20031246 Ver 1_Complete File_20031003

Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the.401/VVetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621: Mail Service Center, Raleigh,. NC, 27699-1621. This form maybe
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer: It is not
necessary to send certificates ftom all. of these:
Applicant's Certification
I, ?-? (?\\er PoQe hereby state that, to the best of my..abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401. Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specific tions, ther.supporting materials..
Signature: Dater
Agent's Certification
I, ( asap 1-?eTt%?t ^ , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial complian ce and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: %. Date: 12-Z l `
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I , as a duly registered Professional
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to
observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that,
to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that
the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality
Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No.: Date:
?lC?c?.,?.1:c,y.S, -T1n? ScASscs ?:\\ bC. 10\0?.?? ?? A,pc;? Q6 f _ .
P-S C-k Sec\ w.l?. av?4v\ Wcecr. On 1Z?21- OS,
W ATFR
QG
f
Y
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
November 18, 2003
Onslow County
DWQ Project No. 031246
APPROVAL OF 401Water Quality Certification
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe; PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
You have our approval, as described in your application dated October 9, 2003, and in accordance with the attached
conditions and those listed below, to place fill material permanently in 0.31 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and
temporarily in 0.53 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 21 on SR 1503 in
Onslow County. The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated October 9, 2003. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number
3400. This certification corresponds to the Regional Permit Number 198000291 issued by the Corps of Engineers
and the NC Division of Coastal Management. In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local
permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit
unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
1. All sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they
shall be removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
2. During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S.,
3. The post-construction removal of any temporary bridge structures will need to return the project site to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. The revegetation of the impacted areas with appropriate native species
may also be necessary.
4. The NCDOT shall strictly adhere to sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices as described for
High Quality Waters entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction of the project.
5. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict adherence
the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality
Certification.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
O
WATFh'
QG
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
6. The NCDOT is prohibited from performing any in-water work activities (including the use of pile driving or
vibration techniques) from March 1 through September 30.
7. Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
8. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
9. Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
10. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the 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 that 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 Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Attachments:
Sincerely,
Klime , P.E.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
DWQ Wilmington Regional Office
Cathy Brittingham, DCM
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP B-3217\wgc\031246wgc.doc
DWQ Project No.: C) 3 / Z4( 6
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center
Customer Service: 1 800 623-7748
County: on 6 low
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
ENVIRONMENTAL COMNUTMENTS:
B-3217, Onslow County
Bridge No. 21, on SR 1503
Over Bear Creek JUL 2 4 2003
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1503(1)
State Project 8.2261001
April 2003
1. Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Resident Engineer:
Reve e? tation: The temporary detour and approaches will be removed after the new bridge
is completed, and the area will be revegetated with appropriate plant species.
2. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Coordination with Marine Corps Base Camp Leieune:
The Base Environmental Management Division will be notified prior to any staking or
flagging necessary on Marine Corps property. Notify Mr. Tom Barbee, phone [phone].
Archeologic Site Coordination:
(1) There will be no disturbance to recorded archeological site No. 310N692, located just
east of the bridge project. Detailed location data is available from Mr. Rick Richardson of MCB
Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Division, phone [phone].
(2) No portion of the archeological site east of the east edge of the temporary easement
for the detour structure may be used as staging for heavy equipment.
(3) No soils may be removed from Camp Lejeune lands without first coordinating with
MCB Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Division, phone [phone].
Timber Removal:
If any portions of the project area on Camp Lejeune lands need to be cleared of any
merchantable timber, MCB Camp Lejeune will be notified and allowed to remove the timber for
its own uses. Notify Mr. Tom Barbee, phone [phone].
Bridge Demolition:
(1) Existing Bridge: The existing bridge has an asphalt surface on a reinforced concrete
floor on timber joists. The bridge has timber cap and pile bents and end bents. The asphalt
wearing surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping into the water. There is the
potential for parts of the bridge deck to be dropped into the water during removal of this bridge.
The resulting temporary fill into the waters of the United States will amount to a maximum of
B-3217 Categorical Exclusion Document
Greensheet
approximately 34 cubic yards of material. This project is classified as a Case 2 bridge
demolition, allowing no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. During construction,
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed. Due to the
potential sedimentation concerns resulting from demolition of the bridge, a turbidity curtain will
be used to contain and minimize sedimentation in the. stream.
(2) Removal of temporary bridge: The temporary detour structure will be removed with
minimal disturbance. Temporary bents will either be pulled up or cut off and left in place.
Construction Moratorium:
A moratorium on in-water construction activities will be observed from March 1 to
September 30 of any construction year.
High uali Waters:
Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be
implemented in addition to the standard Best Management Practices.
B-3217 Categorical Exclusion Document
Greensheet
o?A o3/zy6
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
October 9, 2003
MEMORANDUM
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
John Dorney
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
OCT 14 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT LOCATION:
BRIDGE NO. 21, ON SR 1503 OVER BEAR CREEK IN ONSLOW
COUNTY. e- 3 2- 17
PROPOSED PROJECT: REPLACE EXISTING 87-FOOT LONG BY 24-FOOT WIDE TIMBER
BRIDGE OVER BEAR CREEK WITH A 105-FOOT LONG BY 45-FOOT
WIDE CONCRETE BRIDGE. A 1500-FOOT LONG TEMPORARY FILL
CAUSEWAY LEADING TO A 100-FOOT LONG TEMPORARY BRIDGE
SPANNING BEAR CREEK EAST OF SR 1503 WOULD BE USED AS A
DETOUR DURING CONSTRUCTION.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
October 30, 2003. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Doug Huggett at
[phone], ext. 245. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This This agency has no comment on the proposed project. iJ
Vd
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended changes are incorporated.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. V
SIGNED
DATE

I
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
N
?l,
:
PIMA
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
MEMORANDUM
October 9, 2003 5 1 2 L(6
TO: John Dorney
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
APPLICANT: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT LOCATION: BRIDGE NO. 1, ON SR 1503 OVER BEAR CREEK IN ONSLOW
COUNTY. 0. 3217
PROPOSED PROJECT: REPLACE EXISTING 87-FOOT LONG BY 24-FOOT WIDE TIMBER
BRIDGE OVER BEAR CREEK WITH A 105-FOOT LONG BY 45-FOOT
WIDE CONCRETE BRIDGE. A 1500-FOOT LONG TEMPORARY FILL
CAUSEWAY LEADING TO A 100-FOOT LONG TEMPORARY BRIDGE
SPANNING BEAR CREEK EAST OF SR 1503 WOULD BE USED AS A
DETOUR DURING CONSTRUCTION.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
October 30, 2003. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Doug Huggett at
[phone], ext. 245. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project, only if the recommended changes are incorporated.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED DATE
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
DC%1 /o DWQ J
Development Tyre FEE (14300 1601 435100093 1625 6253) 1`243OC 1502 435100095 2341)
I. Private, non-commercial
development that does not involve 5250 100%(S250) 0%(SO)
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
II. Public or commercial development
that does not involve the filling or $400 1001,1.($400) 0% (SO)
excavation of any wetlands or open
water areas:
III. For development that involves the
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A. a, C, or D
below applies:
III(A). For Private, non-commercial
development, If General water Quality 5250 100°0 (S250) 0°6 (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
111(5): For public or commercial
development, if General water Quality $400 100% ($400) 0% (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see a"ached)
can be applied:
III(C). If Genera' Water Quality
Certification, No. 3301 (see attached)
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined tha: additional review and 5100 60%(S240) (S 160)
written DWQ concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to water
quality or aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water Qualit/
Certification No. 3301 (see a",ached) 5400,.. 60%(S240) 40°b (S160)
can not be appiied:
IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more S-475 60% (S265) 40°b (5190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Bridge No. 21, on SR 1503 over Bear Creek in
Onslow County
Photo Index - 2000: 34-442 Grid 19 V 1995: No Photo
State Plane Coordinates: x 2534275 y:335950 GPS: Rover File # X090818A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 2/25/2003 & 9/8/2003
Was Agent Present - YES (Rachelle Beauregard)
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received as Complete- 9/10/2003
Office - Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Onslow County
Land Classification from LUP - Limited Transition and Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA, EW, CW and CS
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Secondary paved road and bridge
Planned - Secondary paved road and bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A Source: NIA
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
Excavated Filled Other
(A) 404 Type Wetlands 0.31 acres for bridge Clear 0.32 acres (Method III)
0.53 acres for temp. Detour fill
(B) Coastal Wetlands
(C) Other - High Ground Approximately 0.83 acres Approximately 0.85 acres
(Temp. Detour) disturbed in construction limits
- Coastal Shoreline Buffer Approximately 0.33 acres
disturbed
(D) Public Trust Area- Ehxis ?g 40g sq. ft.
Shallow Bottom dI oral
Shading 350 sq. ft.
(D) Total CAMA AEC Disturbed: Approximately 14,350 sq. ft., 0.3 3 acres
(E) Total area disturbed by project: Approximately 2.84 acres
(F) Primary Nursery Area: Yes
(G) Water Classification: SA, HQW
(H) Open for Shellfishing: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The N.C. Department of Transportation is proposing to replace the
existing 87-foot long by 24-foot wide timber bridge over Bear Creek with a 105-foot long by 45-
foot wide concrete bridge. A 1500-foot long temporary fill causeway leading to a 100-foot long
temporary bridge spanning Bear Creek east of SR 1503 would be used as a detour during
construction.
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3217 Onslow County, Bridge No. 21
PAGE 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
The site of this proposal is Bridge No. 21 on State Road 1503, 6 miles southwest of Sw
and 0.4 miles from NC 172 at the crossing of Bear Creek, in Onslow Coup ansboro gen
purpose of'the project is to replace the deteriorated 87-foot long by 24-foot wide The
ber aal
concrete bridge with a 105-foot long by 45-foot wide concrete bridge s nd
maintaining traffic flow on a temporary detour consisting of aPProxu i Peang Bear Creek, while
fill causeway and a 100=foot long temporary bridge spanning Bear Creek 1500 feet of temporary
.
Bridge No. 21 crosses Bear Creek approximately 2.2 miles up -stream of its confl
Intracoastal Waterway uent
. The bridge crossing Bear Creek is flanked with -coastal e with the
fringe
evergreen forest and Brackish Marsh, except for the northwest and northeast quadrants, which are
urbanized and currently support a campground, mobile homes and a residence. Creek which
width at the
crossing is approximately 20 feet with vertical clearance between the water and bride bo
approximately 5 feet with a 2.5-foot water depth. g ttom is
causeway was constructed through the Estuarine-coastal fringe evergr O n forest on B50-foot wide
clay loam when the bridge was constructed. The Estuarine-coastal fringe evergreen forest
consists of Black ohicket silty
gum, Red Maple, Cedar, Myrtle and poison Ivy. Th e brackish marsh area varies
from 0-20 feet wide along the creek banks and consists of T ha s
Cladium.. Soils in the swamp and wetlands are mainly Muckalee loam with Norfolk and B nosuroides and
loamy fine sands in the upper elevations of the bridge approaches-as classified aymeail
Conservation Service. Approximate elevations on the site range between 1 feet and 11 feet above
normal water level. No evidence of SAV beds was noted. The North by the NC Soil
Quality classifies waters of Bear Creek as SA, HQW at the projecsite. ar Bear C eek n of water
Nursery Area, as designated by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The rimary
Onslow
County Land Use Plan designates the project area as Transitional, with all LAMA Areas o
Environmental Concern designated as Conservation. Areas of
The proposal is to replace the existing 87-foot long by 24-foot wide timber bride with a 1 -
long by 45-foot wide concrete bridge on the existing all g OS foot
a vertical clearance equal to the existing bridge a gnment. The proposed bridge would have
would include installing a fill over filtefabritemporary (approximately 5 feet). Constructing this project
bridge
leading to a temporary 100-foot bridge spanning Bear Creek in orderoto detou r st tra side ffic of the
flow during
construction. Approximately 1500 feet of the temporary causeway will be filled through 404 type
wetlands and high-ground and removed upon completion of construction and restored to the
original elevation. The bridge will be installed using top down construction. The bridge i ° the
widened from 24 feet to 45 feet to more closely correspond to the 12 foot paved travel lanes being
and 8
foot grassed shoulders of SR 1503. NC DOT has committed to strictly adhere to "
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" and use Best Management Practices for erosion control antrol and
bridge demolition. Design
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3217, Onslow County, Bridge No. 21
PAGE 3
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
As proposed, the construction of the temporary fill causeway and bridge detour with 3:1 fill slopes
would require the filling of approximately 0.53 acres of 404 type wetlands and approximately 0.83
acres of impacts to high ground. To allow room for grading and fill, approximately 0. 18 acres of
404 type wetlands would be cleared adjacent to the temporary detour fill slopes and 0.14 acres of
404 type wetlands would be cleared adjacent to the permanent bridge by NC DOT Method III.
The additional width of the bridge would cause approximately 350 square feet (0.01 acres) of
additional shading impacts to Public Trust Waters AEC. In addition to the above mentioned high
ground impacts, approximately 0.85 acres of high ground would be disturbed within the
construction limits of this project. Approximately 14,350 square feet (0.33 acres) of the above
describe ground disturbance would be within the CAMA Coastal Shoreline AEC. No disturbance
of coastal wetlands or the creek bottom is expected during the installation of the permanent bridge.
NC DOT has avoided and minimized the 404 type wetland excavation and fill impacts associated
with this proposal by lengthening the bride from 87 feet to 105 feet, using 3:1 fill slopes for the
temporary detour and using top down construction. NC DOT BMP's require dropping no
materials from the bridge demolition in the waters regulated by CAMA. The NC DOT has
proposed to use "Design Standards in sensitive Watersheds" BMP's to minimize the impacts of
erosion.
NC DOT would be impacting approximately 0.45 acres of 404 type wetlands caused by the
permanent bridge in this proposal and requests to debit the EEP to offset these impacts. NC DOT
would be impacting approximately 0.88 acres of 404 type wetlands caused by the temporary
detour and bridge in this proposal and requests to restore these areas to original elevation and
replant with appropriate species in order to offset the impacts.
The collective disturbance area for the project is 2.84 acres.
Bill Arrington
September 30, 2003
Morehead City
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Michael F. Easley, Governor
August 29, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Project: Bridge Replacement, Bear Creek, SR 1503
TIP#: B-3217, Onslow County
HE? 0 5 2003
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide 0.90 acres of brackish marsh restoration at the Sturgeon City mitigation site in
Jacksonville as compensatory mitigation for the subject project. The mitigation is located within
the same cataloging unit as the impacts. Based on the information supplied by you to EEP in a
letter dated July 232, 2003, the impacts requiring EEP mitigation are located in Cataloging Unit
03020106 of the White Oak River Basin in the Southern Outer Coastal Plain Eco-Region, and
are summarized below.
Wetland Impacts: 0.45 acres
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 919-715-2218.
Sincerely,
f r
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE-Wilmington
Bill Arrington, Division of Coastal Management
John Dorney, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File No. B-3217
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
?}y „a AATL
"T d yam
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 23, 2003
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
ATTENTION:
Mr. Bill Arrington
District Manager
Dear Mr. Arrington
oft
RECEIVE
,1111_ l 4 2003
3J'V.0iC08 ALLMkWAGEM '
ROW
j_.
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Onslow County, CAMA Major Development Permit Application for the
replacement of Bridge No. 21 over Bear Creek on SR 1503, NCDOT
Division 3, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1503(1), State Project
No. 8.2261001, TIP Project No-B-3217. WBS Element 32938.1.1.
$400.00 Debit work order 8.226100 1, WBS Element 32938.1.1
Please find enclosed copies of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit
application, Categorical Exclusion (CE), permit drawings, stormwater permit and half
size plans. Work Order No. 8.2261001 will be debited for $400.00 for the application fee
for the above referenced project. Bridge No. 21 will be replaced on the existing
alignment with a new bridge approximately 105 feet (ft) [32.0 meters (m)] in length and
45 ft (13.7 m) in width. The existing roadway approaches, which consist of two 12 ft.
lanes, will be replaced with two 12 ft lanes with 8 ft shoulders, 4 ft paved and 4 ft turf.
During construction, traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour east
(downstream) of the existing bridge. The length of the temporary detour bridge will be
approximately 100 ft (30.5 m). Impacts to wetlands associated with the replacement of
Bridge No. 21 will include temporary fill due to the temporary detour and permanent fill
and mechanized clearing (Method III) for the permanent bridge.
Bear Creek is located in the White Oak River Basin. It is classified by Division of
Water Quality as SA HQW waters (DWQ index No. 19-41-11). Class SA waters are
suitable for commercial shellfishing and all other tidal saltwater uses. Class HQW waters
are waters possessing special qualities including excellent water quality, Native or
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Special Trout Waters, Critical Habitat areas, or WS-1 and WS-II water supplies. The
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries designates Bear Creek as a Primary Nursery
Area. Therefore, NCDOT will strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) (High Quality Water Standards) throughout design
and construction of this project.
Temporary Bridge Information: A temporary bridge will be located east of the existing
bridge. Fabric will be in place underneath the fill for the detour structure and mostly
likely H-piles will be used for the temporary bridge. The resulting temporary fill in
wetlands associated with the temporary detour bridge is 0.53 acre (0.21-hectare) and
approximately 0.18 acre (0.07 hectare) in mechanized clearing.
Shading Effects: The existing bridge is 24 ft wide and the proposed bridge will be 45 ft
wide. The increase in width of the bridge will shade approximately 0.053 ac of coastal
wetlands and 0.008 ac of open water.
Restoration Plan: Upon completion of the new bridge, the temporary bridge will be
removed. The approach fill will be removed to natural grade and replanted with
appropriate native wetland species. Temporary bents will either be pulled up or cut off
and left in place.
Minimization: Embankment fill slopes are 3:1, steeper slopes were not feasible for this
project because the sandy soils in this area cannot support a 2:1 slope . The southern end
bent of the detour bridge was lengthened by 50 feet from the original design to minimize
impacts to wetlands.
Mitigation: Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement
Among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District" (MOA), it is understood that the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), will
assume responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation
requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during
the EEP transition period which ends on June 30, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 1, the necessary compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water
Act will be provided by the EEP. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory
of assets already in existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. The Department
has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described above. The remaining, unavoidable permanent impacts to 0.45
acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the
EEP program if the US Army Corps of Engineers requires such mitigation.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a November 18, 2003 let date with an
availability date approximately six weeks after. It is expected that the contractor will
choose to start construction of the temporary detour bridge shortly after the availability
date. The temporary bridge will be removed within 90 days upon completion of the
project.
Disposal: After the temporary bridge is no longer needed, the contractor will use
roadway building equipment to remove the concrete deck and riprap. All temporary
bridge material will become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be
required to submit a reclamation plan for removal and disposal of all material off-site.
Bridge Demolition: The bridge has an asphalt surface on a reinforced concrete floor on
timber joists. The bridge has timber cap and pile bents and end bents. The asphalt
wearing surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping into the water.
Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without dropping components into
Waters of the United States. This project is classified as a Case 2 bridge demolition,
allowing no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas (March 1 to September
30). During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed. Due to the potential sedimentation concerns resulting from
demolition of the bridge, a turbidity curtain will be used to contain and minimize
sedimentation in the stream.
Threatened and Endangered Species: As of March 7, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists 12 federally protected species for Onslow County. Since the
completion of the CE document bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden sedge
(Carex lutea) were added to the federally protected species list for Onslow County. The
NCDOT evaluation of the original ten species in June 1999 and September 2000 resulted
in Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" for all of these species. Surveys for golden
sedge and bald eagle were conducted along with resurveys for rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia) and Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) in May 2003.
Poor habitat exists for rough-leaved loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue. No habitat
exists for golden sedge and bald eagle. No specimens were found, therefore, Biological
Conclusions for rough-leaved loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue remain valid and
Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" are determined for golden sedge and bald eagle.
A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats on June 10, 2003 revealed that no known occurrences of any federally protected
species occur within one mile of the project area.
NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit. Copies of the green cards will be
forwarded as soon as they are available. NCDOT will also be applying for issuance of a
United States Army Corps of Engineers NWP 23 and NWP 33 and a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Rachelle
Beauregard at [phone].
Sincerely, ,
l
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Rick Monaghan, NCDMF, Morehead City
Mr. Ron Sechler, DMF, Beaufort
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental Unit
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
b. City, town, community or landmark
Hubert
• - c. Street address or secondary road number
a. Landowner: SR 1503
Name NCDOT
Address
City
Zip Day Phone
Fax
State
b. Authorized Agent:
Name Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
Address
1548 Mail Service Center
City Raleigh State N.C.
Zip
Fax
27699-1548 Day Phone [phone]
919-733-9794
c. Project name (if any)
B-3217
NOTE.• Pelwt will be issued in name oflandowner?s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Onslow
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) Bear Creek
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace exisitng bridge with 105 foot bridge
and a temporary detour bridge will be used.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New work
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Replace exisiting bridge with a
new bridge over Bear Creek. Detour bridge will
be in place during construction.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 2.0 ac
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL NEW 3.5 ft
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Wando fine sand, Bohicket silty clay loam, Muckalee
loam, Bymeade fine sand and Norfolk loamy fine
sand.
e. Vegetation on tract Estuarine-coastal fringe evergreen
forest, Brackish marsh, Mesic pine-hardwood
flatwoods, Mantained/disturbed communities;
Pinus taeda, Pinus palustris, Acer rubrum,
Liquidambar styraciflua, Persea borbonia,
Juncusroemerianus, Typha sp., Spartina
cynosuroides, Cladium jamiacense
f. Man-made features now on tract stormwater ditches,
road shoulders and a residential lawn
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? /Co&rulrrhelocailandureplan./
X Conservation Transitional
_ Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Rural
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
0&ach zoning compliance certificate, ifapp(cable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? NCDOT and Camp Le'eune
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes No
Coastal (marsh) X Other X (404)
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? yes
(41,1ach documeruarion, rfauailable)
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
none
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.) surface runoff
at 2 grated inlets located at beOnnine and end of
proposedbridge
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
waterline
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to
Form DCM-MP-1
the site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
*A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
•A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
see permit drawing sheet (10 of10)
• 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.
• 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.
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.
This is the 7,qday ?LL, , 05Z.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Print Name LA4/Greeorv J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
Signature U (Z /.
Lw,?owaer oiA4aho, ized.
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOFE Please sign v& dale each attachment is the
spaceprowdedatthe bottom ofeachform.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-I. 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)
RC floor timber joists and abutments; 5 spans
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Bear Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
'NWL +/- 4.0 feet
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If Yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 87'
(2) Width of existing bridge 24'
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge +/- 5 ft
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) all of the existing bridge
will be removed
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
if yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
g. Length of proposed bridge 105'
h. Width of proposed bridge 45'
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
4.5 feet + /-
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
7.0 feet
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? Yes X No
If yes, explain
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? X Yes No
If yes, explain will bridge all coastal wetlands
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval? (not required)
Yes X No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
2. CULVERTS N/A
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed
N/A
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
N/A
d. Will proposed culvert replace an 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)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
if yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
g. Width of proposed culvert
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within: NO
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards _
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
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
Approved upland disposal site
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Unknown at this time
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes X No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below
MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
Revised 03/95
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
-CWLB COASTAL WETLAND BOUNDARY
L?
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
WL
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
T T DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
E E DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
TS TS FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* •* * * DENOTES MECHANIZED
* * CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
- TOP OF BANK
WE_ - EDGE OF WATER
- -C - PROP, LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
- ?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -'!L PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
E:l
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD

RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE 1
_ BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORT A TION
DI'k'ISIDN OF HIGHW.4,YS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2261001 (I33217)
REPLACEMENT OF BRG--21
ON SR 1503 OVER
BEAR CREED
SHEET 3 OF 10 .) / 01 / Dil

i
J
0
0

J ?
I
O
O
+
Ln
! LLJ
¦ Cn
0
s p
! O
i i
!
1
! WO
f
Z
O
/ F-
-L11
W
rr
N
r
rr
O
U
W r)
Z w
W
a
o
z
w
z
LL)
w
_J
n
a
a
? a
?. n w
z a > ?

®

?:
rz. 0 w
A
k? U o 0
e?
0 3
o ev F

z

x
a ? w ?
w
0 o U 0 C
A 0. j r
W

Y
b ?
O
Ln
O
O

6
Ln
0
0
MA I GHLINE 17+60 -L-
Q) / V
(D
/
r
z L
z
LU?
ww
0-? / -4
/ M
O

ca
V .1
? f? ? a w l

® 0 o a 0 w
Gr U C.4 L U
.
0 C6 z o
C
( 0 v`ai U v?
`?
, ? z y w z o
> 0 0 U 0
A 0
a a
xtj

11 l w F
P; w
0
Z
w
?m 1
X0
LLA -•

\ N ? ?? ?/ CV
O
co f
(IV I w I I
r?
CO 0
8
w C
?
m
r

w J

ti (

? 60
r
w

Lat
? LL I
\ £0

g
co
F- V Co Ro
0007

L
« i « u ?(? \\ ?
D « t va
_ • « i 11 l O

ainQ)
I
vJV L
O « ?.
'U
O • « /o co
OCD c
' o

il-@JN _ I
i
^ •
•
i
«\ ao
m
«
?

` I.n
w • N '
In ? • I i • + ? a

« I i p]pf

-?- 09+11 3NI?HOiM
O
N
0
_O
i
0
-+ c
a Y
n w
a W
? F ? ?
p ?a
z ?
® 0
.?
w
w

U 45 o
o
x

O 3 o f a
? F w
z W
° z w `?
w z o
o 0 U
C O
+
a a
a
a `°
_ ? F
w •

0
W

? u u
i
a
w
? n
Y
O
N
0
0
0
+
0
0
b
0
9
4
0
N ?
Q
O W
O p
Ln -
00
w
J
Q
U
MATCHLINE "A"
O O O O
N - i

? c

ICI/ LLJ
O LLJ M ?i
O Q
I o >

0
O O W
W ' Z 0 p U

1
, X-
3
0 64
Z
to
Li W o -64) w
z w
w
O z
0 w
C
U
p O
+ c a a

Q O.

017 1- '-

'
CIA

a

E'
w
a

N "to
?? O F-
ZO

if N

?

l
„
„ OQ
w x ?F- Q l
v
F,-w
0
P
P 0W Ln
En 0o O n. O
O

W W
+
] ? w

Ln J
O
Z N '
W
F
?
J W
LLJ
>- k?
_ Q
LLi Q Q :2i 3
D
I?

F- Q? W

- -
N C7
L.>j c_ }
w
N ?I
n / O
2 F + o
O Ln
M
?

?n I\ III N
+ J
v v
f Ln W
„
w M

-
w O n
W
I-
N W N _
>
Ln ?
.... _. p ?. ® O Q

,b. INI-IHD1dW +
ap
-

W
J
Q
U

O O O O
N - -
i
e UI
? d
?
-
I l
I ...
1 t_7
.y
?
w M

cv ; ; w
z -b

j N O

o cz;

00
l
l
1
1
I
J
1
N
O O I
? O
o
O
I
c^
I
I
._ o
?o
0
-0
N
O
-0

a
4
Q?o
cl? Cr
O fill
O
N -
u
U
R E C
N ?..
7 y to v O
Z Up O
c c P
H N ? ? C
?. O
U
a L a
u'SU E

z Ez
i
Q c
CO ca
E c v o
~
w
U
LL
c 0 m
o
co .
-
..
E

C m
v O
LL Z
N C
C O U r N
V N v O O O
U

CO) c o
0
d' V ' 8
V

a > O
x

? W c
o
-_?
U g U. m ch ch
CL 3 0 0
C

C
W = N U
? N O (7
Q i
LL j • O O O
Z
g
F-
LU

J J J
LL U. LL
Q m m m
d
T U U U
W- It w
N a s a
U)
05

m m m
z
z

w ¢
I1J
¢
J ?
' J U J
X
LO U
) co
F?
O N r
_ `
E
a 0 0 Q
c
F F- ' a
Li- J W
C? J
m W
a W
r
v co + H H
+v 0 0
H F

CD N ¢
!4 Z F
O
H
? r
Onslow County
Bridge No. 21, on SR 1503
Over Bear Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1503(1)
State Project 8.2261001
TIP Project B-3217
'JUG. 2 4 2003
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APPROVED:
7-3/- e!
Date
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIAtISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF.HIGHWAYS .
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date ADIvision Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Administrator, FHWA
C.
Onslow County
Bridge No. 21, on SR 1503
Over Bear Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1503(l )
State Project 8.2261001
TIP Project B-3217
'JUL 2 4 2003
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch By: %
7 -3
Date

? r
Date
Date
Dennis Pipkin
Project Planning Engineer
r i s 1 . /l ?
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P.E. V
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
y
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
13-3217, Onslow Countv
Bridge No. 21, on SR 1503 ,
Over Bear Creek ?UL 2 4 2003
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1503(1)
State Project 8.2261001
October, 2000
1. Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Resident Engineer:
ReveLtation: The temporary detour and approaches will be removed after the new bridge
is completed, and the area will be revegetated with appropriate plant species.
2. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition:
The bridge has an asphalt surface on a reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The
bridge has timber cap and pile bents and end bents. The asphalt wearing surface will be removed
prior to demolition without dropping into the water. There is the potential for parts of the bridge
deck to be dropped into the water during removal of this bridge. The resulting temporary fill into
the waters of the United States will amount to a maximum of approximately 34 cubic yards of
material. This project is classified as a Case 2 bridge demolition, allowing no work at all in
the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas. During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge
D. iolition and Removal will be followed. Due to the potential sedimentation concerns resulting
from demolition of the bridge, a turbidity curtain will be used to contain and minimize
sedimentation in the stream.
Construction Moratorium:
A moratorium on in-water construction activities will be observed from March 1 to
September 30 of any construction year.
High uali Waters:
Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be
implemented in addition to the standard Best Management Practices.
B-3217 Categorical Exclusion Document
Greensheet
Onslow County
Bridge No. 21, on SR 1503
Over Bear Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1503(1)
State Project 8.2261001
TIP Project B-3217
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: 1JUL 2 4 2003
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 21, in Onslow County. Bridge No. 21 carries
Highway SR 1503 over Bear Creek, in the southeastern part of Onslow County. N_CDOT and FHWA
classify this action as a Categorical Exclusion, due to the fact that no notable environmental impacts
are likely to occur as a result of project construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 21 at the existing location, as shown by Alternate 1 in
Figure 2. The new bridge will be approximately 100 feet (31 m) in length, and 40 feet (12 m) in
overall clear width. A paved travelway of 26 feet (8 m) will be accommodated. The bridge will be
designed to provide adequate sight distance for the curvature, resulting in asymmetric lane and offset
widths. The inside travel lane and offset will be 14 feet (4.2 m) and 10 feet (3 m) respectively. The
outside travel lane and offset will be 12 feet (3.6 m) and 4 feet (1.2 m) respectively, for a total of 40
feet (12 m) in clear width.
The approach roadway will have a 24 foot (7.3 m) travelway, with 8 foot (2.4 m) shoulders on
each side. Shoulders will consist of a 4 foot (1.2 m) full depth paved shoulder (FDPS) and a 4 foot
(1.2 m) turf section. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will be increased by a minimum of 3 feet
(1 m) on each side. The new structure will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing
grade.
Traffic will be maintained with an onsite temporary detour structure placed to the east and
consisting of a temporary bridge approximately 100 feet (30 m) in length.
The project will require approximately 1,100 feet (335 m) of new work on approach
roadways.
SR 1503 is not designated as a bicycle route, and there is no indication that an unusual
number of bicyclists use the road.
The estimated cost is $1,276,000; including $126,000 for Right-of-Way acquisition and
$1,150,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program is $478,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS:
A design exception may be necessary for design speed for this project. Preliminary design
indicates an anticipated design speed of 45 mph (70 km/h) to accommodate horizontal alignment.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1503 as a Rural Minor Collector Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The land use in the bridge vicinity is primarily rural residential.
Near Bridge No. 21, SR 1503 is a 2 lane, paved facility, 20 feet (6.1 m) in width, with 6 foot
(2 m) wide or wider turf shoulders on each side. The existing bridge carries 2 lanes.
Vertical alignment in both directions is good. Horizontal alignment is poor approaching the
bridge from the north.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 21 in 1956. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a
reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The bridge has timber cap and pile bents and end bents.
The deck of Bridge No. 21 is 10 feet (3 m) above the stream bed. Water depth in Bear Creek is
approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) at the bridge vicinity. Bridge No. 21 is 87 feet (27.m) long, with a 24
foot (7.2 m) roadway width. Two lanes of traffic are carried and the load limit is posted at 34 tons
(34,000 kg) for all vehicles.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's sufficiency rating is 48.3 out
of a possible 100.0. The current traffic volume is 4,000 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to increase
to 8,700 VPD by the design year (2025). The posted speed limit is 55 mph (88 km/h) with an
advisory limit of 45 mph (72 km/h) in the bridge vicinity.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate there were 6 vehicle crashes reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 21 during a recent three year period. Two of these crashes resulted in injuries.
As a result of comments by the Division Engineer's office and from local residents, the design for
Alternate 1 was changed to decrease the degree of curvature, and to increase the sight distance in the
bridge vicinity. These measures allowed an increase in design speed to 45 mph (70 km/h). NCDOT
feels that this design will be a great improvement over the existing conditions, and will minimize the
accident potential at this location.
The Transportation Director of Onslow County Schools indicates that there are 9 school
busses crossing the bridge twice per day, for a total of 18 trips per day.
IV. ALTERNATES:
Three methods of replacing Bridge No. 21 were studied. All alternates involve a replacement
structure consisting of a new bridge approximately 100 feet (31 m) in length. An off-site detour was
not considered due to the high traffic volume and length of the available detour. The current traffic is
4,000 VPD and the detour length is 9 miles (14.5 km) over residential roads.
The project alternates were studied as follows:
Alternate 1: (Recommended) - Replace bridge on existing location with a new bridge. Traffic would
be maintained with a temporary on-site detour structure placed to the east of the existing bridge.
Alternate 2: Replace bridge on new location with a new bridge placed west of the existing bridge.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 3: Replace bridge on new location with a new bridge placed east of the existing bridge.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
2
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. The sufficiency rating of the existing bridge is only 48.3 out
of 100.0. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
V. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated project costs of the alternates studied are as follows: rJUL 2 4 2003
Alternate I Alternate 2 Alternate 3
(Recommended)
New Structure
Roadway Approaches; Detour
Approaches & Removal of Detour
Existincy Structure Removal
Temporary Detour Structure
Miscellaneous & Mobilization
Subtotal
Engineering and Contingencies
Total Construction Cost
Right-of-Way and Utilities
Total Project Cost
240,000 225,000 225,000
360,000 529,000 541,000
17,000 17,000 17,000
120,000 Not
Applicable Not
Applicable
258,000 269,000 277,000
995,000 1,040,000 1,060,000
155,000 160,000 190, 90,000
1,150,000 1,200,000 1,250,000
126,000 117,000 167,000
$1,276,000 $1,317,000 $1,417,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 21 at the same location, as shown in Figure 2 and described
on page one.
NCDOT recommends that Alternate I be constructed, in order to improve safety, to
minimize disturbance to surrounding natural resources and wetlands, and in order to select the lower
cost alternate.
The Division Engineer concurs with the selection of the recommended alternate.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) due to its limited scope and
insubstantial environmental consequences.`
The bridge project will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
3
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project. No adverse effect on families or
communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic or religious opportunities in the area.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance are in the vicinity of the project.
Construction of the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain or
associated flood hazard. The elevation of the 100-year flood will not be increased by more than 12
inches (0.3 m).
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this size and magnitude.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area.
B. Architectural & Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, & implemented by Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
for compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally
funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on property listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an
opportunity to comment.
Architectural Resources
A meeting was held with The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to evaluate potential
effects of the project. The SHPO stated that there are no historic structures located within the area of
potential effect (APE) for this project, and recommended that no historic architectural surveys be
conducted. Thus, it is concluded that the project will have no effect on these resources.
Archaeological Resources
A meeting was held with The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to evaluate potential
effects of the project. The SHPO stated that there are no recorded archeological resources located
within the area of potential effect (APE) for this project, and recommended that no archeological
surveys be conducted. Thus, it is concluded that the project will have no effect on these resources.
C. Natural Systems
1.1. Bridge Demolition and Removal
The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on'a reinforced concrete floor on timber joists. The
bridge has timber cap and pile bents and end bents. The bridge has five spans totaling 87 feet (27 m)
in length and 25 feet (8 m) in width. Bear Creek is approximately 40 feet (12 m) wide at the bridge
crossing. There is the potential for parts of the five spans of the bridge deck to be dropped into the
water during removal of this bridge. The resulting temporary fill in to the waters of the United States
4
will amount to a maximum of approximately 34 cubic yards (26 cubic meters) of material. A41
temporary fill material will be removed from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge
removal process. This project is classified as a Case 2 bridge demolition, allowing no work at all
in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BD&R) will be followed and adhered to.
`JUL 2 4 2003
Due to the potential sedimentation concerns resulting from demolition of the bridge, a
turbidity curtain will be used to contain and minimize sedimentation in the stream.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Onslow County is in the Lower Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina and is
characterized by nearly-level, wide undissected interstream divides. Water movement is slow in these
interstream divides because of minimal relief and poorly drained to very poorly drained soils. The
upper side slopes of the drainageways merge into the wide interstream divides. A thick mantle of
organic matter has developed in the Hoffman Forest and Great Sandy Run Pocosin areas, and the
underlying mineral material is nearly impermeable. The layer of organic matter is thinner or does not
occur near the drainageways. The highest elevations are at 100 feet (30 m) or more occurring in the
northern tip of the county on the Sunderland Surfaces. The lowest elevation range from sea level to 24
feet (7.2 m) occurring on the Pamlico Surface, located within a narrow strip near the coast. The main
water systems draining the county are the White Oak River, the New River, Southwest Creek, Back
Creek, Sandy Run Swamp, Nine Mile Swamp, and Juniper Swamp. The White Oak and New Rivers
drain into the Intracoastal Waterway and have wide estuarial flood plains. Because of high ocean
tides, these areas can be flooded with brackish water I to 10 miles (1.6 to 16 km) inland.
2.2 Soils
The project study area in Onslow County lies within an area of three soil mapping units.
They are Baymeade-Forestom-Stallings, Norfolk-Goldsboro-Onslow, Leon-Murville-Kureb "General
Soil Mapping Units". The Baymeade-Forestom-Stallings grouping is nearly level and gently sloping,
well drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat poorly drained soils that have a loamy subsoil;
on uplands. (USDA 1997) The Norfolk-Goldsboro-Onslow grouping is nearly level and gently
sloping, well drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat poorly drained soils that have a loamy
subsoil; on uplands. (USDA 1997) The Leon-Murville-Kureb grouping is nearly level and gently
sloping, poorly drained, very poorly drained, and excessively drained soils that have a sandy subsoil
and underlying material; on uplands. (USDA 1997) There are five soil types located in the project
area. A brief description of these soil types is provided in the following Table 1.
5
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area, Onslow County.
Map Symbol Specific Manning % Slope Hydric Capability Unit
Unit Classification
WaB Wando fine sand 1 to 6 % Hydric Ills
Bo Bohicket silty clay loam Nearly level Hydric VIIIw
Mk Muckalee loam Nearly level Hydric VW
BaB Baymeade fine sand 0 to 6 % Hydric Ills
NoB Norfolk loamy fine sand 2 to 6 % Non-hydric -lie
Wando fine sand (WaB) this excessively drained soil is in undulating areas on uplands (1-6
percent slopes). It is in areas on the mainland near the sound. Most areas are 10 to 25 feet (3 m to
7.6 m) above sea level. Individual areas are generally about as broad as they are long, and they
range from 25 to 250 acres (10 to 100 ha) in size. Its representative profile consists of a grayish
brown fine sand surface layer. The substratum consist of a yellowish brown fine sand, strong
brown fine sand that has yellowish brown mottles and brownish yellow concentrations, yellow
fine sand, very pale brown fine sand, very pale brown fine sand mottled with brownish yellow,
and light yellowish brown fine sand. Infiltration is rapid, and surface runoff is slow. Permeability
is rapid, and available water capacity is very low. The seasonal high water table is below a depth
of about 6 feet (2 m). Most areas of this unit are used as woodland. A few areas are used for
cropland or building site development.
Bohicket silt clay loam Bo This nearly level, very poorly-drained soil is in tidal marshes less
than 3 feet (I m) above sea level. Individual areas are broad and are generally dissected by
shallow, narrow tidal channels. They commonly range from 50 to 300 acres (20 - 120 ha) in size,
but a few are more than 1,000 acres (405 ha) in size. Its representative profile consists of a dark
gray silty clay loam at the surface. The substratum is composed of dark gray silty clay that has
pockets of silt loam and gray loamy sand. Internal drainage is very slow. The shrink-swell
potential is high. The soil has very low support- strength. It is flooded daily, and the water table
fluctuates with the rise and fall of the tide.
• Muckalee loam (Mk) This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on flood plains. Individual areas are
long a narrow and generally more than 100 acres (40 ha) in size. Its representative profile consists
of dark grayish brown loam at the surface. The substratum is composed of a gray loam that has
thin layers of sandy loam, gray sandy loam that has thin layers of clay loam, grayish brown sandy
loam that has gray mottles and thin layers of loamy sand. Infiltration is moderate, and surface
runoff is very slow. Permeability is moderate. Ditchbanks are unstable because of the high
content of sand. The seasonal high water table is 0.5 foot to 1.5 feet (0.2 m to 0.5 m) below the
surface. This soil is frequently flooded for brief periods, water ponds in low areas on the wider
flood plains for long periods in winter. The surface layer is strongly acid, and the substratum
ranges from medium acid to moderately alkaline.
Baymeade fine sand (BaB) this well drained soil is on uplands. It is on convex slopes near large
drainageways and on low ridges. Individual areas are irregular in shape, and they range from 25
to about 300 acres (10 to 120 ha) in size. Its representative profile consists of a light gray fine
sand surface layer. The subsurface layer is composed of light gray fine sand, light yellowish
brown fine sand that has soft dark yellowish brown nodules, and white fine sand that has very
pale brown mottles and a few thin bands of brownish yellow fine sandy loam. The subsoil is
composed of a brownish yellow fine sandy loam, and a light yellowish brown fine sandy loam
6
that has light gray mottles and thin layers of fine sand. The substratum is composed of light gray
fine sand that has brown mottles and thin layers of loamy fine sand. Infiltration is rapid, and
surface runoff is slow. Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water capacity is low. The
soil is strongly acid or medium acid throughout. The seasonal high water table is 4 to 5 feet (1.2
to 1.5 m) below the surface.
JUL 2 4 2003
Norfolk loamv fine sand (NoB) this is a well-drained soil located in convex areas near large
drainage ways on uplands. Individual areas are long and vary in width. They range from 15 to
about 45 acres (6 to 18 ha) in size. Its representative profile consists of a brown loamy fine sand
surface layer. The subsurface layer is composed of a pale brown loamy fine sand. The substratum
layer is composed of brownish yellow sandy clay loam, brownish yellow sandy clay loam that has
mottles in shades of brown, red, and gray, and a mottled light. gray, brownish yellow, and
yellowish red sandy clay loam. Infiltration is moderate, and surface runoff is medium.
Permeability and available water capacity are moderate. The seasonal high water table is 3.5 to
6.0 feet (I to 2 m) below the surface. Most areas of this unit are used as cropland. A few small
areas are used for building site development or woodland.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by
the proposed project.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the White-Oak River Drainage Basin;
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) sub-basin number 03-05-01; United States
Department of Interior Hydrologic Unit is 03020106. There is one water resource, Bear Creek, in the
project study area crossed by SR 1503. (Figure 1)
The classification for Bear Creek [DEM Index No. 19-41-11, 6/1/56] is class SA. Class SA
waters is suitable for commercial shellfishing and all other tidal saltwater uses.
There are two High Quality Waters located within the project vicinity. They are located
approximately 0.75 and 1.00 miles (1.2 and 1.6 km) to the east of the bridge that crosses over
Bear Creek. This project is also located within a designated fish nursery ground (code
1101030000). Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control Guidelines will
be implemented in addition to the standard Best Management Practices.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
As Bear Creek crosses underneath SR 1503 at the study area, its channel width is approximately
6.1 m (20.0 ft) wide at low tide and bank-full at high tide is about 40 feet (12.2 m) wide extending
into the brackish marsh community discussed in Section 3.1.3. Bear Creek's depth ranges from 2.0-
8.0 feet (0.6-2.4m). The substrate in the study area is a muddy-silt. The water clarity is murky and
the water is brackish. The banks of this tidal creek slope gently into mud flats and estuarine marshes.
23.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
7
c
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network:
There are no BMAN monitoring stations within the project vicinity.
Point source and Nonpoint source dischargers:
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to
register for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers within the project vicinity.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
3.0 Biotic Resources
Scientific nomenclature and common names (.when applicable) are provided for each animal
and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the common name
only. Fauna observed during the site visit is denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Terrestrial communities
3.1.1 Disturbed/maintained
This community is located on both sides of SR 1503 and will be impacted by alternatives
1,2 and 3. Most of this community on this site is road shoulder, lying along the road's margin.
However, lying within the northeast quadrant of the project area, there is a maintained residential
lawn, dominated by fescue (Fescua sp.) In the northwest quadrant, an abandoned commercial use
area is present with more developed vegetation. Because of mowing and the use of herbicides this
community is kept in a constant state of early succession. The ground cover of this community is
composed of several species of herbaceous grasses and woody shrubs, such as: panic grass (Panicum
sp.), milkweed (Asclepias sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), red clover
(Trifolium pratense), thistle (Carduus sp.), beggar's tick (Bidens sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), swamp
rose (Rosa sp.), bahia grass (Paspalum sp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), wingstein (Actinomeris
altemifolia), and bluegrass (Poa spp.). Vines that occupy these areas include, Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica). Often, the duration between maintenance sessions of highway right-of-ways is quite long,
allowing time for larger herbaceous shrubs and woody vegetation to inhabit this disturbed area. Some
of these herbaceous shrubs and woody vegetation inhabiting this disturbed community include:
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra). Along the margins of the road shoulder,
small stormwater ditches are present. These ditches contain water tolerant species, such as:
wingstem (Actinomeris altemifolia), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), pokeberry (Phytolacca
americana), boxelder (Acer negundo), rush (Juncus sp.), orange-spotted jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), sedge (Carex lucida), and Japanese. grass (Microstegium sp.).
3.1.2 Estuarine-coastal fringe evergreen forest
This.community can be found south of Bear Creek on both sides of SR 1503. This
community is adjacent to disturbed/maintained roadside community along the margins of the
roadway. This community grades downward into the brackish marsh community and grades upwards
into the mesic pine flatwoods community. This community has been moderately disturbed, due to
8
storm surge and heavy winds, probably caused by hurricanes: thus, this forest exhibits gap dynamics.
Encroachment of salt water and frequent fire from adjacent drier communities invade this community
causing stand death and regeneration. The dominant canopy species inhabiting this forested
community type include, loblolly pine, red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp blackgum (Nvssa biflora),
and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Common understory species include, wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), live oak (Quercus
virginiana), bamboo (Arundinaria gigantia), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), yaupon (I. vomitoria), and
red bay (Persea borbonia). The herbaceous layer consists of cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinamomea),
greenbriar, royal fern (O. regalis), netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), and palmetto (Saba]
minor).
3.1.3 Brackish. marsh JUL 2 4 2003
The brackish marsh community is found along banks of Bear Creek adjacent to the estuarine-
coastal evergreen forest community. Freshwater influence has affected the vegetative composition of
this community, by allowing less salt tolerant species to grow on the ecotonal zonation areas furthest
away from the tidal waterway. Since this community is exposed to tidal influence, nutrient input into
this system is considerable, making this community highly productive. The dominant vegetation
found in this community is rush (Juncus roemerianus), cord grass (Spartina spp.), and/or sawgrass
(Cladium mariscus jamaicense). Along the ecotonal zonation areas, containing mostly freshwater,
salt intolerant species may be present, such as, cat tail (Typha spp.), black willow (Salix nigra),
bulrush (Scirpus spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), and an exotic reed (Phragmites aurstralis).
3.1.4 Mesic pine-hardwood flatwoods
This community is found in the southeastern quadrant of the project adjacent to the estuarine
coastal evergreen forest community. This community type is exposed to frequent, low intensity fires
that maintain the sparce understory. The dominant canopy includes, longleaf pine (P. palustris), red
maple, loblolly pine, water oak (Q. niger), blackgum_(N. sylvatica), southern red oak (Q. falcata), post
oak (Q. stellata), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and sweet gum. The understory layer
includes shrub and herbaceous species such as, blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), sparkleberry
(Gaylussacia frondosa), bitter gallberry, red bay, virginia bay (Magnolia virginiana), lespedeza
(Lespedeza spp.), and wax myrtle.
3.1.5 Terrestrial Wildlife
The conglomeration of community types within the project area form a contiguous and
diverse association of habitats, which allows for similarly complex faunal components, including
terrestrial, amphibious, and avian. Since some of the plant communities are bordered by tidally
influenced marsh habitats, estuarine species will be found within the project area. Because of the
disturbed/degraded nature of all of the habitats in the project area, the faunal component is expected
to consist of opportunistic animals able to adapt to the "edge" habitat created by human activities.
Conversely, species, which require large undisturbed-forested habitats are likely, absent from the
project area. Several mammals that may utilize these communities are white-tailed deer (Odocoilius
virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinianus), fox squirrel (S. niger), Virginia oppossum
(Didelphus virginiana), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and white-footed
louse (Peromyscus leucoupus).
The canopy strata provide a plethora of food items, including insects, mast and leaves.
Primarily bird species, such as downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red-bellied woodpecker
9
(Melanerpes carolinus) yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris),
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata),
white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), utilize the canopy.
Several bird species may utilize coastal marsh areas for nesting, courting, and feeding. Of
these bird species associated with coastal marsh areas, there presence may or may not be apparent
further inland. Some of these bird species include, clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), redwing
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), marsh wren (Telmatodytes palustris), seaside sparrow (Ammospiza
maritima), meadowlark (Sturnella magna), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), boat-tailed gracle
(Cassidix mexicanus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias)*, snowy egret (Leucophoyx-thula),
Louisiana heron (Hydranassa tricolor), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), and
American egret (Casmerodius albus).
Reptiles and amphibians that may occupy these communities include eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), ground skink (Scincella sp.), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rat snakes (Elaphe spp.), American toad
(Bufo americanus), and gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis or H. versicolor).
Top predators expected to occur here include great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), various
hawks (Accipiter spp. and Buteo spp.), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and copperhead
(Agkistrodon contorix). These species are important in maintaining populations of rodents, small
birds and other small animals. Because of the open, relatively non-stratified nature of
maintained/disturbed communities, such as pasture/field and roadside habitats, resident vertebrate
fauna are generally small in size.
Virginia opossum and raccoon frequently forage nocturnally in these habitats or travel along
roadways between habitats. These animals are often road kill victims. Consequently road kills attract
a large number of scavenger species including turkey vulture (Carthartes aura)* and common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos)*, as well as domestic dogs and cats.
3.2 Aquatic Community
This community consists of tidally-influenced Bear Creek. Tidally-influenced estuarine
waters provide calm areas to be utilized as nursery grounds for larval and juvenile stages of many
marine animals. Marine animals that may be found in this habitat include, croaker (Micropogonias
undulatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), killifish (Fundulus spp.),
flounder (Paralichthys spp.), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), squid
(Loligo spp.), mullet (Mullus spp.), and shrimp (Palaemonetes spp., Tozeuma spp., Crangon spp., or
Penaeus spp). After many of these animals mature they exit these backwater areas and more further
outward to the ocean.
Several marine predator fish use these areas to ambush juvenile fish species from secluded
hideouts in the marsh vegetation. Marine predator fish that may feed in this area, include trout
(Cynoscion nebulosus), weakfish (C. regalis), flounder, bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), red drum
(Sciaenops ocellatus), black drum (Pogonias cromis), stingray (Dasyatis spp.) and skate (Raja spp.).
The brackish marsh community provides habitat for several estuarine crustaceans, such as the marsh
fiddler crab (Uca pugnax), blue crab (Callinextes sapidus), and marsh crab (Sesarma reticulata).
10
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts
'JUL % 4 2003
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing
and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 2 summarizes
potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to
terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in section 1 .1, and the entire
proposed right-of-way width of 18.3 in (60.0 ft) for all alternates. However, project construction
often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community
Disturbed/maintained
Estuarine-coastal fringe evergreen
forest
Impacted Area: ac (ha)
Alternate I** Alternate 2*
0.498 (0.202) 0.609 (0.246)
0.250 (0.101) 0.152 (0.062)
Alternate 3*
0.498 (0.202)
0.250 (0.101)
Mesic pine-hardwood flatwoods 0.450 (0.182) 0.678 (0.274) 0.450 (0.182)
Brackish marsh 0.110 (0.045) 0.144 (0.058) 0.110 (0.045)
Total Impacts 1.308 (0.530) 1.583 (0.640) 1.308 (0.530)
*Permanent Impacts
**Temporary Impacts
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Bear Creek will result from the replacement of Bridge
No. 21. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate
and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community
composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical
alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
Inhibition of plant growth.
Alga blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities will be minimized by strict adherence to Best Management
Practices (BW's).
3.3.3 Natural resource recommendation for alternates
The natural resource impacts are less and are mostly temporary impacts for alternate one
versus alternates two and three. Therefore, from a natural resources perspective, alternate one is the
recommended and preferred alternate with the least natural resource impacts.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory
issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
11
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States,"
as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes
to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to
the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology.
Jurisdictional wetland impacts are likely to be minimal:
(a) 0.250acres ( 0.101 hectare) USCOE Jurisdictional wetlands (Type: Estua rine-coastal fringe
evergreen forest)
(b) 0.144acres ( 0.058 hectare) CAMA Jurisdictional wetlands (Type: Brackish marsh)
Total area jurisdictional wetlands <0.394 acres ( 0.160 hectare)
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that is
located within the proposed right-of-way. Physical aspects of surface waters are described in section
2.3.1. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters within the project right-of-way could total, but
not to exceed, 60 linear feet (18 m) of creek (proposed right-of-way).
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a
result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies
in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal
agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the council on
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
• that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
12
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401
permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
`JUL 2 4 2003
Onslow County is one of the 20 coastal counties in North Carolina that falls within the
jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). The Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) has been granted authority by the US Army Corp of Engineers (COE) to approve and issue
permits for actions involving special Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's). The COE does not
abdicate its authority or responsibility in the area of wetland protection (a COE Section 404 permit
will be authorized if DCM approves the action), but, by granting a lead role to DCM, it acknowledges
that CAMA and DCM wetland regulations are at least as comprehensive.
The specific AEC's involved in the proposed action are Estuarine Waters, Public Trust-Areas,
Coastal Wetlands and Estuarine Shorelines. The CAMA permit program gives highest priority to
conserving the natural processes of estuarine systems. Since the proposed action will require a
Section 404 permit, it will, by definition, require a CAMA Major Development Permit.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined
by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization. and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States: According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in. determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics
in light of overall project purposes. For this project, avoidance is not practical due to the extent of
adjacent wetlands.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing
the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths. For this project, fill areas will be minimized during design to
provide the minimum footprint necessary for roadway integrity.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of
the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to
the discharge site.
13
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide Permits
that result in the fill or alteration of.
More than 1.0 ac (0.45 ha) of wetlands
And/or more than 150.0 linear ft (45.7 m ) of streams
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the issuance
of a 401 Certification. Compensatory mitigation is not expected for the 0.250 acres (0.1 ha) of
wetland impacts due to limited impacts {i.e. <150 feet (46 m) of linear stream; <0.3 acres (0.1
ha) of wetlands), but the 0.144 acres (0.06 ha) of CAMA Jurisdictional wetlands will most likely
require compensatory mitigation. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE and Division
of Coastal Management.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due
to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 22, 2001, the FWS lists
ten species as federally protected for Onslow County. A brief description of the characteristics and
habitat requirements for this species along with a conclusion regarding potential project construction
impacts follows Table 3.
Table 3. Federal],
for Onslow
Common Name ScientificName Status
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened
Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s coda
Eastern cougar
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Seabeach amaranth
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Cooley's meadowrue
Green sea turtle
y icea
Felis concolor Endangered
Endangered
Picoides borealis Endangered
Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
Chelonia mvdas T6raa*o.,o,4
Note:
• "Endangered"- A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
• "Threatened"- A taxon "likely to be becoming endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a portion of its range."
14
"T(S/A)"- Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
Alligator mississppiensis (American alligator)T (S/A)
Animal family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: 04 June 1987
JUL 2 4 2003
The American alligator is a large reptile with a broad snout, a short neck, heavy body and a
laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish to dark gray.
The alligator inhabits freshwater marshes and swamps in the coastal plain of North Carolina
from the southern boundary of the Albemarle Sound throughout the coastal plain of eastern and
southeastern North Carolina.
Suitable habitat for the American alligator does exist within the project vicinity. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) has on record, an observation of an American alligator
that took place within the project vicinity. This occurred approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) southeast of
bridge 21 near Willis landing in June of 1978. It was observed by Walt Godwin, of the Marine
Fisheries. This NCNHP record was confirmed by Jeffrey Burleson on Nov. 23, 1999. This was the
first and last confirmed observation recorded by the NCNHP of an American alligator in this area.
The American alligator is listed threatened due to similarity of appearance. These species are
not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation
(Endangered Species Act); therefore, a survey is not required.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae -
Date Listed: 7/28/78
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven,
Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamilco, Pasquotank, Pender,
Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington.
Loggerhead turtles can be distinguished from other sea turtles by its unique reddish-brown
color. A large head and blunt jaws characterize the loggerhead. Otherwise they have 5 or more costal
plates with the first touching the nuchal and 3 to 4 bridge scutes.
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke inlet, North Carolina through Florida
and on a small scale off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting grounds on the eastern coast of
Australia. It lives worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters. Loggerheads nest nocturnally
between May and September on isolated beaches fine-grained sediments characterize that. It is mainly
carnivorous feeding on small marine animals.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the loggerhead turtle does not exist within the project vicinity.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database was reviewed on
November 23, 1999 for sightings of loggerhead turtles within the project vicinity. The
NCNHP records show that no loggerhead turtles have ever been observed within the project
vicinity. Therefore, project construction on the bridge will have no effect on this species.
15
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) Threatened
Animal Family: Charadriidae
Date Listed: ]2/11/85
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Onlsow, Hyde, New
Hanover, Pender.
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sandpiper. The orange legs
and black band around the base of its neck can identify it. During the winter the plover loses its black
band, its legs fade to pale yellow, and the bill fades to black. White underparts, a single black
breastband, and a black bar characterize breeding birds across the forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the East Coast. This bird in North Carolina, nest in flat areas
with fine sand and mixtures of shells and pebbles. They nest most commonly where there is little or no
vegetation, but some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the sand
that is usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The presence of people can cause
the plover to abandon its nest and quit feeding.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the piping plover does not exist within project vicinity. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on November 23, 1999
for sightings of the piping plover within the project vicinity. NCNHP records show no
recorded observations of the piping plover within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will have no effect on this species.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Animal Family: Dermochelydae
Date Listed: 6/2/72
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover,
Onslow, Pender.
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the marine turtles. Unlike other marine turtles, the
leatherback has a shell composed of tough leathery skin. The carapace has 7 longitudinal ridges and
the plastron has 5 ridges. The leatherback is black to dark brown in color and may have white blotches
on the head and limbs.
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian
oceans. Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and are often found near the edge of the continental shelf. In
northern waters they are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of water.
Leather back nesting requirements is very specific; they need sandy beaches backed with vegetation in
the proximity of deep water and generally with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable slope and a suitable
depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Major nesting areas occur in tropical
regions and the only nesting population in the United States is found in Martin County, Florida.
Leatherback nesting occurs from April to August.
Artificial light has been shown to cause hatchlings to divert away from the sea. Leatherbacks
feed mainly on jellyfish. They are also known to feed on sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks,
tunicates, and floating seaweed.
16
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the leatherback sea turtle does not exist within the project vicinity. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on November 23, 1999
for sightings of the leatherback sea turtle within the project vicinity. NCNHP records show no
recorded observations of the leatherback sea turtle within the project vicinity. Therefore, proiect
construction will have no effect on this species.
,3UL 2 4 2003
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) Endangered
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/4/73 .
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Buncombe, Carteret, Haywood, Montgomery,
Onslow, Swain, Yancey.
Cougars are tawny-colored with the exception of the muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip
of the tail, which are black. In North Carolina the cougar is thought to occur in only a few scattered
areas, possibly including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian Mountains. The eastern cougar
is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of their primary food source,
white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 25.0 miles (40 km) and they are most active
at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, extensive forested areas and remote locations are not found within the
project vicinity. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on
November 23, 1999 for sightings of the eastern cougar within the project vicinity. NCNHP records
._ how no recorded observations of the eastern cougar within the project vicinity. It is indicated in the
'CNHP files that the last recorded sighting of an eastern cougar in Onslow County accrued more
than 20 years ago. Therefore, project construction will have no effect on this species.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett,
Hertford, Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt,
Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white
except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is black and
white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked
flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a
thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500.0 acres (200.0 hectares). This acreage must
be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
17
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected
with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100 ft (3.6-30.3
m) above the ground and average 30-50 ft (9.1- 15.7 m) high. A large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree can identify them. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on
November 23, 1999 for existing colonies within the project vicinity. An active colony can be found
approximately one mile (1.6 km) to the south of the project area (Colony 421 on Camp Lejeune's
Megasite, found in 1992). The southeast portion of the project area contains foraging habitat; but it
is not contiguous with the established colony on Camp Lejeune. Possible nesting grounds can be
found to the southeast; therefore, a terrestrial scan of the project's vicinity was conducted to locate
any additional nest sites that may be contiguous to the project area. NCDOT biologists completed the
terrestrial scan on September 27, 2000 and no active or abandoned nest cavities were identified.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).
Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed:
Flowers Present: June to frost
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow,
Pender.
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps containing 5 to 20 branches and
is often over a foot across. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or reddish in color. Seabeach
amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-spatulate, emarginate and rounded. The leaves
are usually spinach green in color, cluster towards the end of a stem, and have winged petioles.
Flowers grow in axillary fascicles and the legume has smooth, indehsicent fruits. Seeds are glossy
black. Both fruits and flowers are relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. Habitat for seabeach
amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural manner.
Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands and the lower
foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary populations often form in blowouts,
sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and beach replenishment. This species is very intolerant to
competition and is not usually found in association with other species. Threats to seabeach amaranth
include beach stabilization projects, all terrain vehicles (ATV's), herbivory by insects and animals,
beach grooming, and beach erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the seabeach amaranth does not exist within the project vicinity.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on
November 23, 1999 for sightings of the seabeach amaranth within the project vicinity.
NCNHP records show no recorded observations of the seabeach amaranth within the project
vicinity. Therefore, project construction will have no effect on this species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
18
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bladen, Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus, Cumberland,
Hoke, Moore, Onslow, Pamlico, Pender, Richmond, Scotland.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled leaves. This
herb has showy yellow flowers which usually occur in threes or fours. Fruits are present from July
through October.
"JUL 2 4 2003
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and South
Carolina. This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine
pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to
occur.on deep peat in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly
drained depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. Rough-leaved
loosestrife rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat can be found for rough-leafed loosestrife within the project area. A
plant-by-plant survey was conducted during the flowering season on June 22, 1999 by
NCDOT biologists and no plants were identified. In addition, the NCNHP records were
reviewed and no populations of this species have been identified within the project study area.
Therefore, this project will not effect this species.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: February 7, 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender.
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems that grow to one meter in
length. Stems are usually erect in direct sunlight but are lax and may lean on other plants or trail
along the ground in shady areas. Leaves are usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobed, some two or
three lobed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack petals. Fruits mature from August to September.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs, savannas and savanna-like. openings, sandy
roadsides, rights-of-ways, and old clearcuts. This plant is dependent on some form of disturbance to
maintain its habitat. All known populations are on circumneutral, poorly drained, moderately
permeable soils of the Grifton series. Cooley's meadowrue only grows well in areas with full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Areas suitable habitat can be found for Cooley's meadowrue within the project area.
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted during the flowering season on June 22, 1999 by
NCDOT biologists and no plants were identified. In addition, the NCNHP records were
reviewed and no populations of this species have been identified within the project study area.
Therefore, this project will not effect this species.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) Threatened
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/28/78
19
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven,
Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamilco, Pasquotank, Pender,
Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington.
The distinguishing factors found in the green sea turtle are the single clawed flippers and a
single pair of elongated scales between the eyes. This sea turtle has a small head and a strong, serrate,
lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. Nesting in North
America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida requiring beaches with minimal
disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC). The green sea turtle can be
found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, Mangrove swamps and inlets where
an abundance of marine grasses can be found, marine grasses are the principle food source for the
green turtle. These turtles require beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for
nesting (they do not nest in NC).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Green sea turtle does not exist within the project vicinity. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records were reviewed on November 23,
1999 for sightings of the green sea turtle within the project vicinity. NCNHP records show no
recorded observations of the green sea turtle within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will have no effect on this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and
so should be included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species
that is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In
addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979. There are twenty-two federal species of concern listed by the FWS for Onslow
County. (Table 4)
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Onslow County.
- -
cienbficNae Cnuimon Name,,A tusk. Aa?i_'
AIMOPHILA
AESTIVALIS Bachman's sparrow SC NO
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow SR NO
Heterodon simus Southern hognose snake SR/PSC YES
Laterallus jamaicensis Black rail SR YES
Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic glass lizard SC/PT YES
Passerina ciris ciris Eastern painted bunting SR* YES
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog SC/PT NO
Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish W3 YES
Asplenium heteroresiliens Carolina spleenwort E NO
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge WI NO
Dichanthelium sp. 1 Hirst's panic grass E NO
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC YES
20
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice C NO
Lobelia bovkinii Boykin's lobelia C. NO
Myriophyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil T NO
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane w l NO ,
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-pamassus E NO ?UL 2 4 2003
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadowbeauty T NO
Rhynchospora thomei Thorne's beaksedge E YES
Solidago pulchra Carolina -oldenrod E YES
Solidago verna Spring -flowering goldenrod T YES
Tofieldia -labra Carolina asphodel C NO
• "E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's
flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
• "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may betaken or collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only
propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
• "C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North
Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
• "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
• "W I "--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively
well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
• "W3"--A Watch Category 3 species is a species which is poorly known in North Carolina, but is
not necessarily considered to be declining.
• "/P-"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
• *-- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows several
occurrences of rare species and unique habitats within the project vicinity. Surveys for FSC species
were not conducted during the site visit. At or near the Camp Lejeune Megasite limesinks, several
rare species or unique habitats were found, including little metalmark butterfly (Calephelis
virginiensis), Carolina gopher frog (Rana capito capito), Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis),
Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus), awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa), West Indies
meadowbeauty (Rhexia cubensis), feather-bristle beaksedge (Rhynchospora oligantha), Georgia
nutrush (Scleria georgiana), graceful goldenrod (Solidago gracillima), and rufus bulrush (Scirpus
pendulus). Two unique habitats were found on the Camp Lejeune Megasite within one-mile (1.6 km)
of the project area, which include a vernal pool and pine/scrub-oak sandhill.
21
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, thus it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
substantial impact on noise levels-Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires that all federal agencies or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the US Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) based on criteria such as potential crop yield and possible level of input of economic
resources. The project will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but the area to be
converted is void of agricultural uses. Therefore, no further consideration of impacts to farmland is
required.
22

North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development S Environmental
Analysis Branch
Onslow County
Replace Bridge No. 21 on SR 1503
Over Bear Creek
B-3217
? North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
JUL 2 4 2003
TO: Bill Goodwin, Project PlanninQ Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 25, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects in Chowan and Onslow counties,
North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3435 and B-3217.
Bioloaists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) ave
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comme is on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of tl?e
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations e as
follows:
I . We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bridge Replacement Memo 2 February 25, 1999
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream'channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.

In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo
February 25, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
`JUL % 4 2003
1. B-3435 - Chowan County - Bridge # 4 is located on Rockyhock Creek near the
confluence with the Chowan River. This site is known to support important
populations of anadromous fish. We request that this bridge be replaced with a
spanning structure. NCDOT should follow the officially adopted document "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work should be
conducted between February 15 and June 15.
2. B-3217 - Onslow County - Bridge # 21 crosses Bear Creek near the Atlantic
Intracoastal Water Wav. The bridge site is estuarine in nature and is closed to
shellfishing. We specifically request that the bridge be replaced with a spanning
structure. There are swamp wetlands located on both sides of the existing'structure,
therefore, we recommend replacement in place with road closure. If a temporary
detour is needed or there is a need to replace on new location, we recommend the
downstream side of the existing structure. No in-water work should be conducted
between March 1 and September 30.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize'adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.
l NO. 121 Pal
:
' North Carolina .De
partrnent of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Ofnce
James B. Huntyr,, Governor
1 David L. 5, Brook, Administrator
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
D1 vision of A-rchives and History
,Jeffre
- - <_ YJ• Crow, Director
NO Post-It" brand fax transmmal memo
j v?mbvr 2, 2000 -
T 7677 s of p81?a
Fro
Nicholas I.. co.
? -
Graf A
Division Administrator oopc•
Federall-TighwaGAT P
y Adminlstrafion Far X Ix
Department of Transportation Fax
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
RE: Bridge 4'21 on SR 15()3 over Be
Onslow Coun a.r Creek, TIP No. 13 '217, tY, FR 99_8118 2 4 2003
Dear Mr. Graf On February 18, 2000
Department of T ' April Montgomery of our staff met with North Carolina
ransportation (NCDOT) sue: f for A_meting of the minds
concerning he abol'e project, We reported our available narchitectural and archaeological serve
photo s a "formation on historic
recommendations. NCDDT provided project area ph s agraphs at the meeting. along Jviu? our
Phs
and aerial
Based upon our revie
me w of the photographs and
eting, we Offer Ourprelimina co the Information discuss at the
?' gents regarding this project
In Perms Of historic architectural resources we
located within the area of potential effect. 'ere41, comm e of no historic ic
arcltitecturltl survey be conducted f this end that no historic cttues
project.
71Xre are no known archaeological sites wi
on our prescnt knowlcci c o thin the proposed ro ect
J arcs.. Based
resources, which mrJy be eligible for clus o?ikccly that any P
Pisces, will be Y atchacolagical al
affected b the National Register of Historic
that no archaeological in eShe Pn?iect construction, We,
therefore, recommend
Cation be conducted in connection with this project.
NISTILtT/oN Locgtlr,n
t.iHOLDC1. 5117 N. Blount Si.. Ralei M0111ng Address
)R,tl'IpN a=1 N. Kim S R:?Ibh NC 4h17 Moil Scn•icc Ccnlcr, l ' TrlrphooNFVS
SIS ' ?can NC 41119 Moil Stn' ?tgh VC 2 76 99--16 1 7
=1' 4 PL.INNLVG Dk'?:nt s?•. 161vigh NC sec Censer. 46I Raici h NC 27699-4619 (9191 713-4763
SI. 1)u"M 5t.. J bf?il Service Conic,. 191 q> 431. , 7;3.8653
S N .2071
R iltign NC 461x Mull Service Cenlr. P-ab1ci lto NC ?7694-.461 j 73?- • 713
sh NC 27h94-{613 t0191 733.RSa7 - 71S--isol
(9191 713.6125 • '15.4sO[
05/22/2001 15:36 NC STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 39794 N0.122 X01
Page 2 oft
Nicholas L.Graf
November 2, 2000
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of cithtr a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment, which indicatcs how
NCDOT addressed our comments
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CPR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions.
concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental
Review Coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
bc? BxovN/MorrrcoMERy
COUNTY
R.EADING FILE

'XOJECT: 8.2261003 B-3217 1
0 0 0

Q
r

O
Q
O
O ^
y

g v
b
voo !?
v ?
. fx W
N N N N N N

? O O
9F
x

m
Q
n x x
O O
z x ijO
o c g
m 0 p y
=1 n? m
00
-i
N m O
cn rn
O w
w y
N N It
o c c
C o W
C N
3
b
i?
,y rn
x
4 ?
?on
K
y
O?
9F
v
z
n
m
21
z
ID
C
v
O
v
m
N
Q
z
N
mm
v
a

V
YCF
t
C 1 0 b
Q
M
o
0
0
t?
H
O ?
o
N
b
47 b
b ?
C
h °w
o
n
n
0
1
k
H
t?
®®
?l
c ? M
N_
? V
VI
r
r I
\B3217.sym
3 rp a- 3N" N.a v f "n co
2 m m V '°O a s 3• -00 Is Is I
R, Tv '00 r
e. a
c Q C05 G S N C O
n- c o 1
a
:r o
ax C
n Q
o. -- O
i '
;
nn ,
I II
g Y m
I?I ? I i m . I
?5 Q
.0 0
-P -P
o m o o c 2! o o2R m ?D
0 3 3 p o 3 m T -+ ?- . T zo
03 0- o
fl `G-O ` `'0 q
n
J
nn :?: O
63
3
O m 7 ; a ?p O O;
m p a n Sr
3 3 a m
; hq
C: C a l I m a; ?';
0 0 ? ? ,' o ? o ? ? ? I'a
m
,
I I
9G I i m t-r
In mm D
III 1
a? c a. a .'a 'O ap ca A
C) G) w n
-'i N D 03 a.. ° 0 C .p
o o a' on 0.3 a o q? O
o
0 - C 3 Q Q O
n
1 0 ??o „ ._e qt
CC 7
? ?C+ 1
;o
I I
? Illly
I I
o 11
I i i l I
C O C ? t co '0 O '0 G O '0 N 0 25X71
Q t5 . 25.
cam. A :? o o v o a o c
-« .? 0 0
-0 Im
yo 7 N` N -1 3 O' 3 3. (? p O rt 0 0 0 0.. O O m 0 O
Q O n p O -3i a. D '? 20 m
°
0
m A 3 73C' O -? O a "0 A 0 IP a 3
0 g O; S p N S 7 ; Q S C S s b3
0 0 0 o °
3: o
3 0 0; m o S e o 1 ; ` w 1 ® x o° 'o -o a
a'S ° m o m 0 gr s a ° .° A b o -0 ?v
O 7 07 a CL
. x
C 1 x ' i i ? ? ' ' '? ? ' I O Q. I Q
711
13 0- a- a
a T m x 3::

°
Q.
Q'
O
c
v v 0.

O p m
S W Q
0

m °
i
i
?
I Y Tf

I I II
?
I ; II
I ? I II
I n JL
O 3' 07 Ma a 0 CA
-t. v 7o v C v 7
0
v ° v+
C7 f I it
s- .10 !t m p 3 0 0 0 0 o o° 0 0.
.0 1 3 7 C JD M 3 m_ m O Z 7 _S 4 G 0°" c 7 'a 0 a. 7 a. 3 'Q. 3 ° 3
O m 3 c r z ' 44 a s ..3 a a ° O Q a N rt a fl, O `Z Q a
N p
3 3 row `p 3 Z?0O C:C. 7 3 a to O O °' O O IL
Q Q m c Qs; 0 3 x 3 0 o ' c l 3 f° O y o a m c °- o .o c.' o N can Q _
U2 m, p' O m N 1 0 0 - O Q- i O O p 00- O. A Q an Q 3 O
m
: 11 -9 ob 1 O a 3 0 it
O °- Q °? oCL a
a 1
Q
a 0 1 c 3 a- C 0 in 1° s 0 C 1 c 0 0' !r
'???c o_Q °-3 ? 1 ° 1 1 1 3 0 V = o= n c? ?- v o 3 0 o N? 1 Z 0
.2 *
1 1 1
1 1 1 nQ Qa?°o m' n°a?N 1 c' a o c^n
c m' L o a 1 i/} 1 a o 0 o a n o' a c t in ; o o c
CL C
CL 0
?i1 1 1 b i `q c m1 i rt'rCrn Q'
m m
I I( I?. I I I 11 I y p p? ?? I n I i? ? I I N u N jII
m m , a s 'm r, x
I 4' W ?d0 I I G! - e 0 1 I `? I I I I I I
I 1 I w
I??IIII! Ii?il i it i it l 1 1 I I I i? 1 1
ca -n n "n w
w -a < c m in n o O N N N Q n a -p to n n '0 c
N 70 3 33 O O 7 7 m ?a g c a ?°i p;
m o a Q p o 0 0 - a.m n m a s ? °- 0 3° 3 3 -o .m a 3 a
o a. a. a• N -i o o c: c 1 m +n ar, °- s c O m
to O 2 a m a ' ° 7 D 0
A C O' S O 7'o S O 0
a to ' N' O S O O 1
a c °. 1 0 ,
j0 ' 9 ' ;
-04
I I I (
In i , 1 I I 1
o I^ .f 'i Qp.?D ' ; I I I I O i I h
° r 1
?? IX > I Q @ ? VG ( I I I 1 yo \ ; I ? x, EO y0 Fl
I I I ? ~
J ? ; I I I
n
O
Z
m
Z
O
z
D
r
t/1
0
r
t/1
3
to
O
n
m
11
N
C .
N
C
20
n
m
r
Z
m
m
x
' d
km? t=4
?-a

REVISIONS
8/17/99
F
rn 2 .
co cz
O yy?r i ME Q 4z;- w,Afi ?
6
o? tNyo
:fa
= Z
?z
D to b ?2N ??.
y ?1

r 3rtO?O0
U
??t?opv
un"un?
WSW .I
? Li
?cn??irOp?
2? II II " 11 a„
?O?ON('QV A d
11??$00 Q
ogN C
r
m
A
0
g
W N
m
Zz
as
V P
as
?Z
o?
r?
??I Iml!
I
J

ai!
SNE
?5
b
r ?
a ??ra'bll?
h Mogw??ryro g
M
11 1 d N.
Q
iN l
o f a
?O
g0 3 RO
yy V ? r
ti`y00j
?• O
•
>
L?K
?o
?% zli Ilk\. I/

A 'A
>s
31
30
38
4
N
:s
n$
y
O
N
i
f
?A
i?
r
?
I m v
° 1
o
I
?
5

?
112
n
m S

U
Sys
G
ae
x ??4 ?
Q O

i y r
W
O
U 3
1
m
1
¦
a%
ow,
Y
o
W
a
O

I
1
2N
ti YS
?. <
t' asst. .. lq
/ ?db
?o
ic?
1
I C
1 ? ? gp
H
y ni
r
-11
P
!
iP
I?
® I o0
m
I :-D y
g j z?
C)
v) I
N zv
Z y
N
?O m (A
m rn
z
? go
a
N N 4•
. pRWERTY LOX RMMW ALONG CENTER OF CREE
N •Gr.lt.OA N
?O
N -?
r g
A ? e
?"? ?°oO°srs
?QQ{ /J ° O O
i? OO to
?'FJ l ?Xj ??L \
.a ? • aY
?\ F
18-r
0
000
8
H
n
A?
C
\ ?3x
'O
•
r ba,?,
6S\
44 PA
x=
00
as
>o L>aA
OZ
C
A 04
O3
RG
Ln
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director
October 2, 2003
0,1246
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Mr. John R. Dorney
Environmental Biological Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
NC Department of Transportation
Onslow County: Bridge # 21, on SR 1503 over Bear Creek.
NEP A S 1401 GI
G'CT n- S 2003
A?TEA 011AIITY-SECTION
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to replace the existing 87' x 24' timber bridge over Bear
Creek with a 105' x 45' concrete bridge. A 1500' temporary fill causeway leading
to a 100' temporary bridge spanning Bear Creek east of SR 1503 would be used as a
detour during construction.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
October 23, 2003. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Bill Arrington
at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED IDAhTE
151-B Ivvy.24,Hestl_U11P1dLd1I ore ea City, Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
OCM % DWQ
%
Development Type FEE (14300 1601435100093 1625 6253) 0095 2341)
(24300 1602 43510
^a
1. Private, non-commercial
development that does not involve $250 100%($250) 0% (SO)
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:

II. Public or commercial development ;r
that does not involve the filling or 5400 100%(S400) 0% (SO)
excavation of any wetlands or open
water areas:
III. For development that involves the
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A. 13, C. or D
below applies:
III(A). For Private, non-commercial
development, If General water Quality 5250 1001,0 (5250) 0°0 (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(6): For public or commercial
development, if General water Quality S400 100%(S400) 0% (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see a",ached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached)
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional review and 5400 60%(S240) 40% (5160)
written DWQ concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to water
quality or aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water Quaiity
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) 5400 60%(S240) 40% (5160)
can not be applied:
IV. For development that involves
the fiiling ar,dior excavation of more 5475 60%(S285) 40°o (5190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Bridge No. 21, on SR 1503 over Bear Creek in
Onslow County
Photo Index - 2000: 34-442 Grid 19 V 1995: No Photo
State Plane Coordinates: x 2534275 y:335950 GPS: Rover File # X090818A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 2/25/2003 & 9/8/2003
Was Agent Present - YES (Rachelle Beauregard)
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received as Complete- 9/10/2003
Office - Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Onslow County
Land Classification from LUP - Limited Transition and Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA, EW, CW and CS
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Secondary paved road and bridge
Planned - Secondary paved road and bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A Source: N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
Excavated Filled Other
(A) 404 Type Wetlands 0.31 acres for bridge Clear 0.32 acres (Method III)
0.53 acres for temp. Detour fill
(B) Coastal Wetlands
(C) Other -High Ground Approximately 0.83 acres Approximately 0.85 acres
(Temp. Detour) disturbed in construction limits
- Coastal Shoreline Buffer Approximately 0.33 acres
disturbed
(D) Public Trust Area-
ll
Sh
B Ehistt g 40g sq. ft.
?
o
a
ow
ottom c
drti
nal
Shading 350 sq. ft.
(D) Total CAMA AEC Disturbed: Approximately 14,350 sq. ft., 0.3 3 acres
(E) Total area disturbed by project: Approximately 2.84 acres
(F) Primary Nursery Area: Yes
(G) Water Classification: SA, HQW
(H) Open for Shellfishing: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The N.C. Department of Transportation is proposing to replace the
existing 87-foot long by 24-foot wide timber bridge over Bear Creek with a 105-foot long by 45-
foot wide concrete bridge. A 1500-foot long temporary fill causeway leading to a 100-foot long
temporary bridge spanning Bear Creek east of SR 1503 would be used as a detour during
construction.
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3217 Onslow County, Bridge No. 21
PAGE 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION :
The site of this proposal is Bridge No. 21 on State Road 1503, 6 miles southwest of Swansboro
and 0.4 miles from NC 172 at the crossing of Bear Creek, in Onslow County. The general
purpose of the project is to replace the deteriorated 87-foot long by 24-foot wide timber and
concrete bridge with a 105-foot long by 45-foot wide concrete bridge spanning Bear Creek, while
maintaining traffic flow on a temporary detour consisting of approximately 1500 feet of temporary
fill causeway and a 100-foot long temporary bridge spanning Bear Creek.
Bridge No. 21 crosses Bear Creek approximately 2.2 miles up-stream of its confluence with the
Intracoastal Waterway. The bridge crossing Bear Creek is flanked with Estuarine-coastal fringe
evergreen forest and Brackish Marsh, except for the northwest and northeast quadrants, which are
urbanized and currently support a campground, mobile homes and a residence. Creek width at the
crossing is approximately 20 feet with vertical clearance between the water and bridge bottom is
approximately 5 feet with a 2.5-foot water depth. An approximately 40046ot long by 50-foot wide
causeway was constructed through the Estuarine-coastal fringe evergreen forest on Bohicket silty
clay loam when the bridge was constructed. The Estuarine-coastal fringe evergreen forest area
consists of Black gum, Red Maple, Cedar, Myrtle and poison Ivy. Th e brackish marsh area varies
from 0-20 feet wide along the creek banks and consists of Typha spp., Spartina cynosuroides and
Cladium. Soils in the swamp and wetlands are mainly Muckalee loam with Norfolk and Baymead
loamy fine sands in the upper elevations of the bridge approaches as classified by the NC Soil
Conservation Service. Approximate elevations on the site range between 1 feet and 11 feet above
normal water level. No evidence of SAV beds was noted. The North Carolina Division of Water
Quality classifies waters of Bear Creek as SA, HQW at the project site. Bear Creek is Primary
Nursery Area, as designated by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The Onslow
County Land Use Plan designates the project area as Transitional, with all CAMA Areas of
Environmental Concern designated as Conservation.
The proposal is to replace the existing 87-foot long by 24-foot wide timber bridge with a 105-foot
long by 45-foot wide concrete bridge on the existing alignment. The proposed bridge would have
a vertical clearance equal to the existing bridge (approximately 5 feet). Constructing this project
would include installing a fill over filter fabric temporary causeway on the east side of the bridge
leading to a temporary 100-foot bridge spanning Bear Creek in order to detour traffic flow during
construction. Approximately 1500 feet of the temporary causeway will be filled through 404 type
wetlands and high-ground and removed upon completion of construction and restored to the
original elevation. The bridge will be installed using top down construction. The bridge is being
widened from 24 feet to 45 feet to more closely correspond to the 12 foot paved travel lanes and 8
foot grassed shoulders of SR 1503. NC DOT has committed to strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" and use Best Management Practices for erosion control and
bridge demolition.
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3217, Onslow County, Bridge No. 21
PAGE 3
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
As proposed, the construction of the temporary fill causeway and bridge detour with 3:1 fill slopes
would require the filling of approximately 0.53 acres of 404 type wetlands and approximately 0.83
acres of impacts to high ground. To allow room for grading and fill, approximately 0. 18 acres of
404 type wetlands would be cleared adjacent to the temporary detour fill slopes and 0.14 acres of
404 type wetlands would be cleared adjacent to the permanent bridge by NC DOT Method III.
The additional width of the bridge would cause approximately 350 square feet (0.01 acres) of
additional shading impacts to Public Trust Waters AEC. In addition to the above mentioned high
ground impacts, approximately 0.85 acres of high ground would be disturbed within the
construction limits of this project. Approximately 14,350 square feet (0.33 acres) of the above
describe ground disturbance would be within the CAMA Coastal Shoreline AEC. No disturbance
of coastal wetlands or the creek bottom is expected during the installation of the permanent bridge.
NC DOT has avoided and minimized the 404 type wetland excavation and fill impacts associated
with this proposal by lengthening the bride from 87 feet to 105 feet, using 3:1 fill slopes for the
temporary detour and using top down construction. NC DOT BMP's require dropping no
materials from the bridge demolition in the waters regulated by CAMA. The NC DOT has
proposed to use "Design Standards in sensitive Watersheds" BMP's to minimize the impacts of
erosion.
NC DOT would be impacting approximately 0.45 acres of 404 type wetlands caused by the
permanent bridge in this proposal and requests to debit the EEP to offset these impacts. NC DOT
would be impacting approximately 0.88 acres of 404 type wetlands caused by the temporary
detour and bridge in this proposal and requests to restore these areas to original elevation and
replant with appropriate species in order to offset the impacts.
The collective disturbance area for the project is 2.84 acres.
Bill Arrington
September 30, 2003
Morehead City
Form DCM-MP-1
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name NCDOT
Address
City State
Zip Day Phone
Fax
b. Authorized Agent:
Name Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
Address
0872ae
APPLICATION
1548 Mail Service Center
City Raleigh State N.C.
Zip
Fax
27699-1548 Day Phone [phone]
919-733-9794
c. Project name (if any)
B-3217
NOTE Permit ; ill be issued in name ollafdowlrer/s), arld/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Onslow

b. City, town, community or landmark
Hubert
c. Street address or secondary road number
SR 1503
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) Bear Creek
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace exisitng bridge with 105 foot bridge
and a temporary detour bridge will be used.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New work
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Replace exisiting bridge with a
new bridge over Bear Creek. Detour bridge will
be in place during construction.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 2.0 ac
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWLMHW3.5ft
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Wando fine sand, Bohicket silty clay loam, Muckalee
loam, Bymeade fine sand and Norfolk loamy fine
sand.
e. Vegetation on tract Estuarine-coastal fringe evergreen
forest, Brackish marsh, Mesic pine-hardwood
flatwoods, Mantained/disturbed communities;
Pinus taeda, Pinus palustris, Acer rubrum,
Liquidambar styraciflua, Persea borbonia,
Juncusroemerianus, Typha sp., Spartina
cynosuroides, Cladium jamiacense
f. Man-made features now on tract stormwater ditches,
road shoulders and a residential lawn
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consulfthelocallanduseplw./
X Conservation Transitional
_ Developed Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Rural
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(.411(rcli zoning compliance cerlfcate, ifapphcable/
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? NCDOT and Camp Lejeune
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) X Other X (404)
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? yes
(411ach documentation, faiailable)
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
none
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.) surface runoff
at 2 grated inlets located at beginning and end of
proposedbridge
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
waterline
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to
Form DCM-MP-1
J11L 4 ZC'03
the site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
•A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
•A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
see permit drawing sheet (10 of10)
• 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.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
-22
This is the 73 day JU, ?3_?.
Print Name 4?Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Signature
g
orAalJrorize?JAger
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE'. Please slgn and date each attachment m the
.rpaceprovldedatthe bottom ofeachforfn.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
RC floor timber joists and abutments; 5 spans
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Bear Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 4.0 feet
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
if yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 87'
(2) Width of existing bridge 24'
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge +/- 5 ft
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) all of the existing bridge
will be removed
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
?L?i, 2003
g. Length of proposed bridge 105'
h. Width of proposed bridge 45'
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
4.5 feet + /-
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
7.0 feet
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? Yes X No
If yes, explain
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? X Yes No
If yes, explain will bridge all coastal wetlands
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval? (not required)
Yes X . No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
2. CULVERTS N/A
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed
N/A
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style) (4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
N/A yards
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes No b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
If yes, require any excavation within: NO
(1) Length of existing bridge _ Coastal Wetlands
SAVs
Other Wetlands
(2) Width of existing bridge _
_
If yes,
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing (1) Length of area to be excavated
. bridge (2) Width of area to be excavated
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be (3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
removed? (Explain) yards
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert? c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
Yes No require any highground excavation?
If yes, Yes X No
(1) Length of existing culvert If yes,
(2) Width of existing culvert (1) Length of area to be excavated
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above (2) Width of area to be excavated
the MHW or NWL (3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be yards
removed? (Explain)
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
f. Length of proposed culvert Approved upland disposal site
g. Width of proposed culvert (2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Unknown at this time
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the (3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
MHW or NWL Yes X No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow? the owner.
Yes No (4) Will the disposal area be available for future
If yes, explain maintenance? Yes X No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation Yes X No
potential? Yes No If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
If yes, explain above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL? result in any fill (other than excavated material
_ Yes X No described in Item d. above) to be placed below
If yes, MHW or NWL? Yes X No
(1) Length of area to be excavated If yes,
(2) Width of area to be excavated (1) Length of area to be filled
(3) Depth of area to be excavated (2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
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, (see map)
(1) Length of area to be filled total of 0.31 ac
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill fill at bridge abutment and
along fill slopes
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
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill expanding the road
shoulder
4. GENERAL
a
Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes X No
if yes, explain in detail
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?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail 100 feet temporary detour
bridge to be built approximately 90 feet downstream
of mainline bridge. The entire causeway is 1608ft
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? NCDOT High Quality
Waters Erosion Control Methods will be used

f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic
dredge)? Heavy highway 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.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail rip rap on plans
Applicant or ect N e
ignature
Date
Revised 03/95
NORTH CAROLINA r
JuL 2 4 2003
NSLOW
:OUNTY
?Fulcher . Cedar Point
Landing
PROJECT _
B-32/7
)1654 \
B?rCreek Rd. /J 1501
1502
Peru '
172
/ : • 1501
-- --- _ --:./ 1565---
- / 1505 -
11lis
: L
Landing 1635
J
CHADWICK 156 15e6
ACRES
1509
-- C?eeR Rd
/ ! 1565
1603
/'VT ? 1507
'V 1
Co?? Nerrissa
V?DMTY
m "A H,---l
N. C. DEPT. OF TR.-\NSPOR T'.%TION
DIVISION OF HIGHW.-\YS
ONSLDIV COUNTY
PRDJECT:8.2201001 (B3217)
REPL.=\CEMEN'1 OF BRG;?21
ON SR 1503:,DVF,R
B-,:.-\R CREED
SHFE F 1_ OF 10 S; Ol! 0';
Y J 'o , ? J
26fJ Jo _
riJ 3.1
^Y _ Oak Grove; :z ?a
JS \ Ch ' '?
It 4
it 4
C-3 W,
"`. a n ? ?j ?? i ; _-?_ •r .'.•,??. ?: ?:, t ? 1.??` ? "? -mil/
?, .- o? Y Nom. ? .'.s..-?.._ •?••• ?.. ?---?•-?-- _{' ...;_ "?-?I?C _?
Lf ' _ _ Fay j -=""?-NT
L 4L
O 2000'
SCALE: 1' = 2000'
SITE
MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRA.NSPORTA.TION
DIVISION OF HIGMtiAYS
MN,-SLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2261001 (133217)
F\SPLACEINiEN'T OF BRIDGE" 21
ON SR 1503 0vEIR
IIEAR CK EL"K
--SH_LEET--°- OF 10 $10/%3'
LEGEND
W1 2 4 2001
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
- CWLB - COASTAL WETLAND BOUNDARY
ETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
C7-L? W
WDENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
T T DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
E E DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
TS TS FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
-? • DENOTES MECHANIZED
¦ CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-- TOP OF BANK
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER,
--- CORE FI3ER ROLLS
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48"
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
_rr ^_rr `rf ^`rr L WOODS LINE
a
qw%
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE I
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT. OF TR.-I.NSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT:8.2261001 (B5217)
REPL.=kCEMEN"T' OF BRG-;;21
SON SR 1505 OVER
BE.-%,R CREEK
? SHF,I;T v OF lU Sf 01./ O;i
c
1
J
I
0
0
?s

U
1
I
J ?
I
O
O
Ln
?j ui

4
r Q
Q
! ! 1U
r ?
r
? Lu O
w r to
z
L O
/ F-
rr
W
W
rr,
/ N
O
U
W
Z
W
W
p
Q
o
z
W
Z
Z
W
W
I
a
u
-4
4 c
%.?

?'+ N w

® '? 0 ? ° U
A 0 .
n
? z W
a ? ?
w o
O Q
O ti U 0

a a a
w
w

x
U)
b ?
o-o-?? E
O
Ln
O
O "
O
O _
to
o-
o-
MATCHLINE 17+60 -L-
o

0

? O

w
M A

x F ? a w ?
?

® o o w
0 w
M

? " 7
<0 1-4 1%
w / ry /`' ?? ' a a w F
CL
cDof / w
?W v

XO
W I- '
2003

a
LL!
at
?
?
,N
co
\
CV
I LLJ r
ll
\ \
CO 'o
\
W
w
o
W

w
ti
m
60 x
w
_ 1L
co
1' _ H In
F- V co ZO
coo LLJ

r =
. i O
-
7ULn 6.0
Q) In L
00C
I « « O
@1N • Lr)
m
W \ • «. ivy
I
I _ V) o
-?- 09+LI INIIHDiM

N
O
_
O
O
- M
I y o
O
?w
ra?r

x

° o

o
°
? o w
.
w
C x
U

° N
N E-4
w 4

?
i
O U w
00 rz.
0
MATCHLINE "A° o p ? o
+ ca a a
w
x

w

? o
w
W ?
w
N
O
O

O k?
0
q 11 II ?
11
a W Y w
_J
LL-
(D
tz
d

0
C)

CD
o O W
_
z +
Lra O O
Ln -
1A
x
w
-
W

O
N

O J
a
U
I

O O O
N -
w w
.
J
W I J
D
O Q
a
cy Z
Z:)
O
0

J 1 0

W
I
? '
C9
Z
t~
N
0
Ld x
LaJ
0
t
o ?
a o?

o
o
?
a + r
?0
z
1
N ?
II k NZ
0 1
II II
II Q l

L>LI
JF- 1
-I
W W
I
in O
v O 1 I I
I Q; i J
I-
LLJ I- II ` W
LLJ
Ln J z N

++
W
W J
W
>-
p?
a Q
LLJ
a ?w Ln
c? `r' i+ t
N ?I
II /
_ +
Q Ln
M
O
YI
J\ II• N
I

Q + J
?M W
?O N
J
w
II
0
J .
w W N_

o ?v
J
.d 3NI?HD1dW
OI O O
N
O_
i
O
O
O
O
O
+
O
C`a
O
O
+
O
O
+
00
r--i

e
^'I c

GPI W
x z
E=4 ?
O o
0 x o o ul, U
O o
04

z
z a w w
z w z
U
O
ca a ? ?
a
w

x
v
003

0
Cr
O w
O O
Ln -
00
W
J
a
u
0
0
0
o ti
o
g 1-4

?
P
a CM
Ilk

N @ x U -4 ©? U
C'l
® ® ®
U z

o a. Z
>
® U 0
e GO
O U ® ? a

6M
W
I
I
I
I
? I
J
? o
4 I
O °
O I
? I
I
' \ I
r
I
I
I

o
? u

o

o ?
N
lam'

D
O W

C\j C\\i O
II II
W
O J
Q
U
c ?.
?E

w m v o
Z !n
m c a?
m
F ?- c
N f0 v
a w o E

d
a tq m
c v o
3
w
E-
U

LL
:3
C
O
H O O
_
LL v

C N
U v O
-

a
N
O
C
C O U O N

V N
O
O M
O
U

C .6
O
F R N
Q /6 v O
U

? - w c

N O
Z
- 'O
V LL
N V
co
M

?
CL

E LO
0
c
H
c

w C
_ l9 co
N M
O r
M
a
Z 0 0

Q
J

W

J J J
L% LL LL
C U U U
L

2 O
a O
s O
a
N
U) (L M
a
? d d
m co co
z
z

w
J O
l J J
U ,J
X
LO
r- U
)
m co

o

=

_
C °
o C ro o W W

0
O
O 0
O 2

U
? d
Lv ! F- J
M-
+ co U)
+

v F-
O F-
O

Z N
H
O

'' 2003

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
0
0
0
0
ONSLOW COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION
CAMP LE JEUNE MARINE CORPS RESERVATION
JUNIR RISTER 942 WEST MCCLELLAN RD.
MESA, AZ 85201
ETHRIAM L. BELL 216 BEAR CREEK RD.
HUBERT9 NC 28539
P.O. BOX 99
JACKSONVILLE, NC 98540
N
03 1 Zq(O
C),() 51 C1, A.)
d v?"?+a
J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
i
is
is
GovERNOR
January 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
FROM:
SUBJECT:
W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SECRETARY
JAN 2 1 1999
WETLANDS GROUP
W,+TER l1ALITY
Review of Scoping Sheets for,the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3435 Chowan No. 4 SR 1207 Bill Goodwin
-321.7 Onslow No. 21 SR 1503 Bill Goodwin
B-3378 Wayne No. 34 NC 111 Karen Orthner
-3538 Wayne No. 296 SR 1222 Karen Orthner
B-3539 Wayne No. 164 SR 1571 Karen Orthner
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
February 18, 1999 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown
above. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the
meeting, or e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
WDG/bg
Attachments
33- 7

? NS"i

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
1/19/99
TIP PROJECT: B-3217
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ - 1503(l)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2261001
DIVISION: Three
COUNTY: Onslow
ROUTE: SR 1503
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 21 on SR 1503 over Bear Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Hubert Quad
LOCATION ON QUAD: Southwest section
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Collector Route
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 390,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 33,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ - 55,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 478,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 4000 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 8700 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 3 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 20 foot
pavement, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 87.0 FEET WIDTH 25.4 FEET
COMMENTS:
1587
c
D
172
G?
A
\0
Bridge No. 21
Landing • I

1629' 1663
r--
1508 .3
• ??
.2
pj I
• I
• 6 1547 1503 Q) 1638
1668 Nerrissa
1565 N • 4? 1575
,
1657 1509 1
1647
1
1 .7
1566N ,
1662
4 1689" 1E'01 V • 6 a' 1507
16614 .2 •8 1
1.2
1501 1635, +N 1603
0 1651
1692 2
1503
2 R
1693 .1
1 1673 659
•
1502 ro 1505 1674
' > 1505 a
1653 \
-,. 8
1654 1504 I
-" _ 1506??? d

.W
i
? . o

503
Willi
S
Landing
?, % 172 ?I
}
b
D

'NS North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Onslow County
Replace Bridge No. 21 on SR 1503
Over Bear Creek
B4217
Figure 1
1^