with
wooden stakes driven firmly into the ground. Transects were numbered 1P (Planted)
through 5P. Five identical transects were established to the west of the planted area in
existing marsh. These transects were numbered I (Reference) through 5R. This area is
to be used as a reference for the determination of success. Transect locations and
establishment was coordinated with Mr. Ted Tyndall of the Morehead City office of the
Division of Coastal Management. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 2.
5.0 MITIGATION SITE SURVEY AND METHODOLOGY
The mitigation site was surveyed on July 25, 1996, by personnel within NCDOT's
Locations and Survey Unit. Although the monitoring plan stated that GPS would be
utilized, the survey was conducted with a Total Station. The choice of the total station
was based on the increased accuracy of that method over GPS within the relatively small
area of the mitigation site. Survey data was downloaded into a CAD system for use in
generating a figure depicting the site. Also, data from previous surveys was merged with
that from the July 25 survey to produce a figure showing the recently planted area with
respect to existing, adjacent marsh and the approximate configuration of the island.
6.0 RESULTS
The survey of the mitigation site revealed that smooth cordgrass was planted over
an area of 5.9 acres (2.4 ha). Primary work on the site As completed on June 4, 1996;
however, NCDOT personnel checked the site several times after then to confirm that the

biologs and biomats were remaining in place. Some minor damage to these structures
was noted as a result of tidal fluctuations and wave action. Remedial action on an as -
needed basis was carried out to ensure that they were secured in place.
Hurricane Bertha passed through the area on July 12, 1996. Damage to the site
appeared to be minimal, although it was not possible to separate the effects of the
hurricane from those associated with previous wave action. Sand had been deposited
along the east side of the planted area, behind the biolog. The elevation of the new
surface was level with or above the biolog and the some sections of biolog were below
the surface. The sand had covered irregular portions of the planted area, but it was not
possible to determine the total area and depth of sand accretion. On the date the site was
surveyed, smooth cordgrass appeared to be absent from these areas. However, plants
were observed growing in nearby sections of biolog; considering the dynamic nature of
the system, the apparent increase in elevation, and the presence of nearby plants, these
areas are expected to be colonized by smooth cordgrass over time.
The biomats did not survive the combined effects of the hurricane and normal tide
cycles. On the date that the site was surveyed (July 25, 1996) to determine as -built
conditions, only small fragments of the biomats were visible because of a combination of
partial destruction and sand accretion. Thus, the configuration of these mats was
impossible to determine. The condition of the biomat located at the north part of the
planted area is shown in Photo 12.
It appears that the installation of biologs resulted in significant accretion of sand
on the mitigation site. This method may be of interest to other individuals and
organizations attempting to reduce erosion and/or stabilize shorelines in the intertidal
zone, provided the material is suitably secured.
7.0 PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of the mitigation site, during development and afterwards, are
provided in Photo 1- Photo 12.

Figure 1. Location of Mitigation Site for TIP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County

G
FRI
rl
Alik
i I I I O
�I I
o.

1
I
e
y
,
�I
1
i
'
}U
1 f
v. 1

Photo 4. Installation of biolog on east side of mitigation site, May 29, 1996.

Photo 8. Biolog on south side of mitigation site approximately one month after establishment.

SA,.
Photo 9. Biolog on east side of mitigation site approximately one month after establishment
t�
Photo 10. Smooth cordgrass approximately one month after establishment.

Photo 11. Smooth cordgrass approximately one month after establishment
Photo 12. Biomat approximately one month after establishment.

As -Built Report of Wetland Mitigation
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
COE Action ID Number 199602568
CAMA Permit Number 50-96
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
September 18, 1996

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation .
(NCDOT) applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling
approximately 1.02 acres (0.41 ha). of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). The wetland mitigation plan that was submitted with
the permit application specified that approximately six acres (2.43 ha) of salt marsh
would be established by planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) on the
intertidal portions of two islands in Bogue Sound as compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP Project U-2226. The detailed monitoring
plan for this mitigation site was submitted on April 25, 1996.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The mitigation site is located approximately 3,500 feet (1067 m) south of
Morehead City and approximately 4,000 feet (1220 m) west of the bridge connecting
Morehead City and Atlantic Beach (SR 1182). The location is shown on Figure 1.
Although the mitigation plan specified that salt marsh would be established on
two islands in Bogue Sound (Site A and Site B), conditions encountered at the time of
planting required that all mitigation activities take place on Site A. The elevation of Site
B was determined to be too low for survival of smooth cordgrass. Also, the area of Site
A that appeared suitable for marsh establishment appeared to have expanded over that
previously determined. Thus, no planting was carried out on Site B.
3.0 MITIGATION SITE ESTABLISHMENT
3.1 Planting Materials and Methods
Smooth cordgrass was obtained from Pinelands Nursery of Columbus, NJ. All
plants were grown for one year in containers in a greenhouse and acclimated to a saline
environment by irrigation with water gradually increasing in salt content prior to planting.
Approximately 65,000 smooth cordgrass plants were delivered and planted over
the interval of May 6-June 4, 1996, by personnel within NCDOT's Roadside
Environmental Unit. Plants were established on the island designated as Site A (Figure
2). Planting consisted of establishing the plants on a 2-foot (0.6 m) grid by opening a
hole in the substrate with a dibble (tree planting bar), inserting the plant material, and
kicking the hole shut. Approximately one ounce (28 grams) of slow release fertilizer was
placed in each hole with the plant.
3.2 Biolog Installation
Approximately 1066 linear ft (325 m) of 12-inch t30 cm) diameter biodegradable
fiber "biologs" (manufactured by Bon Terra, Inc., Boise, Idaho) were installed along the

east and south perimeter of the mitigation site at the time smooth cordgrass was planted.
The purpose of these was to reduce wave impacts and aid in the accretion of sand on the
mitigation site. In addition, seven biolog baffles were established at an angle to the axis
of the biologs along the east perimeter. All biologs were installed in 20 ft (3 m) sections
in shallow trenches and held in place with pairs of wooden stakes driven into the
substrate. Strong cord was used to secure each pair of stakes together, passing over the
biolog. Details of the installation are shown in Photos 4 through 6.
3.3 Biomat Installation
Approximately 2,800 ftZ (260 m2) of 1/4 in (6 mm) thick fiber "biomat" (also
manufactured by Bon Terra, hic.) was installed at two locations in the planted area near
the east perimeter. The biomat was installed in two sections, each 14 ft x 100 ft (4.25 in
x 30.5 m) and was secured to the surface with 12 inch (30.5 cm) wire staples. One
section was installed in the northern portion of the planted area and the other was
installed in the southern portion. The purpose of these mats was to prevent erosion in
planted areas adjacent to existing marsh.
4.0 SAMPLING TRANSECTS
Five sampling transects were established on May 29, 1996, within the planted
area. Each transect was 30m long and oriented north -south. The ends were marked with
wooden stakes driven firmly into the ground. Transects were numbered 1P (Planted)
through 5P. Five identical transects were established to the west of the planted area in
existing marsh. These transects were numbered I (Reference) through 5R. This area is
to be used as a reference for the determination of success. Transect locations and
establishment was coordinated with Mr. Ted Tyndall of the Morehead City office of the
Division of Coastal Management. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 2.
5.0 MITIGATION SITE SURVEY AND METHODOLOGY
The mitigation site was surveyed on July 25, 1996, by personnel within NCDOT's
Locations and Survey Unit. Although the monitoring plan stated that GPS would be
utilized, the survey was conducted with a Total Station. The choice of the total station
was based on the increased accuracy of that method over GPS within the relatively small
area of the mitigation site. Survey data was downloaded into a CAD system for use in
generating a figure depicting the site. Also, data from previous surveys was merged with
that from the July 25 survey to produce a figure showing the recently planted area with
respect to existing, adjacent marsh and the approximate configuration of the island.
6.0 RESULTS
The survey of the mitigation site revealed that smooth cordgrass was planted over
an area of 5.9 acres (2.4 ha). Primary work on the site wlas completed on June 4, 1996;
however, NCDOT personnel checked the site several times after then to confirm that the

biologs and biomats were remaining in place. Some minor damage to these structures
was noted as a result of tidal fluctuations and wave action. Remedial action on an as -
needed basis was carried out to ensure that they were secured in place.
Hurricane Bertha passed through the area on July 12, 1996. Damage to the site
appeared to be minimal, although it was not possible to separate the effects of the
hurricane from those associated with previous wave action. Sand had been deposited
along the east side of the planted area, behind the biolog. The elevation of the new
surface was level with or above the biolog and the some sections of biolog were below
the surface. The sand had covered irregular portions of the planted area; but it was not
possible to determine the total area and depth of sand accretion. On the date the site was
surveyed, smooth cordgrass appeared to be absent from these areas. However, plants
were observed growing in nearby sections of biolog; considering the dynamic nature of
the system, the apparent increase in elevation, and the presence of nearby plants, these
areas are expected to be colonized by smooth cordgrass over time.
The biomats did not survive the combined effects of the hurricane and normal tide
cycles. On the date that the site was surveyed (July 25, 1996) to determine as -built
conditions, only small fragments of the biomats were visible because of a combination of
partial destruction and sand accretion. Thus, the configuration of these mats was
impossible to determine. The condition of the biomat located at the north part of the
planted area is shown in Photo 12.
It appears that the installation of biologs resulted in significant accretion of sand
on the mitigation site. This method may be of interest to other individuals and
organizations attempting to reduce erosion and/or stabilize shorelines in the intertidal
zone, provided the material is suitably secured.
7.0 PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of the mitigation site, during development and afterwards, are
provided in Photo 1- Photo 12.

INV
- PELETIER
--------- --------------- CREEK :....�v^,w-
------ -- ------- "-`---- - ---✓
------ ------
---------------------
----------------------
- /NTRACOASTAL __—__ ____i______
MITIGATION
AREA A _ SITE
B o c U E ! J J eAREA B
wl
B 0 G E:rlU E
ATLANTIC BEACH
MP.9a1
SUIE
a e
I
Figure 1. Location of Mitigation Site for TIP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County
h
MOREHEAD
... MP.4,339

��
�. 'a i
.o
.�
b0
.O
rn
5b
b
0
0
0
w
0
Fggq�
N
W
.Y
a

i

Photo 8. Biolog on south side of mitigation site approximately one month after establishment.

s
I
Photo 9. Biolog on east side of mitigation site approximately one month after establishment
Photo 10. Smooth cordgrass approximately one month after establishment.

Photo 11. Smooth cordgrass approximately one month after establishment.
$Z -
Photo 12. Biomat approximately one month after establishment.

As -Built Report of Wetland Mitigation
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
COE Action ID Number 199602568
CAMA Permit Number 50-96
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Tralisportation
September 18, 1996

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation .
(NCDOT) applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling
approximately 1.02 acres (0.41 ha) of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black
needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). The wetland mitigation plan that was submitted with
the permit application specified that approximately six acres (2.43 ha) of salt marsh
would be established by planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) on the
intertidal portions of two islands in Bogue Sound as compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP Project U-2226. The detailed monitoring
plan for this mitigation site was submitted on April 25, 1996.
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The mitigation site is located approximately 3,500 feet (1067 m) south of
Morehead City and approximately 4,000 feet (1220 m) west of the bridge connecting
Morehead City and Atlantic Beach (SR 1182). The location is shown on Figure 1.
Although the mitigation plan specified that salt marsh would be established on
two islands in Bogue Sound (Site A and Site B), conditions encountered at the time of
planting required that all mitigation activities take place on Site A. The elevation of Site
B was determined to be too low for survival of smooth cordgrass. Also, the area of Site
A that appeared suitable for marsh establishment appeared to have expanded over that
previously determined. Thus, no planting was carried out on Site B.
3.0 MITIGATION SITE ESTABLISHMENT
3.1 Planting Materials and Methods
Smooth cordgrass was obtained from Pinelands Nursery of Columbus, NJ. All
plants were grown for one year in containers in a greenhouse and acclimated to a saline
environment by irrigation with water gradually increasing in salt content prior to planting.
Approximately 65,000 smooth cordgrass plants were delivered and planted over
the interval of May 6-June 4, 1996, by personnel within NCDOT's Roadside
Environmental Unit. Plants were established on the island designated as Site A (Figure
2). Planting consisted of establishing the plants on a 2-foot (0.6 m) grid by opening a
hole in the substrate with a dibble (tree planting bar), inserting the plant material, and
kicking the hole shut. Approximately one ounce (28 grams) of slow release fertilizer was
placed in each hole with the plant.
3.2 Biolog Installation
Approximately 1066 linear ft (325 m) of 12-incht30 cm) diameter biodegradable
fiber "biologs" (manufactured by Bon Terra, Inc., Boise, Idaho) were installed along the

east and south perimeter of the mitigation site at the time smooth cordgrass was planted.
The purpose of these was to reduce wave impacts and aid in the accretion of sand on the
mitigation site. In addition, seven biolog baffles were established at an angle to the axis
of the biologs along the east perimeter. All biologs were installed in 20 ft (3 m) sections
in shallow trenches and held in place with pairs of wooden stakes driven into the
substrate. Strong cord was used to secure each pair of stakes together, passing over the
biolog. Details of the installation are shown in Photos 4 through 6.
3.3 Biomat Installation
Approximately 2,800 ftZ (260 in) of 1/4 in (6 mm) thick fiber "biomat" (also
manufactured by Bon Terra, Inc.) was installed at two locations in the planted area near
the east perimeter. The biomat was installed in two sections, each 14 ft x 100 ft (4.25 in
x 30.5 m) and was secured to the surface with 12 inch (30.5 cm) wire staples. One
section was installed in the northern portion of the planted area and the other was
installed in the southern portion. The purpose of these mats was to prevent erosion in
planted areas adjacent to existing marsh.
4.0 SAMPLING TRANSECTS
Five sampling transects were established on May 29, 1996, within the planted
area. Each transect was 30m long and oriented north -south. The ends were marked with
wooden stakes driven firmly into the ground. Transects were numbered 1P (Planted)
through 5P. Five identical transects were established to the west of the planted area in
existing marsh. These transects were numbered 1R (Reference) through 5R. This area is
to be used as a reference for the determination of success. Transect locations and
establishment was coordinated with Mr. Ted Tyndall of the Morehead City office of the
Division of Coastal Management. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 2.
5.0 MITIGATION SITE SURVEY AND METHODOLOGY
The mitigation site was surveyed on July 25, 1996, by personnel within NCDOT's
Locations and Survey Unit. Although the monitoring plan stated that GPS would be
utilized, the survey was conducted with a Total Station. The choice of the total station
was based on the increased accuracy of that method over GPS within the relatively small
area of the mitigation site. Survey data was downloaded into a CAD system for use in
generating a figure depicting the site. Also, data from previous surveys was merged with
that from the July 25 survey to produce a figure showing the recently planted area with
respect to existing, adjacent marsh and the approximate configuration of the island.
6.0 RESULTS
The survey of the mitigation site revealed that smooth cordgrass was planted over
an area of 5.9 acres (2.4 ha). Primary work on the site As completed on June 4, 1996;
however, NCDOT personnel checked the site several times after then to confirm that the

biologs and biomats were remaining in place. Some minor damage to these structures
was noted as a result of tidal fluctuations and wave action. Remedial action on an as -
needed basis was carried out to ensure that they were secured in place.
Hurricane Bertha passed through the area on July 12, 1996. Damage to the site
appeared to be minimal, although it was not possible to separate the effects of the
hurricane from those associated with previous wave action. Sand had been deposited
along the east side of the planted area, behind the biolog. The elevation of the new
surface was level with or above the biolog and the some sections of biolog were below
the surface. The sand had covered irregular portions of the planted area, but it was not
possible to determine the. total area and depth of sand accretion. On the date the site was
surveyed, smooth cordgrass appeared to be absent from these areas. However, plants
were observed growing in nearby sections of biolog; considering the dynamic nature of
the system, the apparent increase in elevation, and the presence of nearby plants, these
areas are expected to be colonized by smooth cordgrass over time.
The biomats did not survive the combined effects of the hurricane and normal tide
cycles. On the date that the site was surveyed (July 25, 1996) to determine as -built
conditions, only small fragments of the biomats were visible because of a combination of
partial destruction and sand accretion. Thus, the configuration of these mats was
impossible to determine. The condition of the biomat located at the north part of the
planted area is shown in Photo 12.
It appears that the installation of biologs resulted in significant accretion of sand
on the mitigation site. This method may be of interest to other individuals and
organizations attempting to reduce erosion and/or stabilize shorelines in the intertidal
zone, provided the material is suitably secured.
7.0 PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of the mitigation site, during development and afterwards, are
provided in Photo 1- Photo 12.

Figure 1. Location of Mitigation Site for TIP Project Number U-2226, Carteret County

R
N.C.
U-2226p
Approximate location of Intertidal Island at low
'r
50 0 Exlsting Marsh T; Y
Planted Marsh May -June 1996
Monitoring Transects
RI SCALE
Figure 2.

Ir,
is I
a
i
, 1
I rt
II t
Il�'Wi
4
t
y
G
rn
0
a

Photo 4. Installation of biolog on east side of mitigation site, May 29, 1996.

Tw, ,
1
i
4a
E
I
N
�r ��1Vr1
�4
Y
.N
�Y
W-1
O
O
a

Photo 7. Biolog on east side of mitigation site approximately one month after establishment.
Photo 8. Biolog on south side of mitigation site approximately one month after establishment.

`i -
Photo 9. Biolog on east side of mitigation site approximately one month after establishment.
1710
ME '1 r
Photo 10. Smooth cordgrass approximately one month after establishment.

-`.
Photo 11. Smooth cordgrass approximately one month after establishment.

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
GATE
3 ^
: �/
REF. NO. OR OM. BLDG.
AN:.
J!
CM �'�"kym
ap-N1G
FROM:
REP. NO. OR ROOM. SLDG.
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:

Urno F)777� LMAYAte$ is%
STATE OE NORTH CAROLINAks-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
Gowp,NoR P.O. BOX 25201. RALE IG H. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 3, 1996
Mr. John Dorney
N. C. Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Subject: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and NC 24
in Morehead City; State Project No. 9.8022831, TIP No. U-2226
We received the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the subject project
and want to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for their attention to this
project and handling of the complex environmental issues inherent in any coastal
transportation project. The project will be constructed in such a manner to prevent
significant increase in turbidity outside the construction area as described in Condition 1 of
the Certification.
Evidently the Water Quality Certification and our letter (copy attached for your
convenience), which describes our efforts to provide bottomland hardwood mitigation,
crossed in the mails. Based on the information in our letter, we respectfully request a
reevaluation by the DEM relative to Condition 2. We also request that the DEM accept
the Mitigation Plan filed with the DCM as full compensation for the project impacts.
The gist of our letter was that an extensive search was done for BLH mitigation
from 1993 to 1995. Although many prospective BLH sites were found, they were
rejected due to hazardous contamination, size, unavailability, and/or cost. The site
suggested by DEM in 1996, Hull Swamp, is unsuitable since it is located in an area zoned
B-1, Business, by Carteret County and is filled and being used :or business in conformance
with the zoning. Li 1995, we did find a large site in Morehead City on Calico Creek,
known as the Willis Properties, containing degraded Bottomland Hardwood potential as
~o

al

well as coastal brackish marsh. We purchased an option on the properties, and proceeded
with a Fatal Flaw Feasibility study. A Phase H hazardous contamination evaluation was
completed and resulted in the site being rejected due to heavy metal and VOC
contamination.
As noted in our recent letter, in May 1994 the FONSI was published identifying
the CSMB as a last resort for mitigation of the bottomland hardwood impacts, if other
sites were not found. We feel that we have reached that point since the over four-year
effort to identify an in -kind, in -basin mitigation site has not succeeded. Therefore, we
request that DEM allow us to debit the Company Swamp which will provide an in -kind,
out -of -basin mitigation at a ratio of 5:1 for the 1.82 acre impact on the BLH wetlands.
This ratio would result in a debit of 9.1 acres from the Company Swamp Mitigation site.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Section 401 process for this
project. We hope that this request to eliminate Condition 2 from the Water Quality
Certificate will meet your approval. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-7844, Ext. 307.
Sincerely, )/
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
AG/plr
Enclosures:
cc: Mr. Charles Jones, DCM, Morehead City
Mr. Scott McLendon, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington

s LHAY 1 1996
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DAME$ B. HUNT JR. GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P �� 01 SECRETARY
Mr. Charles Jones
North Carolina Division of Co
Post Office Box 769
Morehead City, North Carolina za» i
Dear Mr. Jones:
SUBJECT: Carteret County, Extension of Bridges Street between Arendell Street and
NC 24 in Morehead City, TIP No. U-2226, State Project No. 9.8022831,
Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Please find enclosed three copies of the Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Plan for
the above -cited project. This monitoring plan is intended to supplement the Mitigation
Plan which was submitted on November 8, 1996 with the permit application. The
enclosed plan provides detaileA i"f^—+. _ -- -- ad success criteria
and fulfills Condition #1
Thank you for yo
contact David Schiller at
Y/ ✓` `rG
y uestions, please
ci-
ich
HFV/plr
Enclosures (3)
cc: (with one copy of 4
Mr. John Parker, DCM
Mr. John Dorney, DEM
Mr. Scott McClendon, USACOE
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., NCDOT, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. Bill Johnson, NCDOT, State Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., NCDOT, State Hydraulics Engineer
Mr. Rick Shirley, Division Engineer, Division 2

MAY 0 1 1996
Monitoring Plan M @.......... 6400"0*6"
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
April, 1996

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling approximately 1.02 acres
of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). As described
in the mitigation plan that was submitted with the permit application, establishment of
approximately six acres of salt marsh by planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) on the
intertidal portions of two islands in Bogue Sound was proposed as compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP Project U-2226.
The monitoring activities outlined in the mitigation plan addressed methods for
determining the success of the mitigation site and suggested several variables that might be
utilized. It also stated that the number and location of sample plots in the reference and planted
areas and the success criteria to be utilized would be determined after consultation with
appropriate resource and regulatory agency personnel. This report was developed after
consultation with personnel with the Division of Coastal Management to define the specific
monitoring plan and the success criteria to be utilized.
2.0 AS -BUILT DRAWINGS
As -built drawings of and relevant information about the mitigation site will be submitted
to the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) within 60 days after completion of planting
activities. The drawings and information will include:
A. Boundaries of the planted areas.
B. Locations of monitoring transects.
C. Locations of the sites with respect to island configuration.
D. Locations and descriptions of materials used.
E. Description of methods used.
F. Color photographs (or copies thereof) depicting the planted and reference areas.
All locations will be determined by GPS (Global Positioning System) and will be
accurate to less than one meter.
3.0 SAMPLE PLOT ESTABLISHMENT
3.1 Reference Areas
Five equally spaced, parallel transects will be established in the existing marsh (reference
area) adjacent to Sites A and B. Each transect will be 30 meters in length. The ends of each
transect will be marked and located in such a way that it can be reestablished prior to each
sample period. Six sample plots will be established on each transect at six -meter intervals. Each
z plot will be square, 1.0 min area, and oriented square to the transect.

3.2 Planted Areas
Five transects will be established in the planted portion of Site A and three in Site B. The
configuration of the transects and sample plots will be the same as those described in Section 3.1.
3.3 Schedule
All transect locations will be established immediately prior to the time when smooth
cordgrass is planted. Transect locations will be determined during on -site consultation with
DCM personnel.
4.0 SAMPLE PLOT MEASUREMENT
4.1 Reference Areas
Variables to be measured are frequency and average percent cover. Frequency will be
determined by f = nx/ny, where f = frequency, nX = the number of plots where smooth cordgrass
occurs and ny = the total number of plots. Average percent cover will be determined by c = Ec/n,
where c = average percent cover, Ec = the sum of estimated foliar cover for all plots, and n = the
total number of plots. Frequency and average percent cover will be determined for and applied to
each site separately, i.e. Site A and Site B.
4.2 Planted Areas
Frequency and average percent cover will be determined in the planted areas of Sites A
and B in the same manner as in the reference areas.
4.3 Schedule
Frequency and average percent cover will be determined annually during September,
beginning the first September after planting.
5.0 PHOTOGRAPHY
Photographs (prints) depicting the planted and reference areas will be taken concurrently
with monitoring activities.
6.0 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORTS
Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to DCM each January following monitoring
activities. The reports will include:
A. Quantitative data for frequency and average percent cover.
B. GPS delineation of the boundaries of the planted areas.
C. Color photographs (or copies thereof) depicting the planted and reference areas.

7.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The criteria for determining the success of the site will be frequency and cover of smooth
cordgrass in the planted areas. Both criteria will be at least 75% of the respective reference areas.
Success will be declared when both criteria are met in the same monitoring period anytime after
planting
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO MITIGATION PLAN
Mats constructed of 100% biodegradable coir fiber in coordination with coir fiber "logs"
will be placed around the perimeter of the site and at strategic locations within the planted area of
Sites A and B to reduce wave action and aid in sediment accretion. These mats will be secured
by stakes and will be lashed down with twine. The stakes will be driven so that no more than
two inches (2") protrudes above the ground surface. Also along the portion exposed to the
highest level of wave action, a pre -planted coir fiber mat will be installed to provide a higher
level of wave action protection on this area of the site. Details of the mat installation and location
will be described in the as -built report, to be completed upon completion of the project (Section
2.0, D).
9.0 REMEDIATION/CONTINGENCY PLAN
Should success criteria not be met wi three years, site will be assessed to
determine the cause(s) of lack of success. This asse ent will be made in consultation with
DCM personnel and a course of action will be developed mutually between NCDOT and DCM.

.N
Monitoring Plan
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
April, 1996

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling approximately 1.02 acres
of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). As described
in the mitigation plan that was submitted with the permit application, establishment of
approximately six acres of salt marsh by planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora) on the
intertidal portions of two islands in Bogue Sound was proposed as compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP Project U-2226.
The monitoring activities outlined in the mitigation plan addressed methods for
determining the success of the mitigation site and suggested several variables that might be
utilized. It also stated that the number and location of sample plots in the reference and planted
areas and the success criteria to be utilized would be determined after consultation with
appropriate resource and regulatory agency personnel. This report was developed after
consultation with personnel with the Division of Coastal Management to define the specific
monitoring plan and the success criteria to be utilized.
2.0 AS -BUILT DRAWINGS
As -built drawings of and relevant information about the mitigation site will be submitted
to the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) within 60 days after completion of planting
activities. The drawings and information will include:
A. Boundaries of the planted areas.
B. Locations of monitoring transects.
C. Locations of the sites with respect to island configuration.
D. Locations and descriptions of materials used.
E. Description of methods used.
F. Color photographs (or copies thereof) depicting the planted and reference areas.
All locations will be determined by GPS (Global Positioning System) and will be
accurate to less than one meter.
3.0 SAMPLE PLOT ESTABLISHMENT
3.1 Reference Areas
Five equally spaced, parallel transects will be established in the existing marsh (reference
area) adjacent to Sites A and B. Each transect will be 30 meters in length. The ends of each
transect will be marked and located in such a way that it can be reestablished prior to each
sample period. Six sample plots will be established on each transect at six -meter intervals. Each
plot will be square, 1.0 in in area, and oriented square to the transect.
1

3.2 Planted Areas
Five transects will be established in the planted portion of Site A and three in Site B. The
configuration of the transects and sample plots will be the same as those described in Section 3.1.
3.3 Schedule
All transect locations will be established immediately prior to the time when smooth
cordgrass is planted. Transect locations will be determined during on -site consultation with
DCM personnel.
4.0 SAMPLE PLOT MEASUREMENT
4.1 Reference Areas
Variables to be measured are frequency and average percent cover. Frequency will be
determined by f = nx/ny, where f = frequency, n, = the number of plots where smooth cordgrass
occurs and ny = the total number of plots. Average percent cover will be determined by c = Edn,
where c = average percent cover, E. = the sum of estimated foliar cover for all plots, and n = the
total number of plots. Frequency and average percent cover will be determined for and applied to
each site separately, i.e. Site A and Site B.
4.2 Planted Areas
Frequency and average percent cover will be determined in the planted areas of Sites A
and B in the same manner as in the reference areas.
4.3 Schedule
Frequency and average percent cover will be determined annually during September,
beginning the first September after planting.
5.0 PHOTOGRAPHY
Photographs (prints) depicting the planted and reference areas will be taken concurrently
with monitoring activities.
6.0 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORTS
Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to DCM each January following monitoring
activities. The reports will include:
A. Quantitative data for frequency and average percent cover.
B. GPS delineation of the boundaries of the planted areas.
C. Color photographs (or copies thereof) depicting the planted and reference areas.

7.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The criteria for determining the success of the site will be frequency and cover of smooth
cordgrass in the planted areas. Both criteria will be at least 75% of the respective reference areas.
Success will be declared when both criteria are met in the same monitoring period anytime after
planting
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO MITIGATION PLAN
Mats constructed of 100% biodegradable coir fiber in coordination with coir fiber "logs"
will be placed around the perimeter of the site and at strategic locations within the planted area of
Sites A and B to reduce wave action and aid in sediment accretion. These mats will be secured
by stakes and will be lashed down with twine. The stakes will be driven so that no more than
two inches (2") protrudes above the ground surface. Also along the portion exposed to the
highest level of wave action, a pre -planted coir fiber mat will be installed to provide a higher
level of wave action protection on this area of the site. Details of the mat installation and location
will be described in the as -built report, to be completed upon completion of the project (Section
2.0, D).
9.0 REMEDIATION/CONTINGENCY PLAN
Should success criteria not be met within three years, the site will be assessed to
determine the cause(s) of lack of success. This assessment will be made in consultation with
DCM personnel and a course of action will be developed mutually between NCDOT and DCM.

Monitoring Plan
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Bridges Street Extension, Morehead City
TIP Project Number U-2226
Carteret County
Prepared By:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
April, 1996

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1995, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
applied for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for filling approximately 1.02 acres
of acres of brackish marsh dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). As described
in the mitigation plan that was submitted with the permit application, establishment of
approximately six acres of salt marsh by planting smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) on the
intertidal portions of two islands in Bogue Sound was proposed as compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts wetlands as a result of TIP Project U-2226.
The monitoring activities outlined in the mitigation plan addressed methods for
determining the success of the mitigation site and suggested several variables that might be
utilized. It also stated that the number and location of sample plots in the reference and planted
areas and the success criteria to be utilized would be determined after consultation with
appropriate resource and regulatory agency personnel. This report was developed after
consultation with personnel with the Division of Coastal Management to define the specific
monitoring plan and the success criteria to be utilized.
2.0 AS -BUILT DRAWINGS
As -built drawings of and relevant information about the mitigation site will be submitted
to the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) within 60 days after completion of planting
activities. The drawings and information will include:
A. Boundaries of the planted areas.
B. Locations of monitoring transects.
C. Locations of the sites with respect to island configuration.
D. Locations and descriptions of materials used.
E. Description of methods used.
F. Color photographs (or copies thereof) depicting the planted and reference areas
All locations will be determined by GPS (Global Positioning System) and will be
accurate to less than one meter.
3.0 SAMPLE PLOT ESTABLISHMENT
3.1 Reference Areas
Five equally spaced, parallel transects will be established in the existing marsh (reference
area) adjacent to Sites A and B. Each transect will be 30 meters in length. The ends of each
transect will be marked and located in such a way that it can be reestablished prior to each
sample period. Six sample plots will be established on each transect at six -meter intervals. Each
plot will be square, 1.0 m2 in area, and oriented square to the transect.

3.2 Planted Areas
Five transects will be established in the planted portion of Site A and three in Site B. The
configuration of the transects and sample plots will be the same as those described in Section 3.1.
3.3 Schedule
All transect locations will be established immediately prior to the time when smooth
cordgrass is planted. Transect locations will be determined during on -site consultation with
DCM personnel.
4.0 SAMPLE PLOT MEASUREMENT
4.1 Reference Areas
Variables to be measured are frequency and average percent cover. Frequency will be
determined by f = n,,/ny, where f = frequency, R, = the number of plots where smooth cordgrass
occurs and ny= the total number of plots. Average percent cover will be determined by c = E,/n,
where c = average percent cover, Ec = the sum of estimated foliar cover for all plots, and n = the
total number of plots. Frequency and average percent cover will be determined for and applied to
each site separately, i.e. Site A and Site B.
4.2 Planted Areas .
Frequency and average percent cover will be determined in the planted areas of Sites A
and B in the same manner as in the reference areas.
4.3 Schedule
Frequency and average percent cover will be determined annually during September,
beginning the first September after planting.
5.0 PHOTOGRAPHY
Photographs (prints) depicting the planted and reference areas will be taken concurrently
with monitoring activities.
6.0 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORTS
Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to DCM each January following monitoring
activities. The reports will include:
A. Quantitative data for frequency and average percent cover.
B. GPS delineation of the boundaries of the planted areas.
C. Color photographs (or copies thereof) depicting the planted and reference areas.

7.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The criteria for determining the success of the site will be frequency and cover of smooth
cordgrass in the planted areas. Both criteria will be at least 75%�of the respective reference areas.
Success will be declared when both criteria are met in the same monitoring period anytime after
planting
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO MITIGATION PLAN
Mats constructed of 100% biodegradable coir fiber in coordination with coir fiber "logs"
will be placed around the perimeter of the site and at strategic locations within the planted area of
Sites A and B to reduce wave action and aid in sediment accretion. These mats will be secured
by stakes and will be lashed down with twine. The stakes will be driven so that no more than
two inches (2") protrudes above the ground surface. Also along the portion exposed to the
highest level of wave action, a pre -planted coir fiber mat will be installed to provide a higher
level of wave action protection on this area of the site. Details of the mat installation and location
will be described in the as -built report, to be completed upon completion of the project (Section
2.0, D).
9.0 REMEDIATION/CONTINGENCY PLAN
Should success criteria not be met within three years, the site will be assessed to
determine the cause(s) of lack of success. This assessment will be made in consultation with
DCM personnel and a course of action will be developed mutually between NCDOT and DCM.

rT rvrY r•r
`rT T
YT TrY rYr-ri ..Yy Tr .
TYTY Yr'rrYY TYT
rYr-r `rYrYrYr TxT ® Biologs
rrY• YYYYT�T Q /approx. 325 meters
�rTrYr � r-�rYr-rr-�r-rr
TrYrYrYrYrTrTrTrTr
T rTYTrTr T�TTTrTYTr
__rT rTF TrYYT` YiYrYiYr
_ _ TrT' TrY rY�TrY' TrTrT'
T' T' TrT' TYTrTr'rr _rT rTrT
YrT' YrYrYrlfr T r _
13R I
IN
Approxlmale location of Intertidal Island at low
50 0 /00 m
RI SCALE
Baffles
T� YrT rY'
TrTrYr'rrT�
rr-,-rTr_JI-r"-rV,
r
-r -r r
lR
o
Q
Bogue Sound
Wetland Mitigation Site
R.R
n.R nORI.T �Wcv P
N.C.1U-2226
Existing Marsh
Planted Marsh McrJune 1996
Monitoring Tronsects —2R
figure 2.