19951031 Ver 1_Complete File_19950926

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 8, 1998
Hertford County
WQC 401 Project #951031
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. David Robinson, P.E., Ph.D.
Assistant Manager - Environmental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-2501
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Re: Proposed Wiccacon River Bridge Replacement
DWQ Project # 951031; T.I.P. No. B-1231
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place till material in
1.11 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of replacing Bridge No. 23 on NC 45 over the
Wiccacon River, as you described in your application dated 3 December 1997. After reviewing
your application, we have decided that this till is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number 3197. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when the
Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also
this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), wetland
mitigation is required for the proposed work. Compensatory mitigation shall be provided by
restoring 2.22 acres of wetlands at NCDOT's Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a
new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a
copy of this Certification an approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Enviro. Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
. 1
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.,
27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney or Cyndi Bell at (919)
733-1786.
Attachment
in e ly
r -ton How, Jr. P.E.
951031.1tr
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
S. :t.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Y' J
JAMES B. HUNTJR. _V
e 'GOVERNOR 1J
;,WAYNE MCD[VITT
?? { qt
f
'
n
1
?
i
t M14
1• MCKN[L?Y
.

'y
lY
a

l L
7? fl yyw

l? ? -ICI
-

.. ti
April 6, 1998 _
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources CommisA `,
?- w?1?a DS u
Cindy Bell, NC Division of Water Quality
Kevin Moody, US Fish and Wildlife Service
FROM: Marshall Ellis
Resource Management Program
SUBJECT: Proposed DOT Road Repairs at Lake Waccamaw
The Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has been contacted by the
Department of Transportation regarding repairs to a section of Lake Shore
Drive along the north shore of Lake Waccamaw in Columbus County. This
project area has experienced severe slumping, and DOT has determined that
the road is in danger of collapsing. DPR is concerned about potential impacts
to the lake, and this information is being provided to your agency as a heads-up
in anticipation of receiving additional information from DOT.
DOT engineers estimate that an area approximately 100 feet long and 30 feet
deep has been affected, and they are proposing to stabilize this section through
the use of an interlocking Gabion Basket system. Preliminary information
indicates that DOT plans to install three layers of baskets: two at the foot of the
slope, around elevation 43, and a third layer around elevation 53. The sections
that are not stabilized with baskets will be graded and filled (see attachment).
If the baskets are used, it is apparent that this project will involve work below
the lake's mean high water line (43.57 feet above mean sea level), meaning that
it will affect state park property. Given the lake's ecological significance and
the presence of rare species, DPR has notified DOT that if repairs occur below
the mean high water level, then an environmental document will be required.
DOT is aware of our concerns, and they have expressed an interest in exploring
alternatives that will avoid or minimize impacts at or below mean high water
level. They have mentioned rip-rap (granite and/or limestone) in lieu of the
baskets, but it's unclear at this point if the engineers have looked seriously at
this.
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PNoN[ 919-733-4181 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 509E RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

To our knowledge, DOT has not produced a scoping notice, and any rm iew so
far has been informal. The local DOT contact for this project is Mr. Drew Cox
(910-642-3760). If you have questions, please give me a ring at 715-8692.
/me
Attachments
"X* no
-- potndnrles.
-atf NAlga p+vmtw
isranded.
"ci dasdterrpt
r dsiflnitivelmrost.
3440 lets
whitevill"
• FAX::,
Spaciall
Oak, Mapple
Suites • Hete
Complete 3?C?
(910)642.6K0K
[phone]
finished Furnishings In
Suites • Dining Room
te. • We Also Feature A
.n Cabinets • VISA &
vs Hours: Mon.-Fri.
RURAL4X ION+ INC. OF N.C.
1890 pine Loj Rd' N?Ille ' .. • • [phone]
[phone]
FX:
• Prompt, Relleble'lle"'ie° 'Waste Collection For:
Commercial, Industrial. Rssideattal & Institutional
Servieas loclude Frost-Load, Rear-Load, Roll-Off,
Roll-Out Cart A Recycling A Waste Resource
COLLIER GAS CO-, INC.
1028 S. Madison St., Whiteville • . • . [phone]
112 E. Sth St., Tabor City [phone]
• LP Gas: • Sales & Service*- Crop Drying • Tobacco
Curing • Bulk Barns • LP Cylinders • Gas Appliances:
Sales & Service • Stoves • Dryers • Water Heaters • Gas
Logs • Heaters • Grills & Parts "We're In Your
Neighborhood"
345 Pecan Ln., Lake Waccamaw ... [phone]
• FAX: ... [phone]
• Manufacturers Of Handheld Striking Tools Including; .
Axes • Mauls Sledgehammers Shrubbing Tool, .
Forestry Tools • Firefighting Tools • Bars, Etc. • Serving
The U.S. Since 1886 "Council Too[ ...A Longstanding
Columbus County Tradition"
PAINT - RETAIL
CLASSIC COLORS
210 W. Burkhead St., Whiteville ... [phone]
• Paint & Paint Related Items • Retail & Wholesale • We
Carry A CompPlete Line Of Devoe Products • Hours:
Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-6pm; Sat. Sam-Ipm • Danny Heath,
Co-Owner • Tommy Goins, Co-Owner
SURGEONS - r
PHYSICIANS & s
SOUTHEASTERN
MEDICAL ASSOCIATES
109 N. J.K. Powell Blvd., Whiteville . [phone]
• FAX: ... .. . [phone]
• Richard Berry, M.D. • Internal Medicine • Hours:
Mon.-Thurs. 9am-5:30pm; Fri. 8:30am-2pm "PLEASE
SEE OUR DISPLAY AD FOR MORE INFORMATION"
• rAA
• E•1lail
• Lou .\
Touri.:
AvaiIa1,
Lodgine
Promot
Destinai
940 Jett
• Toll F
• Custon
Repairs
For Esti
• Here li
Your H
Pump
• To Fin
Call Us
• Caroh:
Mirafi• Products A-?
?
`` • Project
_ • HS-Series • Miramat
• HP-Series • Miratak Sheet No. I of

TC Mirafi • X-Series
. N-Series • Mirapave
• Geotubes•
Calculated By --? t&
ICJ .. Date 3 - 0
Pendergrass, GA?7 • Filterweave• • MC1212 Checked By Date
Tel: [phone] . Miraprid•(XT) • SRW-Series
Toll Free: 888.795.0806 .Silt Fence Scare
Fax: [phone]
Z
r ?
r
0
1
0
-A
0
w w
f
C.F.P. Inc.
SITEWORK SUPPLIERS
P.O. Box 567
PINEVILI.E, NC 28134
Marshall Ellis March 11 1997
North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural Resources
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Ellis
C.F.P.Inc is a supplier of erosion control and geotechnical products. We were contacted by
Drew Cox in December to determine if a gabion wall would be feasible to support a slope
allowing them to reconstruct the shoulder of a road.
800.533-0046
704-372.0314
803-548-3148
After visiting and inspecting the site at Lake Waccamaw, I assured Drew that gabions were a
solution and this type of application was common not only in North Carolina but around the
world. Please see the enclosed technical brochure from Maccaferri describing structures for
environmental protection and restoration.
A gabion wall would be appropriate in this case to serve two functions, first to provide enough
mass in a wall form to support the surcharge of saturated soils behind the wall to safely build a
slope and reconstruct the shoulder and secondly to protect that same soil mass from erosion
accelerated by wave action at the waters edge. The evident slope failure appears to have been
accelerated by either erosion at the water level and /or a naturally occurring accumulation of
subsurface ground water entering the lake and saturating this particular area of the bluff.
The slope failure is most severe between the two docks shown on the survey supplied by Drew.
A 40 foot long wall along the base of the slope should be sufficient to support the
reconstruction of the road above.
The beneficial characteristics of a gabion structure arc listed below.
Structurally sound: A mass gravity wall is designed to withstand the forces generated by the
soil mass behind it trying to slide the wall , break the wall or overturn the wall and to further
protect the soil mass from wave action scour resulting from seasonal winds or severe storms
during times of high water.
Stable and long term: Gabions are made from PVC coated Zinc plated twisted wire designed
for water applications. As time passes the structure becomes more stable from settlement,
confinement and vegetative support.
M
Or
Impact free: The impact on water quality is determined by the rock and soil used to rebuild the
slope. Your choice of stone within the gabions and natural soil backfill will allow water to
pass through the local soils without being altered from any foreign matter leaching into or out
of the flow.
Permeable: Water is allowed to migrate through soil and the wall without creating any
hydraulic head pressures effecting the stability of the slopes above or the wall's integrity.
Flexible: Walls can be built to conform to the immediate terrain without altering the lake floor,
also allowing for minor design changes if needed during construction.
Suitable for natural restoration of native vegetation: A gabion wall is actually enhanced by the
use of vegetation and will support root systems for shrubs and trees that would be beneficial in
long term stabilization.
Easy to construct: Can be constructed without heavy equipment entering the lake. Does not
require technically trained labor or special equipment that might increase costs.
Low cost: The gabion wire baskets for a six foot high wall would cost less than $35.00 per
linear foot of lakefront. The height of the wall can be increased or decreased in one foot
increments to satisfy your requests. Adjustments to the wall height would in turn affect the
slope angle of the mass behind them.
Please see the picture at the bottom of page 14 of the enclosed manual. Hopefully a finished
project could look like this. Also I've included a hand sketch of the wall mentioned above.
If you have any questions about gabions and their use please call me.
Sincerely
Weeden
President
C.F.P. Inc.
cc: Drew Cox NCDOT
IC4 11
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Ms. Ann B. Deaton
Chief, Bridge Section
United States Coast Guard
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004
Dear Ms. Deaton:
February 26, 1998
? ! ''
MAR-2.
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on Public Notice (PN) 5-927,
dated January 28, 1998. The PN states that the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) has applied for a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit to construct a new, two-lane, fixed
span, low level, highway bridge over Wiccacon Creek near the Town of Harrelsville, Hertford
County, North Carolina. Prior coordination indicates that project is designated as B-1231
(Replace Bridge No. 23 over the Wiccacon River on NC 45). The existing bridge and fender
system would be completely removed after completion of the new bridge. No fendering system is
planned for the new bridge. The PN states that the project would impact 1.11 acres of high
quality swamp forest. Our comments are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended-, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). They are to be
used in your determination of permit issuance in accordance with the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,
The Service is concerned about the use of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) to satisfy the requirement
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The PN states that the original 1986
classification as a CE was revised in 1994. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will
complete a new update of this determination. Categorical Exclusions are intended to apply to a
uniform group of actions which, based on past experience, do not have a significant environmental
2
impacts. The FHWA regulations specify that bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement
may qualify as a CE. However, we view the proposed project as actually the construction of a
new bridge adjacent to an existing bridge. We believe that the construction a new bridge, a term
used in the PN, is a category of projects which may produce a wide range of environmental
impacts. Therefore, the Service believes that NEPA requirements should be addressed in an
Environmental Assessment (EA) which would contain a full discussion of alternatives,
environmental impacts, and compensatory mitigation measures.
The Service is especially concerned that the project would result in the loss of 1.1 1 acres of high
quality swamp forest. Swamp forests have many ecological and societal values. These areas
represent extremely high quality habitat for fish and wildlife resources. They also function to
improve water quality and control floods. The Service believes that the permanent loss of these
wetlands would represent a serious, adverse environmental impact. While the loss of this area is
relatively small, such small losses should be viewed in a cumulative sense. From the mid-1970s
through the mid-1980s, North Carolina had an estimated loss of 1.2 million acres of palustrine
forested and scrub-shrub wetlands (Hefner et al. 1994). We believe that any additional losses
must be viewed in the context of significant prior losses. In this regard, the characterization of
this project as a CE may lead to the use of Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). This NWP, like
the NEPA designation on which it is based, facilitates approval of a Section 404 permit by the
Corps of Engineers for the dredge and fill of wetlands which "... neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment ..." The Service believes that
the use of NWP 23 would be inappropriate for the proposed project.
The PN states that agency coordination and field investigations have revealed that no federafly-
protected species are located in the project area. Service data indicate that the red-cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides bore(ilis) is the only listed species known to occur in Hertford
County. Our records indicate that there have been no reported occurrences of this species in the
immediate vicinity of the project area. However, the Service file for this project does not
contain any communications on the field investigations mentioned in the PN and the Service has
not issued any concurrence that the project would not adversely affect this species. While we
believe that this species would not use the swamp forests adjacent Wiccacon Creek, we do not
know the extent of project impacts on other natural communities at this time. Therefore, the
Service is unable to confirm that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have been fulfilled.
In summary, the Service recommends that the USCG request an EA and a formal Finding of No
Significant Impact prior to the issuance of a permit. As noted, the proposed project appears to be
the construction of an entirely new bridge which happens to be adjacent to an existing bridge,
3
rather than a true bridge replacement project which is more appropriate for a CE. An EA would
allow for a more thorough discussion of possible alternatives, an assessment of environmental
impacts, and the development a compensatory wetland mitigation plan.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this Public Notice. If you have any questions on
this report, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext 27.
Sincerely,
ohn M. Hefn
Field Supervisor
References:
Hefner, J. M., B. O. Wilen, T. E. Dahl, and W. E. Frayer. 1994. Southeastern Wetlands, Status
and Trends, Mid-1970's to Mid-1980's. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 33 pp.
FW S/R4:HHall:2/26/98: WP: A:wiccacon.298
cc:
H. Frank Vick, NC Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
Frank McBride, NCWRC, Northside, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
John Parker, NC Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, NC
Mike Bell, USA Corps of Engineers, Regulatory, Washington, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Melgaard, USEPA, Atlanta, GA
Andreas Mager, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL
Charles Bruton, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
T
StAT$ of NORTH CAAOLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 7PLANSPORTATYON
JAMES B. HUNT 1R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GAR[lE7'f' Ja.
Gov?aNOn P.a. ROX2M01, MUIGH, N.C. 27611-Ml SiCMARY
Deoember 3, 1997
W. Michael D. Smith, Asst. Chief
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Bngimcm
Wilmington District Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
23?
#M?I?IIYIM?+??µAW-V?''N?+4sMl.,:.;hiwl:wF.NMl1o,n ? dWA?.:.Ny'?•?.w?+,??rdYltlwMagA?.r*+?.?MYWa?rrY'kJ.lrbh?,l4U i?aNV?!xj??RS3YF?r????,?+br`v?wM. Y?•?.??Frw ?.r?N,d?u??.,?.nnw?,;.??.v; ..?hv ?s yWr ?. !.? ???. re. i . .... ?.? ? i S.b?V,%v?
SUBIECT; Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC 45 over the Wiccacon River in
Hertford County;( TIP) No. B-1231; State project No. 81070401; Federal Aid
Project No. BRS-5053(2).
The Department of Transportation recently reapplied to the U. S. Coast Guard for authorization
to proceed with a revised proposal for the subject project. As you are aware, the department's
original proposal was to replace the existing 25-foot vertical clearance bridge with a structure
that would provide t/-15 feet of vertical clearance. The proposed length of the new structure
would have been 362 feet. Based on objections from adjacent landowners, who argued that the
planned reduction in vertical navigation clearance would result in personal hardships, the Coast
Guard did not authorize the proposal. The department's original design would have impacted
1,05 acres of forested wetlands, tho majority of which is a high quality swamp forest.
The department's current proposal is to replace the existing bridge with a structure that will
provide 20 feet of vertical navigation clearance. This.proposal also includes a longer bridge in
order to minimize impacts to high quality forested, wetlands. The newly proposed structure will
be 440 feet long. Anticipated wetland impacts total 1.11 acres.
In evaluating design options, the department considered an alternative that would provide a
20-foot vertical clearance while maintaining the originally proposed bridge length of 362 feet.
This structure would have impacted 1.20 acres of wetlands. The decision to lengthen the bridge
to 440 feet, at an Increased expenditure of approximately $ 100,000, was made in the interest of
minimizing impacts to wetlands.
Although the RegulatoryBranch approved the departments original proposal under a
Nationwide 23 authorization, design revisions necessitated by the Coast Guard have resulted in
an increase in impacts to Section 404 wetlands. However, steps have been taken to minimize
NOD
uaa wuuumou w u?o reiumm of au oosorcte approacnway nus to ongtnm contours.
By copy of this letter, the department is requesting authorization of ita current proposal by the
Division of Water Quality under Section 401. Based upon recent discussions with Cindy Bell,
the department will be obligated to provide compensatory mitigation for the anticipated 1,11
acres of impacts to wetlands. The department is willing to propose a 1:1 replacement
(1.11 acres) from the restoration component at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site, ,or provide
$26,640 to the WR1' (based upon unit cost of $24,000 per acre for riparian wetland replacemcnt.

r.I
(eY?'ye-
In a related, but separate matter, the Division of Coastal Management has indicated that the
department's current proposal can be reauthorized with a minor CAMA Permit refinement letter.
The department will be pursuing this matter in the immediate fliture. It is assumed that any
response the Rcgalatory Branch intends to make will occur through General Permit 291
c9ordiua#on.
}' 1
X' You for the'time and effort your staff has invested on this project to date. Hopefully. these
? ores will result in a successful project for all interested p"es. Should you have any questions
or comments, please call I& M. Randall Turner at [phone].
{ :r i t rrp .M ) o; K r
1 #f' ?._. t F #„ t n ;f! 7I' t i. 1{ ;.t, #t F'+ 1 0 t, r? 4{
?,tn ,».^ ..,,.,,:, a , ,, „ ?'GY17?'str'x?41CGi??11r7NARIG'C11' ??1.'tnN?;?l?l?lr#.A ??F:1(1Y? hR`k#I.P'+'A?>.P?If ?'!#?' ?'h 4ht,J ?t .ail #1 ? :,.hk # t • .r;,err^ tar
H. Franklin Tick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mrt
cc: Cindy Bell, Division of Water Quality
Bill Brazier, U. S. Corps of Engineers
Tarry Moore, Division of Coastal Management
D. R. Conner, P. E. North Carolina Department of rIhMortation
M. Randall Turner, North Carolina Department of Transportation
ow,4*s
PROJECT $1070401
I

1 '
.??r
'
( yi
1
VfC
l IT
-
(

, +

I OF 3
!9iA
i,a

SCALE
1 O 1 MILE
LOCATION M AP
suit W MTN COW"
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ArmN
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE
OVER WICCACON RIVER
HERTFORD C NTY
Su811lTTED 9Y i
NIEF AWIMEER
DRAW BY ? C aWETTER DATE r
CHCUED BY : 4A."•.4rt+v DATE =_1J= -q
tyi.

M
N .,. W

W
d

Z

LL N
N I W

d
N

L
W

s!V
?D
w,

W
J ~
W
z
-> U
n ww O
Cl u- 5 a
It

0
?
d C5
$
?
w
Q Q:

4

W W
r1

ti

d
rr

r: .

L
V

0
d
k
LL
o.
t?
J
LL
O
1
4
Q
3-

Q
Ir O
~ .?

•e M
N
N
I ?LL,
J

12
o+ z
O
co
N
w
2
H
- a
I
J
O ?
+ w
1
1 4
w 1
LA 1
1
l?al W 1
IL Lai 2
.?? Lt. Lid
I
rrsa e.? =
? Fm
1„xisq
}??rly ., .. ...x .. Lai
rrrr? ?
s-s:r,gs,

lfJ' l+1
M
1 p
1
1 1
1
W s
i
..J
Z
Q
LLJ
W
,., lit
00
o1
¦
„r, W

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMS D. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF IRGHWAYS E. Norris Tolson
GOVMOR P.O. BOX M SECRETARY
Edcnm, N.C. 27932
Division One
FAX COVER SHEET
Date: 4-7-10
FROM: M. Randall Turner, Division Environmental Officer
Planning & Environmental Branch-Division One
TO: CyNdi' eel/
Myw ., .. .. rr ,. r.,d,. ,W,_, ,..r •...;, . .,_..r...u,. "+• i'i?llu?i i?r°,ys. , r., , .....' '
Number of pages, including cover shoat: ed
Hardcopy to Follow: Yes NO
Me_ ssme
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: mrtumergdoh.dot.state.ncus
RE-CEIVED
MAR 2 0 1997,
^^?""'? rrvliROrJM1,;?NTAL SC;?NCEs
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI 1. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR March 18, 1997 SECRETARY
Commander (OAN)
Fifth U. S. Coast Guard District
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Virginia 23705
ATTN: Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Specialist
Dear Ms. Deaton:
Subject: Hertford County, North Carolina; Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC 45 over
the lk7ccacon Rimer; TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) No. 13-1231;
State Project No. 8.1070401; Federal Aid No. BRS-5053(2)
On September 20, 1995 the North Carolina Department of Transportation applied for
Coast Guard authorization to replace the subject bridge structure. The Department's proposal
is to replace the old (c. 1940) bridge, having a 25-ft. vertical clearance, with a new structure
having a 15-ft. vertical clearance.*
On July 31, 1996 the Coast Guard notified the Department that the permit would not
be approved for the proposed bridge replacement. The Coast Guard's disapproval was stated
to be based primarily upon objections from two adjacent property owners. The substance of
these objections can be summarized as follows:
1. Property Otiwler A 's stated intentions to use his Wiccacon River property, as a
pore of refuge for his 52 ft. long sportftshing boat during hurricanes that threaten
his permanent port in Xforehead City, and
2. Property Owner B's implied future intentions to use barge(s) to hard logs
presumably from properly located upstream of the bridge site.
In response, the Department feels that, as a matter of public policy, it is imprudent to
allow the narrowly-defined interests of one or two landowners to dictate the design
parameters of a public transportation facility. The Department must plan, design and build
transportation improvements that will safeguard the overall public's interests. It is not
*Note: It is important to point out that the vertical clearance of the proposed brhdge will be 15 feet above
natural rvutcr level (N1?7.), nut 13 Jt.-7 in. The 13 ft.-7 in. vertical clearance, noted on drenrings um! in
correspondence provided to the Coast Guard and the Division of Coastal.lfana, cement, crroneous+ r
contrasts the e-visting 2.i ft. vertical clearance, measured at N1VI., trite the proposer! structure's anticipated
vertical clearance at a recorded higle water elevation.

Page Two
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
uncommon, in fact it is rather routine, for individuals with property interests (present or
future) to object to one or more aspects of a transportation proposal. These interests are
often sincere, but are narrowly-focused on specific needs and/or demands of one, or a
small faction of individuals. Unless these interest coincide with those of the overall public,
or unless the objection can be accommodated without compromising project objectives,
i.e., safety, transportation integrity, cost, etc., the Department has an overriding obligation
to defend its proposal on behalf of the public good.
Regarding the first objection (1), there is no question that numerous alternate ports
of refuge are available to boatsmen whose home port is Morehead City. To concede to
this objection would lend credibility to requests from any adjacent landowner (who might
also be part-time residents) to lengthen, shorten, raise or relocate a structure, which is
scheduled for replacement, simply because they would not be able to get maximum usage
from some aspect of their personal property othertiyise. In this instance, the Department is
aware that it is proposing to modify an existing use. The Department completed a federal
Categorical Exclusion study in 1986, followed by a reevaluation which was published in
1994. The resulting environmental document addressed a full range of topics, including
cultural resources, natural resources, social impacts, and air and noise analyses.
Interviews with local residents were undertaken to assess trends of waterway usage. The
conclusion from these surveys was that only small recreational/pleasure craft up to 22 feet
in length were using the waterway. Based upon this study and the response from the
public during the public hearing, it was reasonable for the Department to conclude that a
lower profile, less disruptive and expensive replacement structure would accommodate the
pattern of usage that had been established in the 1980's. All things considered, this
objection appears to be without merit.
With regard to the second objection (2), it is important to point out that currently
only one firm is transporting logs via barges in northeastern North Carolina. According to
N. C. Forestry professionals in eastern North Carolina, it is generally not economically
feasible to harvest and load logs directly onto barges at a harvest site. Harvested logs are
normally transported via surface transportation to staging areas and in some instances it is
feasible to load onto barges for final transport to the processor. If the timber stocks are
located on flooded swamp forests adjacent to the river, it is unlikely that traditional,
mechanized timber harvests would be permissible under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Non-traditional harvesting, i.e., helicopter or cabling out via winches to barges,
would probably not be practicable. Again, in this instance the Department feels that
attempts to accommodate the desires of a local, part-time resident, who may, or may not
find it expedient to transport logs in the future from parcels located upstream of the
bridge, is to subjugate the overall public's interest. The record will reflect that the
Department is always receptive to comments and criticism from individuals or groups of
individuals, but, in the final analysis, the interest of the collective public are usually the
most compelling. It is on behalf of the larger public interest that the Department petitions
the Coast Guard for a review and reevaluation of its permit decision.
Pag:: Three
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
Following a review of all aspects of the subject project, the Department has
concluded that is should continue to pursue authorization of its original design. In
addition to comments made above, numerous other factors were evaluated in making this
decision. These factors are summarized below:
• Federal Highway Administration approved Categorical Exclusion for project
on April 21, 1994.
During the investigation that preceded publication of the Categorical Exclusion document,
it was dctentnincd that the only Nvater-bome craft which utilized the river Nverc small, recreational
boats up to 22 feet in length. Based upon this data, the Department could not justify the
expenditure of the additional funds required to purchase excess right of Nvay and construction costs
to build a new bridge with the same vertical clearance as the existing structure.
Section 401 Permit was issued on May 13, 1996 by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) of the NC Department of,•Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR).
• Section 10 and Section 404 authorizations issued by U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Nationwide 23: CFR 330.5 [a] 23).
Coastal Area Management Act (CAINIA) permit was issued on June 26, 1996 by
the Division of Coastal Management (DCINI) of the NCDEHNR.
The adjacent landowner notification process is a mandatory prerequisite of the CANIA
permit process. The DCNI received adverse comments from the adjacent property owners,
presumably similar to those received by the Coast Guard. However, the DCM decided to issue a
CAMA Major Development Permit on the merits of the proposal, which were ultimately
determined to be in the overall public's interest. While the DCNi is charged under CAMA to make
its permit decisions only after consideration of a wide range of issues, navigation and public trust
issues were among the more important factors evaluated during that agency's deliberations.
a Elevated bridge design will impact more wetlands.
Redesign of the bridge replacement to conform to the existing vertical clearance will
necessitate impacts to an additional 10,000 square feet of palustrine forested Nvcdands. Under the
strict application of the 404b(1) guidelines, the Department would have difficulty justif}-ing this
additional impact, since its preferred alternative would avoid and/or minimize impacts, as
compared to the elevated bridge design. The Department has reason to believe that the Corps of
Engineers (Section 404) and the Division of Water Quality (Section 401) would object to the
elevated bridge design on the basis of "avoidance/minimization".
o Additional design and anticipated construction costs estimated at S139,000
would be needed to accommodate the elevated bridge project, as compared to
the recommended design.

Page Four
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
o Additional right of way expenditures are anticipated to accommodate the larger
footprint that would be required with the elevated bridge structure.
® Project completion date would be delayed more than 1 year from date decision is
made to shift to elevated bridge design. This delay will lead to additional cost
increases. Under the existing, recommended design, construction letting could
be scheduled within weeks of permit approval.
It cannot be over-emphasized that the Department has no intentions of initiating a
highway improvement project which will not be in the best interest of the general public.
Consequently, it is requested the Coast Guard reconsider its previous decision and
authorize the project as originally proposed. We believe that when all economic and
environmental factors are considered, the alternative selected is in the best interest of our
state. Your assistance in expediting this review and reexamination will be appreciated.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. If you need additional information,
please call M. Randall Turner at [phone].
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/eah
cc: John Parker, DCM
John Dorney, DWQ
Michael Bell, COE
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., NCDOT
D. R. Conner, P.E., NCDOT
M. Randall Turner, NCDOT
l- . -t
ate:.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR-
GOVERNOR March 18, 1997 SECRETARY
Commander (OAN)
Fifth U. S. Coast Guard District
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Virginia 23705
ATTN: Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Specialist
Dear Ms. Deaton:
Subject: Hertford County, A7orth Carolina; Replacetlteltt of Bridge No. 23 oil NC 43 over
the Mccacolt River, TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) No. B-1231;
.State Project No. 8.1070401; Federal Aid No. BRS-3033(2)
On September 20, 1995 the North Carolina Department of Transportation applied for
Coast Guard authorization to replace the subject bridge structure. The Department's proposal
is to replace the old (c. 1940) bridge, having a 25-ft. vertical clearance, with a new structure
having a 15-ft. vertical clearance.*
On July 31, 1996 the Coast Guard notified the Department that the permit would not
be approved for the proposed bridge replacement. The Coast Guard's disapproval was stated
to be based primarily upon objections from two adjacent property owners. The substance of
these objections can be summarized as follows:
1. Property Otis-tier A 's stated itttettliotts to use his Wiccacott River property as a
por[ of refuge for his 3? ft. long sporiftshirtg boat during hurricanes that threaten
his perntanem port itt Xforehead City, and
2. Property Otitvter B's implied future intentions to use barge(s) to haul logs
prestunahly from property located upstream of the bridge site.
In response, the Department feels that, as a matter of public policy, it is imprudent to
allow the narrowly-defined interests of one or two landowners to dictate the design
parameters of a public transportation facility. The Department must plan, design and build
transportation improvements that will safeguard the overall public's interests. It is not
*Note: It is important to point out that the vertical clearance of the proposed bridge ivill he 1S feet above
normal water level (NIVI.), nut 13 ft.-7 in. The 13 ft.-7 in. vertical c•leurance, noted on drawings and in
correspondence provided to the Coast Guard atrnl the Division of C'oustal Jlunugcment, erroneous4l
contrasts the e-visting 25-ft. vertical clearance, nneasured at NI11, with the proposed structure's anticipated
vertical clearance at a recorded high water elevation.

Page Two
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
uncommon, in fact it is rather routine, for individuals with property interests (present or
future) to object to one or more aspects of a transportation proposal. These interests are
often sincere, but are narrowly-focused on specific needs and/or demands of one, or a
small faction of individuals. Unless these interest coincide with those of the overall public,
or unless the objection can be accommodated without compromising project objectives,
i.e., safety, transportation integrity, cost, etc., the Department has an overriding obligation
to defend its proposal on behalf of the public good.
Regarding the first objection (1), there is no question that numerous alternate ports
of refuge are available to boatsmen whose home port is Morehead City. To concede to
this objection would lend credibility to requests from any adjacent landowner (who might
also be part-time residents) to lengthen, shorten, raise or relocate a structure, which is
scheduled for replacement, simply because they would not be able to get maximum usage
from some aspect of their personal property othenyise. In this instance, the Department is
aware that it is proposing to modify an existing use. The Department completed a federal
Categorical Exclusion study in 1986, followed by a reevaluation which was published in
1994. The resulting environmental document addressed a full range of topics, including
cultural resources, natural resources, social impacts, and air and noise analyses.
Interviews with local residents were undertaken to assess trends of waterway usage. The
conclusion from these surveys was that only small recreational/pleasure craft up to 22 feet
in length were using the waterway. Based upon this study and the response from the
public during the public hearing, it was reasonable for the Department to conclude that a
lower profile, less disruptive and expensive replacement structure would accommodate the
pattern of usage that had been established in the 1980's. All things considered, this
objection appears to be without merit.
With regard to the second objection (2), it is important to point out that currently
only one firm is transporting logs via barges in northeastern North Carolina. According to
N. C. Forestry professionals in eastern North Carolina, it is generally not economically
feasible to harvest and load logs directly onto barges at a harvest site. Harvested logs are
normally transported via surface transportation to staging areas and in some instances it is
feasible to load onto barges for final transport to the processor. If the timber stocks are
located on flooded swamp forests adjacent to the river, it is unlikely that traditional,
mechanized timber harvests would be permissible under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Non-traditional harvesting, i.e., helicopter or cabling out via winches to barges,
would probably not be practicable. Again, in this instance the Department feels that
attempts to accommodate the desires of a local, part-time resident, who may, or may not
find it expedient to transport logs in the future from parcels located upstream of the
bridge, is to subjugate the overall public's interest. The record will reflect that the
Department is always receptive to comments and criticism from individuals or groups of
individuals, but, in the final analysis, the interest of the collective public are usually the
most compelling. It is on behalf of the larger public interest that the Department petitions
the Coast Guard for a review and reevaluation of its permit decision.
Page Three
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
Following a review of all aspects of the subject project, the Department has
concluded that is should continue to pursue authorization of its original design. In
addition to comments made above, numerous other factors were evaluated in making this
decision. These factors are summarized below:
•. Federal Highway Administration approved Categorical Exclusion for project
on April 21, 1994.
During the investigation that preceded publication of the Categorical Exclusion document,
it was determined that the only water-borne craft which utilized the river were small, recreational
boats up to 22 feet in length. Based upon this data, the Department could not justify the
expenditure of the additional funds required to purchase excess right of way and construction costs
to build a new bridge with the same vertical clearance as the existing structure.
Section 401 Permit was issued on May 13, 1996 by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) of the NC Department of,Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR).
• Section 10 and Section 404 authorizations issued by U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Nationwide 23: CFR 330.5 [a] 23).
O Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit was issued on June 26, 1996 by
the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) of the NCDEHNR.
The adjacent landowner notification process is a mandatory prerequisite of the CAMA
permit process. The DCM received adverse conutnents from the adjacent property owners,
presumably similar to those received by the Coast Guard. However, the DCM decided to issue a
CANIA Major Development Permit on the merits of the proposal, which were ultimately
determined to be in the overall public's interest. While the DCM is charged under CAMA to make
its permit decisions only after consideration of a wide range of issues, navigation and public trust
issues were among the more important factors evaluated during that agency's deliberations.
o Elevated bridge design will impact more wetlands.
Redesign of the bridge replacement to conform to the existing vertical clearance will
necessitate impacts to an additional 10,000 square feet of palustrine forested wetlands. Under the
strict application of the 404b(1) guidelines, the Department would have difficulty justifying this
additional impact, since its preferred alternative would avoid and/or minimize impacts, as
compared to the elevated bridge design. The Department has reason to believe that the Corps of
Engineers (Section 404) and the Division of Water Quality (Section 401) would object to the
elevated bridge design on the basis of "avoidance/minimization'".
O Additional design and anticipated construction costs estimated at 5189,000
would be needed to accommodate the elevated bridge project, as compared to
the recommended design.
Page Four
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
o Additional right of way expenditures are anticipated to accommodate the larger
footprint that would be required with the elevated bridge structure.
o Project completion date would be delayed more than 1 year from date decision is
made to shift to elevated bridge design. This delay will lead to additional cost
increases. Under the existing, recommended design, construction letting could
be scheduled within weeks of permit approval.
It cannot be over-emphasized that the Department has no intentions of initiating a
highway improvement project which will not be in the best interest of the general public.
Consequently, it is requested the Coast Guard reconsider its previous decision and
authorize the project as originally proposed. We believe that when all economic and
environmental factors are considered, the alternative selected is in the best interest of our
state. Your assistance in expediting this review and reexamination will be appreciated.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. If you need additional information,
please call M. Randall Turner at [phone].
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/eah
cc: John Parker, DCM
John Dorney, DWQ
Michael Bell, COE
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., NCDOT
D. R. Conner, P.E., NCDOT
M. Randall Turner, NCDOT
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Hertford County on NC 45 at Bridge #23 over the Wiccacon River
near Harrellsville, North Carolina
Photo Index - 1989: N/A 1984: N/A 11 ..._---------
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2,638,400 Y: 941,500
Harrellsville Quad. (upper left corner)
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit- 10/30/95 10/11/95"°°c .!
Was Applicant Present - YES NO
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 2/12/96
Office - Washington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Hertford County
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation (water, wetlands) Rural (land)
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA
(C) Water Dependent: YES
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
7
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Bridge
Planned - Bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
[AREA]
FILLED OTHER
DREDGED
8.
(A) Vegetated Wetlands ±27,500 ftz
(404 designated)
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands
(C) Other ±120,000 ftz
Highground
(D) Total Area Disturbed: ± 1.6 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: NO
(F) Water Classification: C-NSW Open: NO
PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to replace an existing ±25' 10" wide by ±379' long
bridge with a ±33' 1" wide by ±360' long bridge.
NC DOT Bridge #23
Hertford County
Project setting
The N. C. Department of Transportation (NC DOT) proposes to replace bridge #23
located on NC 45 over the Wiccacon River near Harrellsville in Hertford County, North Carolina.
The existing bridge is ±25' 10" wide and ±379' long and has a vertical clearance of ±25'. The
navigable water depth at the existing fender system is ±23'. The bridge is bordered on the
downstream (east) side by 404 delineated wooded wetland vegetated with various species of
hardwoods including cypress. The wetland area gives way to upland grasses on the road shoulder.
The upstream (east) side is bordered by an approximately 50' wide cut over area of 404 delineated
wooded wetland for aerial transmission line right-of-way. This cut over area is vegetated with
various wetland plant species which give way to upland grasses on the road shoulder. Adjacent
the cut over area continuing upstream of the bridge are 404 delineated wooded wetland vegetated
with various species of hardwoods including cypress. The upstream (west) side of the site is
bordered by uplands with a dwelling and various out buildings. This area is vegetated with lawn
grasses, shrubs and several pines and hardwoods. The downstream (west) side of the bridge is
bordered by an upland hardwood area. As you move away (west) from the river this upland
wooded area gives way to an area of 404 delineated wetland. This wetland area appears to be
the upper limit of a bottom land hardwood finger which connects to the Wiccacon River and is
vegetated with various species of hardwoods, pines and various wetland plants. The river is
±225' wide at the bridge crossing and an existing fender system is in place with a navigable width
of ±60'. The Wiccacon River is classified as C-NSW by the Environmental Management
Commission.
Project description
NC DOT proposes to replace an existing ±25' 10" wide by ±379' long bridge with an
approximately 33' 1" wide by ±360' long bridge ±50' downstream of the present location. The
existing bridge which has 16 bents will be removed and replaced with a new bridge which has
4 bents. The existing vertical clearance is ±25 and the proposed bridge will be lowered to ± 13'
7". The existing fender system has a navigable width of ±60' and will be removed. The new
bridge will have a navigable width of ±85'. Approximately 27,500 ftz of wooded wetland will
be filled to create the approach for the new bridge. The shift of the existing approach will also
result in the filling or disturbance of ±120,000 ftz of highground. NC DOT proposes to remove
the existing approach outside the toe of the new approach and return it to the grade and elevation
of the adjacent substrate.
NC DOT Bridge #23
Hertford County
Page Two
Anticipated impacts
U
(4
The project as proposed would result in the filling of ±27,500 ft2 of wooded wetland and
the filling or disturbance of t 120,000 ft2 of high ground. The existing bridge has a navigable
opening between existing fenders of ±60' wide with a vertical clearance of ±25'. The proposed
bridge will have a opening of f 85' wide with a vertical clearance of t 13' 7". While this
proposal enhances navigation width, the loss of 11' 5" of vertical clearance will eliminate timber
barge access upstream of the new bridge. Localized turbidity would occur as a result of the
construction activities.
David W. Moye - Washington Office - 14 February 1996

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GAPRETr JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 29, 1996
Mr. David W. Moye, Field Representative
N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Washington Field Office
P.O. Box 2188
Washington, N.C. 27889-2188
Dear Mr. Moye
Re: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC-45 in Hertford County
On/about September 20, 1995 the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) submitted a CAMA Major Development Permit application for the proposed
replacement of bridge # 23 in Hertford County. A permit Is required, because the
Wiccacon River, at the site of bridge # 23, was determined to be a Public Trust Water
Area of Environmental Concern per Administrative Code Subchapter 7H.0207.
As a Categorical Exclusion, the project's anticipated impacts to Secticn 404
wetlands (0.95 acre) are authorized under Nationwide Permit 23. These impacts
include 0.23 acre of PF01 C and 0.72 acre of PF06F bottomlands
On October 4, 1995 the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) returned the
application due to discrepancies in the information provided and due to concerns about
proposed changes in vertical navigation clearance, right of way, etc. Responses to
these concerns have been made and are addressed in this letter and attached
information, including revised MP-1 and MP-5 applications. Riparian landoviner
notification verifications are also provided.
Concerns raised by the DCM
• Adjacent Riparian Property Owner Notifications- See attached material
• Justification for requesting a reduction in vertical clearance:
During its planning study, the NCDOT determined that commercial river traffic,
including log barges, no longer utilize the river above the existing bridge. Furthermore,
the NCDOT's investigation confirmed that the only vessels observed using the river
channel are pleasure craft, including bass boats, etc., not over 22 ft in length. During

Page 2
January 29, 1996
Mr. Moye
the planning study efforts were made to contact local residents and others who
were/are familiar with patterns of usage in the river. Although records of the individual
interviews were not kept, the conclusion of the study was that the existing vertical
clearance was entirely unjustified, based upon a pattern of usage that had been
established during the last couple of decades.
Will existing causeway be removed to wetland elevations ? The Revised
Categorical Exclusion document for this project, published in 1994 (attached)
stated that the NCDOT would remove the causeway to natural ground elevations.
NEPA documentation: The NCDOT has completed a NEPA study of the proposed
project, in accordance with Federal Highway Administration guidelines; a federal
categorical exclusion document is routinely required for federally funded bridge
replacement projects, which have been determined to pose minor risks to the
environment. This document is attached.
Right of Way concerns: The NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge on
new location, which will necessitate the acquisition of additional right of way.
Proposed right of way is indicated in plan views. Right of way acquisition will be
accomplished either through "fee simple" purchase, or the statutory condemnation
process well in advance of the anticipated August 1996 construction letting.
It is requested that this revised application be processed as soon as possible to
enable the NCDOT to upgrade the existing, functionally obsolete structure in the near
future.
If you have any questions or comments please call Mr. M. Randall Turner at
[phone] (office), or at [phone] (cell phone).
Sincerel ,
4A
Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
HFV/mrt
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, DCM
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Smith, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. D. R. Conner, P.E., Division Engineer
M. Randall Turner, Division Environmental Officer
Form DCM-MP-1
AJPJL -ITDLff CAT
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT b. City, town, community or landmark
Northwest of Harrelsville
a. Landowner:
Name N.C. Department of Transportation
Address P.O. Box 25201
City Raleigh State N.C.
Zip 27606 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
c. Street address or secondary road number
NC-45
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) Wiccacon River
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
b. Authorized Agent:
Name H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager,
Address ME Branch, NCDOT, P.O. Box 25201
City Raleigh State N.C.
Zip 27606 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
c. Project name (if any) B-1231; Replace Bridge # 23
over Wiccacon River in Hertford Countv
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Construct multiple span reinforced concrete
bridge structure approx. 50 ft. downstream of
existing bridge; existing bridge to be detour
structure during construction, but will be
removed at pro*. completion
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? Both
e. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Public Transportation
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages.
Purpose/Use: Public Transportation Facility
Construction:Reinforced Concrete Bridge
a. County Hertford
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract N/A
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL El. 28.50 (NAVD)
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Dorovan (mucky peat), Bibb (loam), Norfolk
(loamv sand)
e. Vegetation on tract Palustrine Forested, Mixed
Upland
f Man-made features now on tract NC-45 and
Bridge No. 23
g. What is the LAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consul! the local land use
plan.)
X Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Farm/Residential
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance cerlifrcale, if applicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? NCDOT Staff Archaeologists
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
X• Yes No Me FHWA has approved a "No
Adverse Affect" for the site conditioned on a site investigation being conducted
prior to construction. Concurrence with this approach was received by the
SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic preservation.
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
(411ach documentation, if available) See Attached.
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.) Surface Runoff
o_. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted: -
o A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims
title to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
o An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 112" by 11" white paper. (Refer to Coastal
Resources Commission Rule 710303 for a detailed
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a past of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to
Form DCM-MP-1
the site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
OA Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
OA 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 David W. Basnight
Address 1433 Fairway Ridge Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606
Name Walter H. Basnight
Address 2709 Evans St.
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
Name Thomas F. Phelps
Address Rt. 1 Box 94A
Cofield, NC
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 eertifv 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 certifv that 1 am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
© A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
© A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
O 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. ffederal CE is Enclosed)
This is the-? day of January 19 96
Print Name H. ra in Vic P. 04DOT
Signature
L n ne orAulhon:ed Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
_ DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
_ DCM MP-4 Structures Information
Y 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.
W
Form DCM-MP-5
]?Rl[dD(?IES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all other
sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
Steel-reinforced Concrete
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Wiccacon River
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at NEW or
NWL +/- 23 ft at channel
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 379 ft.
(2) Width of existing bridge 25 ft. 10 in.
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge 25 ft. vertically
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) Existing bridge to be
used as temporary detour during
construction; to be completely removed
upon completion of replacement structure
f Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert N/A
(2) Width of existing culvert N/A
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL N/A
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain) N/A
g. Length of proposed bridge 360 ft.
h. Width of proposed bridge 33 ft. 1 in.
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
13 ft. 7 in.
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
Approximately 13 ft. 7 in.
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? X Yes No
If yes, explain Although vertical clearance is to be
reduced from 25 ft. to 13 ft. 7 in., a much %ider
horizontal clearance (75 ft. 6 in. vs 58 ft) is
proposed (also, see cover letter)
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? X Yes No
If yes, explain Relocation of bridge approx. 50 ft.
north of existing bridge requires filling of some
palustrine wetlands (see drawings)
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
X Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Form DCM-NIP-S
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed N/A
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
N/A
d.
Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes, N/A
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes, N/A
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert N/A
g. Width of proposed culvert N/A
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL N/A
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain N/A
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes No
If yes, explain N/A
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within: No
_ Coastal Wetlands - SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(l) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
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: N/A
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Form DCM-MP-5
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below
MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
- Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 1,100 ft.
(2) Width of area to be filled 0-50 ft.
(3) Purpose of fill Relocation of causeway
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 1,500 ft. (+/-)
(2) Width of area to be filled 80 ft. (+/-)
(3) Purpose of fill Relocation of causeway
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail Project is likely to qualify
for NWP 23: mitigation is not anticipated
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Existing Electric & Phone
lines to he relocated
c. Will the proposed project require the construction
of any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Stringent Erosion Control
per NCDOT's BNIP's for the Protection of
Surface Waters
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic
dredge)? Crane, excavater, backhoe, dozer, etc.
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Rip-rap at both abutments
will stabilize fills slopes at end-bents
H. Frankli Vic P.F, OT
Ap a t Ject N7V
7Da n ure
t
77*00'Franklin Norfolk Pot Ism Du IA Norfolk 76,00•
LS} Ir7 Satfelk LYAeI Wallace Ion ^
t 2 Drum i nd Chts7peak E?u Z
258 $
t I7 NortAwesl
ll
l Creeds
i 8 .,A0 ?Q(Ith
and Bo stick
?? `I (r•',
J
t
eyrr
Somerton 13 WAs ..?
VIRGINIA
Drum Hill Coraaeake c 1 . Mayock
RDLIXA-o1 Reynolds . 3 C \ C

. o
7 Gates
ODDS ?odsJ T, 'K tt?hland
?? ..
?
,
.?,o '. G r A 7 T E S 1
\
258 ?` Roduco Ruckland 7 32 A South Mills `Sn 1_ e
sl la t
owden , yjqutuck w
.00
f\ ns 9 \
I
/ r P
7 i
k
I3 3
3 158
Comer_
urfreesD we n / Sunbury 17
13 1 d-- o..o
l
2
r lu ?`
o M'ae
f
wbd X
eto
Maa
1
s
/ t ?' I58 Ca tesvdle+ I sra. y..e
\. A-
-7 A,
Corolla
re ury .IBatco? Waterlil
t x
I .} Winton Trolvdle J I7
• 7 a 7 S"ndycross 0 Ix II
s 3
\ 1?
_
` ?` C niocll
a
11 o.,
Tunis Hobbsviue
(? +
% MendalJ^ f Collis d 1 2 i1 EIIt7EC Cltj*
Umon • Gliden
t 11
)
den dl
+ 0 { y.' a ,.. .
R,ddk
P
n\
1
.
?K
er rMCA
s5 I ,
CAS-
1.
E 7 Tr F 0 f,; ? r•//7 ?.: co.3 MID ] Q 1 u
f Hatrtll r Rylan \ a
oewidere
c
Ahoikie
r. '
u ?r s
amts •
%I
r 6 ChaQanok k may. Grandy
d
° f 17 PER UIMAN 9 Ids oldTra sanderlina
pw -tlU -J l ' - - Tynerl 7 misu 17 ee*anl
P r p 1 v suers u!
e
er
2 Nuonton
7 - !2 Coleram i ertlaa 11 1 S
?P all ?. Duck -
t0 7 } ??.j

?? .-.
u Connarrtsa 13 7 C W N I
h
7 r r y
Point
c..r.. h.
,
'
oc t 7 Du ants Neck w.d. h.
Burden 11 f R ky
"'"a ' 1 ?7??l
??}tl 7i Awes
Aalla 1 7 Rat ?\ I _ Harbr a r\Porn `-
Mount Gould
. h
i
h

{ 1 Mbr? `
%
,0 C? skewrrllt A3Nand a cock edw..o+7 rf...^h.
h
r?? ^I t f\1 ? •7 ]
R T I EdenAW • p
wnw
.
Per S? Ki?ty 2
Souk i HsrD«H
J 'w' Ur Kill D
a
?
Drew Midway J2 - arse Cdinlto I
I . -? '
casaba \ f e \ t Lb¢y7k
twsu+r 158
+ Wihd3a 7 _ Merry _ -- tS V) ua w..Nats Ha
Hill f { BYIf Bav /Fort La mar
asAoe "p
Ncw loundlandJ ?
u
Qurtsna GriotowI ?Ma[keT}sr- 5 '? ?? 73e
ss Manni ! o
13
6 S
rl •0
__I it Co ii _
S 0 1 30

O

1
10 20 30 10 /!
B-1231 BRG "'OE3 o H
, 8. 1010401
Ih1iON
N
173 1,33 ``_?•1
,
29 Lll
L rq ?? \.?._ Cy n°
a
r.o7 ?:,. Clv?
.V
w?
Lim
J ,
_II7
e s r; ^
. °
... cL
I(j
i i 'o COFIEID ?I uQa ?? '!'s
ya.. r u3' R F-v (S E

w
e 1Z
-g-5
? Grroe
d
i 7.7 14.1

Lf2a u
° v
""
N C CEFARTNIENT
r e..
lsd! e
WE ,
IRA
uu -F TRAN3PORIATION
,
'
. W
ON ?- D I V 131ON OF NIGH WAYS
?
I?C
7 . ? 1331 f, V
HERTFORD COUNTY
L?
P as
?.

r{y + .y
7
U F: ...1..
?.9
u t?
: %
f
??
'

070401
PRDACT 8

.
7 C,
3a1
? ,N
vj
1 , ee wlenuvalF
l3L ?.r3r 1
- Liu ' .

`
(8-1231

',?fl Hoch
Ll11
llll .:;
1
7 ?r7
5
IDGE O e e
?
. 1

a..?,..
v? W ICCACON RIVER
rrs
?
.w,
?
it
.
?
LJ3
1 NER7 FORD COUNTY
a3
I3R10GE NO. Z3
I t SCALE
it o t 7 3 a
I
SHEET OF 7

r 0./.\?¢r I.C.

W
V
A
a
q
p
w
V)
O
A.
O
a
F.

I.
1

CL
I
?
i
I
I
C MO

I
i

M LL. I

Q
o?
W L.
o°
a~
o=c?
om. -
?o
o ? a Co
? N
'C co
s m ?N
? C3z
U)
LO
co
N
wmU
C3 az
a) 4w
a> _ •o
=moo
W ?-
a
N
R\III Holy Iq
,i II?
??Ia II
l ( ? •
r? I?

?I ti•
JIY
? I
I
I _
w I ? ?.
?
j I o I
(
r, : it I ?. I CD LL
?0

ca
I LL I
wW

U

I: at
Q
?
E ?
0 F
i I+J
_ cl

F
O c
2 O
?-
0

z
o

a

t~
u
,

w ?;
C) U<
N w Q V
CL
w > =? C4
a a
p A 4
U
z
I
O
NJ
W
W
L4rj
s'
?? .? II° Y r
_ b3, vN .VpbJix
I
T ?
I(
If ?
(
I? I(
I'
Iii ? i(
I I II
?? I I I I
I I i-
11? I
III I
?I I I
II ? I
I? II
I I.
I I
I I
?
I
I v
A N
m

Ra
N
LL
Q
EX

... O O

I X
w °D
?-
`? ..s o

'? ?Ct?COt

n.^,
L
O

1

' .
^
Lo
co
.C N
III
t!
I m
c..V
N a
rna
CO
c m0
'd
Z 1`
N
to 04

`+
III U ? p)
oLU
? > t4 .C
C3 LL
o
m" M?,
III o a o
2C4 ? 2
`??
0
O
I.
w
a I
V 0
J I
:.1 w I
A0

I.
ir
ti
Lf)
Lr)
co
N
U
F?z
in 4,5^-
U)
_ L U
L. C
t4
> cu
W
m
o
S11W?l ONVl13M

V
.I`C D
a? co
am
m f? N
'fl ? Z
> C3
M LL 't
D Ct)
L: 0
r E?
N
0
a
J
W
aS
N
0
0
0
i
O
O?
a=
O(q
CL
Q

Z %.,
O
rJ
., w
a x z w > Cce
Lo •C7 O .. O?
zxo ?n?
1 ? U o o ?
`I \1 fat F o c zo
1 11 ?i w O u NJ
?I?r C ? W ? CU 4
1, 1 1 ` o ? a cryI
1
16?
1 1 ? D
1 1 1 `:' ?, co
1 ?y` c
1 I 1 ?,? U1 'O ? ?
0 Cq
1 I 1 01 m
? 1 1 1 l o?,o` ?? V o
?z
11 1 a LL Cn 't
? ?? to Q
I II I `? ? ,Q
CC)
?I II In t N Di
13
1 I v
I I? I w°Z 13
I ? l a m `r ? ?i
.; I II I? Q = Nv .
II to a;ca ca
i I I. l a _J c? W
I IIr la ?N? _
? ? - ? I III I c'
3N1"t ?i?,LF'ld - -
F F ?'
z
0
tz w C
O D p
-7
\ I i'?ry;?

a•v _
D N
cr- M ?
N ? gg
a _ so Q
- vVC
p.. 0a?-

'

?+? cn 17
?
s
f 2
0
v
_ Q u Q
_
Q
O

Q
CO

trl
9 U
z p m=
. 1 w _
3 ?

?G 0 ? M

a
40
\\ 9 _0
'
in U
w 1 ==

-c 1 ?:
N
? \ J
Lti
W
g
o /

o
o ?
17-11
N ? W

LL
Nr- O

n

CJ

N
I
O O
i ?
N o
CC)

I

o n N
N co
7
C o
of C? 1- C
Z w? O
? I 3 o ? ? `??
, Z v p

i o ?

Ot'?2? - J
4-- Z
= ;:,-
t- o

? D to ? ? ?-
CC
v 7
-5 p
0. m :r I

Q

1
Q

J U
I W

I I -,
Cf
I
?
0 w
I ? a
?, I U L,
I 1
° o c

ELI.
• U
Z

O o

O -?

ID

in

O , °°

O
• o
W
D
v ?
1 M
U
Z W 0
O Z
? J 1-
i (n
X
W
? I
m...1..1...
0
to
n
e-
U
N

J

•..¦ •I.-
Z
.... w..
Q

-.•. some
mass ....

Q1
J V
v m
LL.
'o
v o
ci

N ' R
W 4aW

O ~ N

c
LC aD W
w
a ?cr o 0
= - u
d Z O w
0
L&j v
.'
W W .
A
?-z-
rr W T ..
m
4
I LLJ
o
I? w Q)
cc
0. o

G
w
o v
M i
W
E- I
V) I
l1 I
wo i
Z W i
w > I
LL. O I
? I
U W I
cr-
z
?w
U1 (n I
X p t
W I-- 1
1
1
1
z
a 1
a
w
J 1
1 ..
1 .
u JI W
AIO,O u r$ U-) I +? J
?M J I U
'yl. • ?? ._N1
stas farm
cr W `J aaaaa.us? :-a I
j Y Vy I W
I J
w
• ?Z
tD Z J
v"
O
qT p I X o
c (V O
cn.. N I O
0 a a C)
U
W
n
cr-
(Z
V)
F-
LLJ
U
Z
z
LL-
O

O w
M
d"
O M
O
W }

U IL .

W ...
O W'

(? LLJ
lL 1

• V w
m

J =
f-

-m- > w

p z
Q

U ? ?.

N
Z W
-7 J
Q 0
U
f?
-' O w o
O W
(n (if in
ui w
(f)
Of Vn
a-
CL
p" O . N

co LL.
H
- W
z
Q
0.
C)
U
N W
^
J
N Q
n
U-
m
ril LO
zl
0
U
W
Cn
WI
m
J
Q
U
CL

~I

Z
O

?

<., I
n,
CC
I

cr- ,
LLJ
8 V)
'a
CC ; CJ (? Q u
t O

o v Cr,
o . ,.,

cc i e
Q cl- w ? I
Ln
?
Q Q G ?? ui
W
u

?I
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID:
County: Ltqc ?
Telephone Number?C- I'li 5 i i - `'1 15 I
Size a rd Locate n of Proper y(waterbody, Highway ame/number, town, etc.)
(? 'L On ?1W iGC ph
?? eau J -rip 1a31.
Indicate Which of the following apply:
a wetlands on t bove described pr erty which we strongly . gcst should be deline tcd and
° Th;;e??
s, . T
he surv d wetland lines m e verified by our sta efore the Corps wil eke a final
urisdictional det mination on your p erty.
° Because a size of your property a our present workload, identification and del' eation of your
wetlarjAg cannot be accomplishe a timely manner. You y wish to employ a co ultant to obtain
et-y'
_vl
m timely delineation of th etlands. Once your co cant has flagged a wetly line on the pro
rps staff will review it, , if it is accurate, we st gly recommend that yo ave the line su ed for
final approval by the ps. The Corps will no ake a final jurisdictional termination on y r property
without an approv survey.
The wetlands on your lot have been delineated, and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have been explained
to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this d termination Tay be r ied
upon for a period not to exceed tyears from the date of this notification.D lj ? ?
° There aE/no wetlands pre nt b'n ethe above descr' d property which ar F qu lec't"to tR ?e met
requir ents of Section of the Clean Water 33 USC 1344). Unless re is a change i c law
Vm r ublished regul ons, this determinate may be relied upon for a p od not to excee ree years
the date of t ' notification.
° The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of
Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army
permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is
not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you have any
ques to
C" 11 r I A s r garff'r9kiA t l-- Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
q at 1?-
1-174
Property owner/Aut-boriz d a wnf T
Project Manager Signature
Date to--;D- IS Expiration Date to` M- =0

SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM.
CFSAW Form 566
1 OCT 92
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
DATA FOKM
ROUTINE WETLAPlO DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Projoct/Sito: ,?-!/ ??44t? NG- S1S !,ll?ccal?vice, Data: 67-'31 -S'
Appilcant/Ownar. d County:
lnvo:c!?atcr ,¢-// Tr Le .?- State: ItlG
Qo Normal Clrcum=ncos exist on the sw •• P
N Community 10: FOI d?

13 tho site si®nificatipy disturbed (Atypical $ityationll o
Cs
Transact 10:
13 tho area a potential Problem Areal Yes Plot 10:
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATIO N

orminant Plant Soaeias Srra"ir" IMiearor
- u as ' ?cz? _- Oorn;nanr Plant S414ea Sr?ervm Indlealor
a.-74 xrr 114 42 ,rl ? 1L L
2.t At, j.,e 4t? ?nv 7- ,l1 i?vl
1 o.7A-r
?.FrAxi 4-??sw«e
4. /
11.yiryS
17. ; .
W1 71J,4 zz f 13.
-
t1. MgjLjgV/A y1 r a I/.4th sAA t 14.
_- --•
U. /ErAr?4- Fat, Ll, I a.
s,Rrur ?ri.? 4lq.s aFw 4-A Ae 1 a.

Percent of Oorrminant 59e6ea that we COL. FACW or FAC
(excludlnp FAC•1.

Ramartu: '
load
HYDROLOGY
?? 1 l

•? Reootded Data Maecraw In ftarrawul:
Stream. Lau. mas Gaups

AarW Pisotoprapta
Other
tle naoscUad Oats Avtllads Welland tfydrdoQy In.catorw
Primary V
4+ carat
; / Icanri4atcd
twated In upper 12 Maws
?Wazcr Lull u
41::?t)rift uned

? LI..? '' Oe?eita
FAd Oaesrvodonst
. Li6rcinape Panama in Wsdards
• 5s40r>aary Irlrlutan (2 at more rsgWn4l:
oqW at Zudm o Water: on.l „?C dtst' Root Ch,-mciv M upper 12 Mchas

Depot to F•rss Water In Pic
?_w i'i9ate4•4te4ned Laavss
„j_/tocai swl Survey oata

049th to saturutzd Sol:
f7 4rt.J -FAC-t waci Test
_ otter (:ar- In R"fwtal
Rommdcat '

SOILS
Map Unit Name
13•riss and Phassl: EbMV/4 Ir Drainage Class: 71D-?
Rsld Obssrvadons
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm MApped Typal Yoe No
P"3f,la Celcrodon•
00PU1 Matrix'Color Mottle Colon Mottle
one ee on on 1Mvn1e11 Moiet) 110unsep MoisU AbundarcerCenrrsst Torture. Conwedana.
3rNcture. etc,
-/10 Y12
Hyddo Soil Indlcators:
Histosol C
dons
lstio Eaipedon ?ghnon h Organia Content in Surface Lsyor in Sandy Sale
Sullldlo Odor
Of aria Streaklnq in 9artgy SoiJo
Agvla Moisture Regime sted on Local Hydrla Soils Uat
ZV'Roducing Condidona Usted on Nadonci Hydrio Sag Wt
G(eyod of Low-Chrome Colon Outer M=4&in in Remarks!
Rcmartat
TLAND DETERMINATION '
'Nydr6pht"o Vegetation Pteserit? Y. No 10kdal ' 1C1rds1
Wadend Hydrology Present? .e Na
Hydrla Sale Preaent? ee No In Uis Sampling Point VAthin a Wedand? Yo ?10
Ranartcs;
pproveo oy
f

e '•

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Oalineation Manual)
ProJocvSltp: - UJP -- /UG-?S L2lf Data:
' Appllcznt/Ownar. Caunry:
Invo. tioator.' State: i(l
4a Normal Clicumsrancos ox?st on tho site? <Ta? No Community ID; / O
14 the aita sipnifezntiy dl=rbod (Atypical Situauon)7 des N® .Transoct ID:
[n(If a aroa a pott ridai Problam Area? Yes ® Plot ID:
needed, explain on roverso.1
VEGETATION
ominan Plant 'Sp C Stratum Imitator Oomin.nt P1.nt Sp.ci.a Stran,m Indlcat ar
r n'?7?f'•' f ?'• /?? tTr

a. ire tAw T ObL t ?[
FAf

4.'ffIAU-A 2A'60 _ 7- _
.
1 uncy5 e uSuS _E_ ?2
.nA!q A&llQ?
% AjLc
Q. SrP/ rU?/'U?7 14.

Pltctem at 00"rutnt SPatae. iJwt are aaL. FACW et FAC /nDO?
(excluding FAC•1. ((/
Ilctrtertc.e: .

HYDROLOGY r
.. .. . .. . .
?R.oardad Date W.,"o In Raxn.rM1:
?Str.cm. Loka. at TWa Gouge
=A.rtd PAotoarapha
Ottwt
tlo ft&awuod Oates Avta +
. . .
Woo" HydtdoQY tr%,J"tars:
Pttn%4ry ksatwtarat
?kaus.tatal
.... z.cwsud In Uppct 12 tncttioo
etas Atartfa '
? Onn Ursa.

Field M&ervadons: ?? nt Oa?tdti
tt3in.Qe Penertsa In Wedanda
• S.oanaery ksaicators (2 or more requlr.dl:
Oq>7t at Steam Water; j w Root ChAn sds in Uppat 12 k ws

y •{J
/? ?y W?a?tat-4I-fined Loaves
d S
a
L
D
?
. Ospin to Five Watat In F1C ' ac
o
Swvoy
ata
r ??

,
' -FAC•tiwud Tact
,
;
?Gn.1
O?ptlti 5oatratc4 Sod: -
In Ramse"l
,,,? ecru IExp
tlct wi6at
.r

` Ott a. 1,pvopOM v ufwlnl wpd DuA4u+.S larl n
,

i •• IrvaruWij ul Y4M=31 I$L(3p
?. lm nvr DNPAH Puomi, uD Pal an - ..opt .4,D.KJ,MO1 „ P?+?+ID
` Jan .rDS DNPtiH PDT uo po:sn .?.
ApuvS IN9 AWvp ui Durq.•q q auDPIPUo, Oupn?
•u+lD1!! •JruapW o!^by'i" J" ET
1 &";jnS u) )ualuDo DIuaDJp yD,N - JCPO D(pu S-
auoplJ000, ?••• uopo1103 DMIH'

•, .. :&Jcjvr jWu) VoS DNPAH
Ora

?
?

YO
ey, L
• •
^ y
I
• • •? Is
? / \
? ? O ?.•?
`?
HNwD,7/1?u1pYnQr Jc o
'.uopsauo2 ••Jtus. ! W p?cunyy
• ? •' " .L D?°W tJO ?!
is o •cu V
!Wit ?1 uo No 11 au.
. • . .. - , I? .p•JOyly JDID? Jt1JJayy. tnd1o
• DN SPA 11 a3, p•DDsyi J"Yugo .??? u?J1 rip
.uoq.,uD.gp pI•):i
I :Satz) apaumo :IanoJOgns) Aurouoxa,L
• / / :Triad Pun aaN•CI
DLU );un cart
si1OS
NOLLVNIWu313Q ONrL13m
°N ' jJu•aaJd a?or D
' oN F+P+?H
. I•I?+DI oN iw•/•J,d ADopJpAH Pu'p'M
• ?J4•N/d 40paJ1D•^ DprlydO,pAH
t
r'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources o
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 13, 1996
Hertford County
DEM Project # 951031
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. DOT
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.63 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
replacing Bridge #23 on NC 45, as you described in your application dated 19 February 1996. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3025.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
stop 'Howar , Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
John Parker; DCM
Randy Turner, N.C. DOT
951031.1tr
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 500/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
r Z ?>
A b' vl
103
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
September 20,1995
Commander (OAN)
Fifth U.S. Coast Guard District
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Virginia 23705
ATTN: Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Specialist
Dear Ms. Deaton:
GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
SECRETARY
I
Ail SEP 2 6 JsS5
i'
Subject: Hertford County, North Carolina; Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC-
45 Over the Wiccacon River; TIP (Transportation Improvement Program)
No. B-1231; State Project No. 8.1070401; Federal Aid No. BRS-5053(2)
Application is hereby made by the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways (NCDOT-DOH) for approval by the Commandant, U.S. Coast
Guard, of the location and plans for the construction of a fixed span bridge to replace
the existing bridge over the Wiccacon River approximately 2.2 road miles northwest of
the town of Harrelsville in rural Hertford County, North Carolina. Plans call for the
replacement structure to be constructed slightly north (downstream) of the existing
structure (see attached plans).
Specifically, the proposal provides for the replacement of an aging (1940)
structure which has a substructure of creosoted timber caps and piles, and reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles; end bents are of creosoted timber caps and piles with
timber bulkheads. Multiple (14) spans @22 feet and amain span of 69 feet comprise
the 379 feet length of the existing structure. The main span, which contains a timber
fender system, provides for navigational clearances of 58 feet horizontally and 25 feet
vertically.
The replacement structure consists of five spans, including two @ 90 feet, two
@ 70 feet and one @ 40 feet. The main channel span will provide for navigational
clearances of 85 feet-7 inches horizontally and 13 feet-7 inches vertically. The existing
fender system will not be replaced.
The clear roadway width of the existing structure is 25 feet-10 inches; the
proposed replacement bridge will have a clear roadway width of 30 feet.
Xl?
Page 2
Ms. Ann Deaton
September 20, 1995
Federal funds will be utilized and have been applied for under the Federal Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project
code for this action is BRS-5053(2). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 must also approve the action. It is anticipated that the proposed
action will be authorized by the COE under Nationwide Permit 23 and by the state
Division of Environmental Management under Section 401 Water Quality Certificate No.
2734. The NCDOT-DOH has submitted a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
permit application to the state Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources. A copy of this permit application and associated drawings are enclosed for
your review. Once these state and federal permits have been obtained they will be
forwarded to your office.
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on
the human environment and accordingly authorized the project as a Categorical
Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115 (b) (9). A copy of the Categorical
Exclusion document, which was approved by the FHWA in June 1986, is submitted for
your review. The Categorical Exclusion study considered several alternatives, including
a do-nothing and five (5) build alternatives.
There are no wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges, recreational areas, public parks or
historic sites in the project study area. Furthermore, a study by a staff biologist has
concluded that no federally protected species or their habitat will be affected by the
proposed action.
Legal authority for the proposed bridge replacement project is found in the
General Bridge Act of 1946. As indicated above, application has been submitted for
state and federal permits which will be required prior to construction.
The existing bridge and obsolete approachway sections will be demolished and
removed immediately upon completion of the replacement structure and its associated
approachway sections. Construction is scheduled to commence in mid-late Winter
1996.
Please find enclosed one (1) original and three (3) copies of the U.S. Coast
Guard drawings for the project, in addition to copies of applications and related
drawings for permits from state and federal agencies.
Page 3
Ms. Ann B. Deaton
September 20, 1995
Please include the TIP Number (B-1231) in any correspondence from your office
regarding this project. Should you have any questions or comments please contact M.
Randall Turner, Division Environmental Officer, at [phone].
Sincerely
H. ranklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
HFV/mrt
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John R. Parker, DCM, Raleigh, Permit Coordinator
Mr. Terry Moore, DCM, Washington Regional Office Manager
Mr. Mike Bell, COE, Washington, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. Raleigh Bland, COE, Washington, 291 Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, DEM, Raleigh, 401 Coordinator
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E., NCDOT, Highway Design Branch Manager
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., NCDOT, Hydraulics Unit Head
Mr. John L. Smith, P.E., NCDOT, Structure Design Unit Head
Mr. D. R. Conner, P.E., NCDOT, Division Engineer
Mr. Wayne Elliott, NCDOT, Project Planning Unit Head
Mr. M. Randall Turner, NCDOT, Division Environmental Officer

PROJECT: 8.1070401
LOCATION MAP
f

STATE OF WAN CAROL04A
DEPARTMENT. OF -TRANSPORTATION
RALEKM
PROPOSED 'REPLACEMENT.' BRIDGE
OVER WICCACON RIVER
HERTFORD-COUNTY -
SUBMITTED BY:
CH cF ENGINEER
OR ivN C. ^DBETTER DATE :121 CHECKECO =Y . 4A.7+0 ?4vs•v DATE I-3o.9t
0
.O
O
O
LO
W
Z
O
O Nl
O
O
W ?

O
n
< W
L ]

Z LQ
W
Q
W ? j
a W Q
= cr U w W
a? li a rl v O
? `) G O
N.O. ?
Z C Q
p? Ly Q Z U

< L

W Q
LW

O
D `` - a U

N
-? W
rs-?y
.. .. zW I - .-..
O. i w
--- Z
Q c? o
z a
•--- U) co
x U)
o
W i =
Q.,
LLI'
LL
W
Q N Q W
N O
OOb???M . v .,n ?.... W Z)
'•a h- W V It' I LLJ
a w 3 w J l l 1 O m
Ji % 0 J
rn
$
CC)
.' ' C)
cr-
DW 1.t •J•
° _ OW
O '
r..».
N cr D pW
!1
l ?J ?X.

,
N

O
,;I-
0
(`-
O
W
co
J_
Cn
F--
W
Q
001 :?_ ^...
U ? `?
w LJ J O
z_ -) a f- (.)
J
O cr-
w
Cl
.W
. b W O :. N
Z
H
a- W
LL U)
D of
1)
O
cD ~
LLJ

: ?=-
N ,
\
W
Ql)
M.
D 'I

LL-1 ?
l
CL
W
Z?l
Q W= o
_ Q
.
?3 oa o cl:

`
W ??, U- ?
cl I I ;

Wu =

ri
a O c
w ti,
.i

I., m _ - =1 I I -_1 ?7I
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
15 February 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P.E., Director
Division of Environmental Management
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
f a a o
®F= F [1
-9 60 1 77
RECEIVED
WASHINGTON OFFICE
FEB 1 ivV6
D,
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge and Fill Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Location: On NC 45 at Bridge #23 over the Wiccacon River near Harrellsville,
Hertford County, North Carolina
Proposed Project: To replace the existing bridge with a new ±360' long by ±33' 1" wide
bridge.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by 7 March 1996. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact
David Moye at 946-6481, Ext 298. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data
is requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the project only if the recommended
changes are incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
Signed Date 1 '
1424 Carolina Avenue, Washington, North Carolina 27889 T©lephone 919-946-6481 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recycled/10% post-consumer paper
DEHNR Fax:[phone] May 3 '96 11:31
To: John Dorncy
Planning Branch
DrvxSION OY SNVIOmmim ILWGEmfr
CARA/COE PERMIT APPLICATION REMW
P. 02/08
WaRO ZPROJECT SAWYER w/,¢ ? WQ SUPEMSOR: THO E ?
UATE:
WETLAND INFORMATION FOR CENTRAL OFFICE TRACING
pIDZHZT YR.- 92 P NO COUIiTY:
FRO=. NAME: p ! ??
PROJECT TYPE: w'd PI3R?fIT TYPE: i i Ii
COI? DOT ?z
RCD FROM CDA: DCH DATR FROM CAA-
REG OFFICE: WaRO ItIVEH AND SUB IN
STRZA24 OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: i6u-k-
CLASS: C - v STRIIAH PMRX 2: C2
OPEN OR OS
WL IMPACT! WL TYPE:
WL REQUESTED: WL ACR EST:
HYDRO CNECT?: WL SCARE:
MITIGATION: MITIGATION TYPE!
MITIGATION SIZE: ItAT?iG SHED ATTACHIM?
MCOH=ATION: 5SP-'" I33UE/COND DEFY HOLD ,
STORMWATER PLAN REQ'D: IF YES, DATE APPROVED:
PROJBCT DESCRIPTION:
WATER QUALM CUT. (4,01)
CERT. REQID: Y
IF YES, TYPE: &-AV ?IleCP'
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED:
(EXISTING, PROPOSED, SEPTIC TANK ETC.)
TO BE PERMITTED BY:
(DEM, DHS, COUNTY)
IF BY DEM, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PER11IT ISSUANCE PROBABLE:
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL: WATER: "0 WETLAND: 7 5 ???,? t
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE?
DREDGING
AREA TO BE DREDGED: -j O
IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF
RESOURCE?
IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
MARINA ARE THE FOLLOWING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: MARINA SERVICES:
OXYGEN IN BASIN: CLOSURE OF SHELLFISHING WATERS:
CC: WaRO; Central*Fil= ; DCV Field Offices; COE Washington Office