20150955 Ver 1_Avoidance and Minimization_20140411

SOUNDSIDI
PARK
Kcvd%
�1A1a6RmmraUYFai R�G�dr �
000�-,o\
� .1Pq
�O
OF NORTH ,Cq
o
Vo
1O �FNT0FTRANSeO
50
50
IN
-a
tie �'. O
a o 4
36 ge Ite r�
/ a\
�e
,
"oQh
k-
4RSaH

1{U14TH
k
a
f 11�
a1.
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Table of Contents
Page
1.0
Introduction ........................................................................................ ..............................1
1.1
Concurrence Point 4A Meeting Purpose .......................................... ..............................1
1.2
Project Description ........................................................................... ..............................1
2.0
Merger Process History and Schedule ............................................ ..............................2
2.1
Concurrence Point 1 ........................................................................ ..............................2
2.2
Concurrence Point 2 ........................................................................ ..............................2
2.3
Concurrence Points 2A and 3 .......................................................... ..............................3
2.4
Project Schedule .............................................................................. ..............................4
3.0
Summary of Public Involvement ....................................................... ..............................4
3.1
Public Meetings Prior to Concurrence Point 3 .................................. ..............................4
3.2
Steering Committee Meetings .......................................................... ..............................4
4.0
Avoidance and Minimization Measures Prior to CP 3 Meeting ...... ..............................7
4.1
Bridge No. 16 ................................................................................... ..............................7
4.2
Soundside Park ................................................................................ ..............................7
4.3
Business and Residential Relocations ............................................ ...............................
8
4.4
Natural Environment ........................................................................ ..............................8
5.0
Avoidance and Minimization Measures Since CP 3 Meeting ........ .............................10
5.1
CAMA Wetlands .............................................................................. .............................10
5.2
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Habitat ................................ .............................11
5.3
Business and Residential Relocations ............................................ .............................11
6.0
Concurrence Point 4A - Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
........ 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Detailed Study Alternatives Eliminated at CP 3
Table 2. Potential Impacts to CAMA Wetlands
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
APRIL 2014

9
f
List of Appendices
Appendix A — Figures
Figure 1: Study Area
Figure 2: Aerial Vicinity
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Figure 3:
Study Alternatives
Figure 4:
Alternative 17, Mainland Option #2 (Roundabout)
Figure 5:
Alternative 17, Island Option #4 (Roundabout)
Figure 6:
Proposed Bridge Typical Section
Figure 7:
Alternative 17
Figure 8:
Alternative 17 (Mainland Tie -In)
Figure 9:
Alternative 17 (Island Tie -In)
Appendix B — SAV Report
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
APRIL 2014

YURTR
{
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Concurrence Point 4A Meeting Purpose
In accordance with the Section 404 /NEPA Merger Process (Merger Process), the North
Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) has compiled within this document the subject
project's background information and technical data for seeking consensus from the Section
404 /NEPA Merger Team members (Merger Team) for Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance and
Minimization).
The purpose of the Concurrence Point 4A meeting is to review the preliminary design for the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) / Preferred Alternative
(selected during Concurrence Point 3) and to concur on avoidance and minimization measures.
This report includes a project description, summaries from previous concurrence point
meetings, a summary of potential environmental impacts for the Preferred Alternative, and a
description of measures taken to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts.
1.2 Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing Topsail Island Bridge ( NCDOT Bridge No. 16) along
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway in Pender County, NC, as shown in Figures 1
and 2. (All figures are included in Appendix A.) This project is listed in the 2012 -2020 NCDOT
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as B -4929. NCDOT has initiated studies for
this project in accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.
i
4
r�s
Figure 1 — Study Area
(See Appendix A for full size)
Figure 2 — Aerial Vicinity
(See Appendix A for full size)
The 2012 bridge inspection report indicates that the bridge is in fair condition with a sufficiency
rating of 13 out of one hundred possible points. It is classified as structurally deficient.
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over
the Intracoastal Waterway entails
removal and replacement of an
existing swing span bridge currently
providing access to Topsail Island.
This bridge is one of only two
access points onto Topsail Island
and is located within the town limits
of Surf City. The other bridge is
located approximately seven miles
north in the Town of North Topsail
Beach.
2.0 MERGER PROCESS HISTORY AND SCHEDULE
2.1 Concurrence Point 1
The Merger Team met on August 20, 2009 to discuss the project's Purpose and Need and
Study Area Defined for Concurrence Point (CP) 1. During the meeting, NCDOT presented the
existing conditions, the study area, project need, and project purpose to the participating
agencies. Subsequent to the presentation and discussion, the Merger Team reached a
consensus and signed the formal Concurrence Point 1 form, defining the Purpose and Need
and Study Area as follows:
Purpose of Proposed Action
• Improve bridge safety and functionality
Need for Proposed Action
• Structurally deficient, functionally obsolete bridge
Study Area
• See Figure 1 (Appendix A)
2.2 Concurrence Point 2
Functional designs and preliminary impact and qualitative cost analyses were prepared for 16
feasible design alternatives (shown in Figure 3) and presented to the Merger Team members
on December 14, 2010, at the CP 2 meeting for Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward.
Based on the information provided, the Merger Team eliminated nine of the original 16 design
alternatives and selected the following seven alternatives:
Alternatives Carried Forward
• Northern Alternatives Group:
Alternatives 4, 5, and 5R (high -level fixed bridges)
• Central Alternatives Group:
Alternatives 6 and 7 (low -level /mid -level bridges, respectively)
2
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
• Southern Alternatives Group:
Alternatives 11 and 17
(high -level fixed bridges)
In addition, the following other alternatives were eliminated from
further study:
• No Build Alternative,
• Repair and Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Alternative,
• Alternative Modes of Travel, and
• Traffic Management Alternatives
2.3 Concurrence Points 2A and 3
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Figure 3 — Study Alternatives
(Alternative 17 - LEDPA)
(See Appendix A for full size)
The Merger Team met on August 16, 2012 to discuss Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
(CP 2A) and select the LEDPA (CP 3). A summary of the public involvement activities, natural
resources, and potential impacts of each alternative carried forward from CP 2 were presented.
During the meeting, it was shown that Alternatives 6 and 7 (Central Alternatives Group low- and
mid -level bridges, respectively) would result in adverse impacts to Soundside Park, a
Section 4(f) resource. Therefore, Alternatives 6 and 7 were recommended for elimination, and
the Merger Team concurred. Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, 11, and 17 were carried forward to CP 3.
Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, and 11 were eliminated during the CP 3 meeting for the following reasons:
Table 1. Detailed Study Alternatives Eliminated at CP 3
Detailed
Study
Reason Eliminated
Alternative
4
Island tie -in located farther away from Central Business District and received low public
support
5
Impacts to Marina and received very low public support
5R
Higher number of relocations and received lowest public support
11
Island tie -in located farther away from Central Business District and received low public
support
The Merger Team selected Alternative 17 as the LEDPA /Preferred Alternative (shown in yellow
in Figure 3, Appendix A) with the stipulation that permanent CAMA wetland impacts will be
reduced during final design, not to exceed 0.1 acre. In addition, NCDOT agreed to span 120
feet of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat and implement measures to avoid any
other bottom - disturbing activities in the SAV habitat area.
3
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
2.4 Project Schedule
The subject project's current schedule is as follows:
• Design Public Hearing
(late Spring /early Summer 2014)
• FONSI - Summer 2014
• Right -of -Way — 2015
• Construction — 2017
3.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
3.1 Public Meetings Prior to Concurrence Point 3
The following public meetings were held prior to CP 3 and described in previous Merger Team
Meeting materials:
- June 25, 2009 — Citizens' Informational Workshop #1, held at the Surf City Community
Center with three Local Officials' Meetings held immediately prior to the workshop. More
than 350 people attended, and over 170 comments were received.
- October 21, 2010 — Citizens' Informational Workshop #2, held at the Surf City
Community Center with a combined Local Officials' Meeting held immediately prior to the
workshop. More than 300 people attended, and over 200 comments were received.
December 8, 2011 — Corridor Public Hearing and Open House held at the Surf City
Community Center. A total of 270 people (including public officials) from Topsail Beach,
Surf City, North Topsail Beach, and surrounding areas attended, and more than 140
comments were received.
3.2 Steering Committee Meetings
Following the Corridor Public Hearing, a Steering Committee comprised of local residents and
business owners was formed at the request of local officials and residents. The purpose of the
Steering Committee was to provide an additional forum to understand citizens' concerns and
discuss ideas for the bridge replacement project.
The following meetings were held with the Steering Committee members:
- April 24, 2013 — Local Officials' Meeting and Steering Committee Meeting, both held at
the Surf City Welcome Center. The Project Team provided a project status update and
discussed topics including access, specific property impacts, traffic flow on the island
and mainland, and potential roundabout or signalized intersection at the tie -in points.
- June 24, 2013 — Local Officials' Meeting and Steering Committee Meeting, both held at
the Surf City Welcome Center. The Project Team provided visualizations of options for
the island and mainland tie -in intersections and discussed specific design details.
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
APRIL 2014

t o��Try
i
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
- November 12, 2013 — Local Officials' Meeting and Steering Committee Meeting, both
held at the Surf City Welcome Center. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the
Steering Committee's concerns about and preference for the island tie -in intersection.
3.2.1 Mainland Tie -In Intersection
As part of Alternative 17, two options were presented to the Steering Committee for mainland
tie -in locations, including a traditional four - legged intersection (Option #1) and a roundabout
(Option #2). Mainland Option #2 (roundabout) was selected (shown in Figure 4, Appendix A).
3.2.2 Island Tie -In Intersection
Four options were presented for island tie -in locations,
(Option #1), a four - legged roundabout with parking along
legged roundabout with one -way streets (Option #3)
(Option #4). Options #1 and #3 were eliminated in earl
resolution on February 4, 2014 stating their preference
roundabout, shown in Figure 5, Appendix A), which
constructability benefits and reduces business impacts.
figure 4 — Mainland option #z
(See Appendix A for full size)
3.2.3 Bridge Typical Section
including a four - legged roundabout
Roland Avenue (Option #2), a four -
and a three - legged roundabout
y discussion. The Town passed a
for Island Option #4 (three - legged
provides operational, safety, and
Figure 5 — Island Option #4
(See Appendix A for full size)
Previously, the proposed bridge typical section was 47 feet wide, with two 12 -foot travel lanes,
two 4 -foot bicycle lanes, and two 5 -foot sidewalks separated by a 2.5 -foot curb and gutter. The
Steering Committee requested this typical section be revised to provide improved access for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
As a result, NCDOT developed a new 50 -foot wide typical section (shown in Figure 6). This
revised design will provide two 12 -foot travel lanes, two 7.5 -foot shoulders, and one 10 -foot
multi -use path separated by a one -foot wide barrier wall.
5
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
. v
The two 7.5 -foot shoulders can also be used as bicycle
lanes. This provides a clear roadway width of 39 feet,
which can be converted into three travel lanes with two 3-
foot shoulders in case of an emergency or hurricane
evacuation (two travel lanes for one direction of traffic and
one travel lane for the opposite direction).
0
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
y
ll�
F
�t
>N.irybifwm_ -.
Figure 6 — Bridge Typical Section
(See Appendix A for full size)
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

t o��Try
i
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
4.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES PRIOR TO CP 3 MEETING
4.1 Bridge No. 16
Bridge No. 16 was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as
part of the NCDOT's 1995 Historic Bridge Inventory Report as an early and intact example of a
riveted Warren through truss, swing span bridge. Although moved from Sunset Beach to its
current location in 1954, Bridge No. 16 remains in an operable condition and retains c. 1930
gearing and mechanical systems. The historic boundary for the bridge includes the 254 -foot
long Warren through truss, operator's house, and concrete tee beam approach spans.
Alternative 17, the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, will replace Bridge No. 16 and result in an
"adverse effect" because the existing bridge will be removed. The draft programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation and concurrence form for effects to Bridge No. 16 were included in
Appendix D of the CP2A /3 packet.
During the CP 2 meeting, feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of this Section 4(f)
resource were explored and rejected. These avoidance alternatives included a No Build
Alternative, Build on New Location without using the Old Bridge, and Repair and Rehabilitate
Existing Bridge. NCDOT contacted the local municipalities to inquire about any interest in
reusing the existing swing span at a different location. The Town of Surf City expressed interest
in taking ownership of the bridge, but after further investigating the potential costs and
maintenance requirements, they decided not to pursue that option. The Towns of Topsail
Beach and North Topsail Beach are not interested. Pender County officials are considering the
option.
4.2 Soundside Park
Soundside Park is a municipal park owned and maintained by the Town of Surf City and located
adjacent to Bridge No. 16 in the southeast quadrant. The park has 45 parking spaces, boat
access ramps, picnic facilities, a performance stage, a children's playground, bathroom
facilities, a boat patrol landing, and a boardwalk open to the public year- round.
Alternatives 6 and 7 would have required a temporary
detour bridge, accommodating the bridge traffic during
construction of the permanent bridge. The detour bridge
would temporarily impact approximately 0.4 acre of park
land, requiring relocation of the performance stage, boat
patrol landing, and picnic facilities. These facilities would
not be available for public use during the two -year
construction period, resulting in temporary adverse
impacts to Soundside Park and therefore considered a
Section 4(f) use of the resource.
In addition to the temporary impacts, Alternatives 6 and 7 would have resulted in 0.03 and 0.01
acre of permanent impacts to the park, respectively. This portion of the park is undeveloped
with no recreational facilities present.
7
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
On August 17, 2011, NCDOT met with the Town of Surf City and FHWA officials to discuss
potential impacts to the park from Alternatives 6 and 7. Based on an assessment of impacts to
Soundside Park and comments received from the Town of Surf City, FHWA determined that the
impacts to the park would be adverse and therefore considered a Section 4(f) use.
Replacing the on -site detours for Alternatives 6 and 7 with an off -site detour was discussed with
emergency services personnel, Town officials, and the public. The off -site detour option
includes use of the North Topsail Bridge, approximately seven miles north of the project site,
requiring approximately 30 to 45 minutes of additional travel time. This off -site detour has been
rejected by all stakeholders due to public safety concerns, economic impacts, and unreasonable
travel times.
During the Corridor Public Hearing, several local residents requested a re- evaluation of the
detour route and potential impacts associated with Alternatives 6 and 7. Subsequently, the
Project Team evaluated options to minimize these impacts.
On March 29, 2012, NCDOT held a Constructability Review meeting with skilled contractors
having previous experience constructing moveable bridges. During this meeting, the attendees
indicated that moving the detour bridge closer to the existing bridge would result in substantial
increases to construction costs and duration.
The Project Team developed a new detour alignment for Alternative 6, minimizing the distance
between the detour and proposed bridge. On June 7, 2012, NCDOT met with FHWA to present
the revised Alternative 6 detour alignment. FHWA reviewed the preliminary plans and
concluded that the revised detour alignment would remain an adverse impact to Soundside Park
due to proximity of construction and direct impacts to facilities within the Park.
For Alternative 7, the Project Team reviewed options of relocating the detour alignment closer to
the proposed bridge, potentially reducing impacts to Soundside Park. However, it was
determined that traffic operations could not be maintained due to the bifurcated profiles
associated with this mid -level replacement. Therefore, Soundside Park impacts would remain
adverse.
Given the adverse impacts associated with Alternatives 6 and 7, these alternatives were
dropped from further consideration during CP 2A.
4.3 Business and Residential Relocations
Alternative 17, the LEDPA /Preferred Alternative, results in the least business and residential
relocations compared to the other alternatives.
4.4 Natural Environment
4.4.1 Riparian /Non - Riparian Wetlands
Compared to Alternatives 4, 5, 5R, and 11, Alternative 17 had the smallest area of non - riparian
wetland impacts (estimated to be 0.8 acre). Alternative 17 will not result in any riparian wetland
impacts.
0
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
4.4.2 CAMA Wetlands
At the time of the CP 3 meeting, it was estimated that Alternative 17 would impact
approximately 0.4 acres of CAMA wetlands, assuming a 25 -foot construction buffer. During the
CP 3 meeting, the Merger Team requested NCDOT to reduce the CAMA wetland impacts to 0.1
acre. Section 5.1 discusses the measures NCDOT undertook to reduce these impacts.
4.4.3 SAV Habitat
During the CP 3 meeting, NCDOT agreed to span 120 feet of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV) habitat and implement measures to avoid any other bottom - disturbing activities in the
SAV habitat area. Section 5.2 discusses the steps NCDOT performed for the SAV habitat.
0
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
APRIL 2014

t
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
5.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES SINCE CP 3 MEETING
5.1 CAMA Wetlands
Subsequent to the selection of Alternative 17 as the LEDPA, the Project Team evaluated
various options to reduce impacts to CAMA wetlands. Following are the measures the Project
Team has incorporated into the Alternative 17 designs to date. The Project Team will continue
to evaluate additional possible reductions and incorporate them as the design moves forward.
Island side
• Extended the structure by approximately 100 feet
• Assumed one span of 100 feet with a shallower girder to reduce structure depth
• Raised roundabout profile by approximately 1.5 feet
• Included retaining wall (to build up bridge approach)
➢ Mainland side
o Will extend the bridge in final designs by approximately 25 to 50 feet.
Depending on the upcoming structure analysis and design for Alternative 17, it may be possible
to lengthen the bridge to locate end bents further from the CAMA wetlands. This may eliminate
impacts to CAMA wetlands entirely. The potential impacts to CAMA wetlands with
consideration of 25 -foot buffers are included in Table 2 and shown in Figures 7 through 9. As
shown in Table 2 and Figures 7 through 9, NCDOT is committed to reducing CAMA wetland
impacts to less than 0.1 acre during final design, in accordance with previous CP agreements.
Table 2. Potential Impacts to CAMA Wetlands
Potential CAMA
Wetland Impacts
acres
With 25 -foot Buffer
Mainland Tie -In
0.05
Island Tie -In
0.02
Total
0.07
Figure 7 - Alternative 17 Figure 8 - Alternative 17 Figure 9 - Alternative 17
(See Appendix A for full size) (Mainland Tie -In) (Island Tie -In)
(See Appendix A for full size) (See Appendix A for full size)
10
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
5.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Habitat
On March 3, 2014, the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries ( NCDMF), and the Project Team
discussed Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) habitat and potential impacts /mitigation
requirements. NCDOT hired a consultant to perform SAV surveys between June and
September 2013 in the study corridor. These surveys indicate that SAV habitat is sparse in the
study corridor yet still becoming more prominent. A report was prepared describing the survey
procedure and the findings, and the report has been sent to NCDENR and NMFS for review
(included in Appendix B).
Through discussions with NMFS and NCDMF, NCDOT agreed to the following mitigation
measures:
• Bent Locations: NCDOT committed to span up to 120 feet of the SAV habitat.
• Shading Impacts: The proposed low chord elevation in the vicinity of the potential SAV
habitat area is approximately 40 feet, and the proposed bridge is oriented in a north -
south direction. Therefore, no shading impacts are anticipated to the SAV. However, to
ensure that the SAV habitat is not impacted, NCDOT will perform future monitoring in
this area. SAV surveys will continue in the spring /summer prior to construction to gather
data. After construction is completed (expected to start in 2017 and end by 2020),
NCDOT will perform SAV surveys for two additional years. Subsequent to these
surveys, NCDOT will work with NMFS and NCDMF to determine if there is a need for
mitigation and implement that plan accordingly. The federal permit will specify these
monitoring requirements.
5.3 Business and Residential Relocations
Previously, preliminary designs of Alternative 17 showed potential relocation of one residence
(at the intersection of Roland Avenue and Little Kinston Road) and three businesses (near the
intersection of New River Drive and Topsail Drive).
Subsequent to the selection of Alternative 17 as the LEDPA, the Project Team evaluated
various options to reduce these impacts. The revised design shows the island tie -in roundabout
being shifted north. As a result, impacts to the three businesses would be avoided.
11
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

t&
4 ai
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
6.0 CONCURRENCE POINT 4A - SECTION 404 /NEPA MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point 4A: Avoidance and Minimization
Project Name /Description: Bridge No. 16 - Topsail Island Bridge Replacement, Pender County
TIP Project No.: B -4929
Federal Aid Project No.: BRSTP -50 (10)
WBS No.: 40233.1.1
Avoidance and Minimization: Based on the current project development and design
information, impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. The following avoidance and minimization measures have been
incorporated and will be continued into the final design phase also:
• CAMA Wetlands: Revised design to reduce impacts to 0.1 acre or less
• SAV Habitat: Designed bent locations so that up to 120' wide SAV habitat could
be spanned
• Business Impacts: Shifted island tie -in roundabout north to minimize impacts to
three businesses near the intersection of New River Drive and Topsail Drive
The Project Team met and concurred on this date of April 16, 2014:
USACE
USEPA
NCDCR
FHWA
USCG
NCDMF
.m
12
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
NCDOT
USFWS
NCDWQ
NCWRC
NCDCM
NMFS
APRIL 2014

Uf 1W14TM
k
a lei
9
f
Appendix A
Figures
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

RS&H
Figure 1
Project Study Area
c° �9aoi_
Y
�f¢Fwro.rr.xie °gA
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
Surf City, Pender County

ponrH �
� dos
RS&H`FN
Figure 2
Aerial Vicinity
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
Surf City, Pender County

RS&H
Figure 3
Study Alternatives
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
Surf City, Pender County

'C
k
��`i lciL
50 2,0
- Potential landscape Fill Slopes
- - — Enhancement
Asphalt Removal SCALE
�o
V 25' SV lea'
I
PROPERTY KEY
...,. & ...:, O p
1 '
—.
— UND AVEAm.
a
IL
WARREN PRE A
11
Figure 4
AonrH
Mainland Option #2 (Roundabout)
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
RS&H Surf City, Pender County
—
LEGEND
Property Lines
$So$% Pedestrian /Bicyclist Access
e, Potential Future Pedestrian /Bicyclist Access
2
'C
k
��`i lciL
50 2,0
- Potential landscape Fill Slopes
- - — Enhancement
Asphalt Removal SCALE
�o
V 25' SV lea'
I
PROPERTY KEY
...,. & ...:, O p
1 '
—.
— UND AVEAm.
a
IL
WARREN PRE A
11
Figure 4
AonrH
Mainland Option #2 (Roundabout)
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
RS&H Surf City, Pender County

4_0 ILL. MUMMMOU
FL
ICA
|
LEGEND
LEGEND
ICF
Figure 5
Island Option #4 (Three-legged Roundabout)
TIP Project B-4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
RS&H Surf City, Pender County

/ ;
MULTI -USE PATH
-10'
1'
0
�sr
.A
�'Froror r�.,nsr�
RS&H
SHOULDER SHOULDER
BIKE LANE BIKE LANE
- 7.5 12' 12' 75-
50'
q
39'
FOR HURRICANE EVACUATION
THREE 11' LANES WITH 3' SHOULDERS
z A(
Figure 6
Bridge Typical Section
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
Surf City, Pender County

pq ponr�
b RS&H
T OF TrM1 �
Figure 7
Alternative 17
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
Surf City, Pender County

sys�r • N
Non - Riparian
�t' x 1►
Wetlands
!� �► ! I6�4
VC
iv LLL
Non- Riparian
Wetlands`�'R, �� 1
' `'. •� �� # ,r� . R.��� �� . _ fit,
A
rk
' -s Non - Riparian
`1 Wetlands
kk
r
\` Added retaining wall
Non- Riparian
Wetlands
lot
' With 25 -ft buffer: 1,625 sq ft (0.037 ac)
Arry r'
- CAMA Wetlands
100 200
Fee
♦+
-jaw
With 25 -ft buffer: 350 sq ft (0.008 ac)
OC
}
Legend
-- - Slopestakes
Edge of Pavement a
/Bridge
Right of Way
Figure 8
Alternative 17 (Mainland Tie -In)
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
RS&H Surf City, Pender County

r `
With 25 -ft buffer: 785 sq ft (0.018 ac)
(Possible retaining wall).
CAMA Wetlands
i
'.r
N .
r
0
t
R,
1
If +
♦ 1 -
t
o
f" t
f Oor i•
•f
�.�
—00..
Legend
ege
Slopestakes
Edge of Pavement
/Bridge
100 200 Right of Way
Fee
t.r
Figure 9
Alternative 17 (IslandTie -In)
TIP Project B -4929
Replacement of Bridge No. 16
a�+ NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal Waterway
,r R45 Surf City, Pender County

Uf 1W14TM
k
a lei
9
f
Appendix B
SAV Report
CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
TIP No. B -4929
TOPSAIL ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT APRIL 2014

0
O�Qt�
SAV
ZR 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
SUITE 2
I N C 0 R P O R A i E D WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1725
u
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
czrwllm @czr- Inc,com
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
TO: Kathy Herring, North Carolina Department of Transportation - Natural Environment Unit
FROM: Michael Neal, CZR Incorporated ���
RE: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Surveys for Topsail Island Bridge Replacement
Project (B- 4929), Pender County, NC
DATE: 05 December 2013
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) has proposed to replace the existing,
structurally deficient swing -span bridge currently providing access to Topsail Island along NC 50/210 in
Surf City, Pender County, NC. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NCDOT
has been conducting studies for this replacement project, State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) project number B -4929, to determine potential impacts within the project study area. After
federal, state, and local environmental agency review, Alternative 17 bridge alignment (Alt 17
alignment) was selected as the preferred alternative for the bridge replacement project (Federal
Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation 2011).
Purpose and Need
The purpose of this study was to document the presence and extent of submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) to provide baseline information (SAV species present and estimated percent cover) for evaluation
of Alt 17 project impacts to SAV and potential mitigation associated with the SAV resources. The need
for SAV surveys was based on a request from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries ( NCDMF).
A site visit by lessi O'Neal of NCDMF resulted in confirmation of SAV habitat area and the location to be
surveyed monthly during the growing season (M.K. Herring & K.M. Kendig- NCDOT, personal
2151 Alternate Al South • SUITE 2000 • JUPITER, FLORIDA 33477 -3902
TEL [phone] • FAX [phone] • czrinc @czr- inc.com • www.CZRINC.com

communication, 28 and 30 October 2013). This memorandum presents the findings of four SAV surveys
during 2013 and documents the survey methodology.
Tasks Completed by CZR
• Participated in survey area orientation and reconnaissance with NCDOT staff on 14 May 2013 to
discuss and develop an appropriate sampling methodology. A summary of the reconnaissance
and field notes from the meeting, discussion, and informal survey was provided to NCDOT.
• Developed a NCDOT- approved sampling methodology and data form specifically for the study
area.
• Provided three staff, GPS and water quality sampling equipment, survey quadrat markers,
underwater view buckets, and a shallow -draft boat to transport personnel between the boat
launch area in Soundside Park and the survey area.
• Conducted four (4) SAV surveys with NCDOT staff on 04 June, 16 July, 09 August, and 12
September 2013 (during the SAV growing season).
Methods
The 0.21 -acre survey area (50 feet by 180 feet) situated within the Alt 17 alignment west of the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (Figure 1). In an effort to aid data collection and keep observers oriented while
completing their visual estimates of percent cover, the survey area was subdivided into eight survey
quadrats (25 feet by 45 feet). Estimates of percent cover were aided by a crown density scale used to
determine the density of SAV beds (modified from Paine 1981) (Figure 2). A Trimble GeoExplorer 2005
series handheld GPS unit was used both to ensure accuracy in establishing the survey area within the Alt
17 alignment and to record the four corners of the 50' x 180' survey area during the initial survey to
ensure subsequent surveys were performed in the same area.
Tools and materials used to set up the survey plot and sampling quadrats:
• (1) Trimble GeoExplorer 2005 series handheld GPS unit
• (1) 200 foot measuring tape
• (15) 5 -foot PVC pole (0.75 -inch diameter)
Prior to performing the survey each month, the survey area boundaries and quadrats were identified
and re- staked using the PVC markers. The four corners of the 50 X 180 foot survey area were located
using the GPS unit (Table 1). Next, the eight quadrats were established within the survey area using line
of sight and the measuring tape. Water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentration, conductivity, salinity, and pH) were recorded once in the northeastern corner of quadrat
#8 using the YSI Professional Plus instrument. Secchi depth was also measured prior to beginning the
survey.
Topsail Island Bridge 2 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Topsail Island Bridge 3 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

�!UADRA I
50M 7.'w. ---I F.
25% ■
�N ■
i9
a ■a a
i f;
■ �a
■
II� ` •�III�'
PEACENI GA0WN CQVI =R
SAV Crown Density Scale
Topsail Island Bridge (B -4929)
SAV Monitoring, Pender County, NC
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
DATE: 11/08/13 FILE: CrownDenScale
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
ZR SUITE 2
SOURCE: Modified from Paine 1981 INCOR PORATEO WILMINGTON, NOR TELL 9100 /392 -9253
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
CP #2234.00
FIGURE 2
Topsail Island Bridge 4 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated
a■a ■ ■aa
I6a J
l■
�■■ •f
■ ■
• ■
��■
■
■ ■ ■■
a
a
�%
r
PEACENI GA0WN CQVI =R
SAV Crown Density Scale
Topsail Island Bridge (B -4929)
SAV Monitoring, Pender County, NC
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
DATE: 11/08/13 FILE: CrownDenScale
4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE
ZR SUITE 2
SOURCE: Modified from Paine 1981 INCOR PORATEO WILMINGTON, NOR TELL 9100 /392 -9253
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
CP #2234.00
FIGURE 2
Topsail Island Bridge 4 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Table 1.Topsail Bridge SAV survey area (50 feet by 180 feet) corner coordinates
Survey Corner
Latitude
Longitude
Southeast
34.4310497
- 77.5522208
Northeast
34.4315403
- 77.5522532
Northwest
34.4315272
- 77.5524091
Southwest
34.4310341
- 77.5523780
Five observers, three CZR biologists and two representatives from NCDOT, were used during each
survey. Each observer was responsible for surveying a belt transect (5 feet by 45 feet) within each of
the 8 survey quadrats (25 feet by 45 feet)(Figure 3). The sequence in which the survey quadrats were
surveyed was determined by the tide and wind conditions; this prevented sediment suspended (by
wading observers) from further reducing visibility over the rest of the survey area. If the water depth
and turbidity allowed suitable visibility then the survey was accomplished using batiscopes and
underwater viewing buckets. However, when the depth of water and /or the turbidity increased,
observers crouched in the water and used their hands to feel for the presence of SAV. After each
quadrat, each observer reported the species, number of patches, and percent cover of SAV observed in
their survey area. Observer one measured water depth at the end of each quadrat adjacent to each
(outer) PVC marker. Reported depth was the average of the two depths measured adjacent to outside
PVC markers.
Results
Two estuarine SAV species, widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) and eelgrass (Zostera marina), were rooted
in sediment throughout the survey area and all survey months (Figures 4 -7). Widgeon grass prefers a
moderate salinity (5 -18 PSU) but tolerates a wide range in salinity. Eelgrass is a species found in high
salinity (18 -30 PSU) estuarine areas (Deaton et al 2010).
Salinity measurements ranged from 30.18 to 36.68 PSU over the four surveys. The greatest Secchi
depth measured during a survey was greater than 20.5 inches. The area was not surveyed in October
due to the high spring tide water level, but the Secchi depth was measured at greater than 30.0 inches.
By the methodology, Secchi depth was measured at the same location as the water quality parameters,
and therefore was not measured in the deepest portion of the survey area. Thus, Secchi depths
reported from the survey are not necessarily good indicators of seawater clarity. Secchi measurements
were made prior to surveys as surveyors would often create a suspended cloud of silt and sediment
obscuring visibility until tidal currents dispersed. Water depth averages in the survey area ranged from
0.0 to 17.5 inches when the survey occurred in low tide conditions and 13.75 to 29.75 inches when the
survey occurred in high tide conditions (Table 2). In addition, increased and more widespread silt
deposition became evident throughout survey area in the August and September surveys.
Topsail Island Bridge 5 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

i
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
50 feet
a
w
r
Observer 1
Transect Belt {5'x45'}
Observer
Observer 3
Quadrat (25'x45')
Observer 4
Observer
Survey Area Key
Topsail Island Bridge (B -4929)
SAV Monitoring, Pender County, NC
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
NOT TO SCALE DATE: 11/08/13 FILE: SurveyAreaKey
Aw 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP #2234.00
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTT& CONSULTANTS FAX 910% FIGURE 3
392 -9139
Topsail Island Bridge 6 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Presence of SAV Species*
Ruppla maritima
Zostera marina
Both species
Absent
*all quadrats had less than 5% total SAV cover
Depth =19.5 in.
Depth =16.5 in.
Depth =16.0 in.
04 June 2013
SAV Survey Results— Presence /Absence
Topsail Island Bridge (B -4929)
SAV Monitoring. Pender County, NC
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
NOT TO SCALE DATE: 11/08/13 FILE: 04JUN13_SAV
Aw 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP #2234.00
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTT& CONSULTANTS FAX [phone] IGURE 4
392 -9139
Topsail Island Bridge 7 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Presence of SAV species*
Ruppia marltirna
Iastera marina
Both species
Absent
*all quadrats had less than 5% total SAV cover
Depth=0.0 in.
Depth47.5 in.
Depth =17.75 in.
Depth4.0 in.
16 July 2013
SAV Survey Results— Presence /Absence
Topsail Island Bridge (B -4929)
SAV Monitoring, Pender County, NC
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
NOT TO SCALE DATE: 12/03/13 1 FILE: 16Ju113_SAV
Aw 4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP #2234.00
SUITE 2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403
ENVIRONMENTT& CONSULTANTS FAX [phone] IGURE 5
392 -9139
Topsail Island Bridge 8 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Presence of SAV species*
Ruppia maritima
Zostera marina
Both species
Absent
*all quadrats had less than 5% total SAV cover
Depth =13.75 in.
Depth =29.75 in.
Depth =25,0 in.
Depth =24.0 in.
09 August 2013
SAV Survey Results— Presence /Absence
Topsail Island Bridge (B -4929)
SAV Monitorin , Pender County, NC
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
NOT TO SCALE DATE: 12/03/13 1 FILE: 08Aug13_SAV
4 4709 COLLEGE ACRE CP #2234.00
�J ACRES N2 C
INCORPORATED WILMINGTON, NORTEL09R10 /392 -9253 FIGURE 6
ENVIPONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
Topsail Island Bridge 9 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Depth -0.0 in,
Depth =15.5 in.
Depth -15.0 in.
Depth=-10.25 in.
Presence of SAV species *
Ruopio moritima
Z05ter" Morino
13001 species
Absent
*all quadrats had less than 5% total SAV cover
12 September 2013
SAV Survey Results— Presence /Absence
Topsail Island Bridge (B -4929)
SAV Monitorin , Pender County, NC
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG /TLJ
NOT TO SCALE DATE: 12/03/13 1 FILE: 12Sept13_SAV
4709 COLLEGE ACRE CP #2234.00
Z SUI ACRES
WILMINGTON, NORTEL09R10 /392 -9253 FIGURE 7
ENVIPONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX [phone]
Topsail Island Bridge 10 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Table 2.Water quality parameters measured during SAV surveys in Topsail Sound.
Water Quality Parameters (recorded once at the northeastern corner of quadrat #8):
Secchi
Temp ( °C) DO% DO mg /L Sp Cond (µS) Cond (µS) Sal (PSU) pH
(in)1
Jun 25.3 61.4 4.18 52042 53320 34.25 7.81
>16.5
Jul 29.1 64.5 4.15 46668 50370 30.18 7.92
>13.5
Aug 28.6 59.2 3.78 54898 58636 36.25 7.71
>20.5
Sept 27.4 60.6 3.89 55462 57966 36.68 7.39
>10.0
Octz 22.5 84.5 6.01 50154 47610 32.87 7.71
>30.0
1Secchi depth was measured at the same location as the water quality parameters, and therefore
was not measured in the deepest area of the survey area.
2The October survey was not completed due to above normal (spring) tidal conditions and poor visibility.
Estimated actual aerial- coverage did not exceed 5 percent in any belt transect, or quadrat, for either
SAV species for all 2013 surveys When evaluating the number of belt transects with SAV detected, the
number of belt transects with SAV present was highest for both species in earlier surveys and declined
with each subsequent survey (Figures 4 through 7). SAV was detected from 39 of the 40 belt transects
(98 percent) in June and 11 of 40 belt transects (28 percent) in September. The frequency of
occurrence, or percentage of the total belt transects with SAV present, was higher for widgeon grass
compared to eelgrass (Figure 8).
Percentage of belt transects
with SAV present
100.0%
90.0%
u 80.0%
v
C c 70.0%
4 v 60.0%
v C
CL
> 50.0%
o Q
v 40.0%
3 30.0%
u
a 20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Jun Jul Aug Sep
-- *- Zostera
fRuppia
Figure 8.Percentage of belt transects (40 total) with SAV present during four SAV surveys in 2013.
Topsail Island Bridge 11 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

During the June and July surveys, surveyors observed two to four patches each of both eelgrass and
widgeon grass approximately one to two feet in diameter. These larger patches were absent in
subsequent surveys, and smaller patches (less than one foot diameter) and many single sprigs and
rhizomes became the dominant forms of both SAV species. Many species of red and brown algae, as
well as bryozoans, formed visually apparent "beds" of vegetation that required closer inspection and
handling in order to differentiate these patches of vegetation from vascular SAV patches. These beds of
non - vascular species also were more apparent and appeared to be closely associated with SAV in the
earlier surveys. Coverage and presence of algae and bryozoans species, like the SAV, decreased
throughout the growing season. By the August and September surveys, no SAV patches were found,
and SAV was observed only as single sprigs /rhizomes. Many times surveyors had to distinguish between
actual rooted SAV rhizomes and the occurrence of SAV sprigs incorporated into worm casings
buried in sediment.
Summary
Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) and eelgrass (Zostera marina) were observed in the SAV survey area
of the Topsail Island bridge replacement project Alt 17 alignment during four monthly SAV surveys from
June to September 2013. Occurrences of both species decreased throughout the progression of the
growing season as expected and ranged from patches one to two feet in diameter to single sprigs or
rhizomes. Overall, widgeon grass presence was greater and declined later than eelgrass presence, and
neither species exceeded the less than 5 percent category in any sampling quadrat.
Topsail Island Bridge 12 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

Works Cited
Deaton, A.S., W.S. Chappell, K. Hart, J. O'Neal, B. Boutin. 2010. North Carolina Coastal Habitat
ProtectionPlan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of
Marine Fisheries, NC. 639 pp.
Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2011.
Environmental Assessment for Topsail Island Bridge Replacement. Prepared by RS &H
Architects - Engineers - Planners, Inc. 2011.
Paine, David P. 1981. Aerial Photography and Image Interpretation for Resource Management. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York City, NY. 571pp.
Topsail Island Bridge 13 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

:: View north into SAV survey area with quadrats marked, CZR, 04 June 2013
:: Eelgrass observed through a view bucket, CZR, 04 June 2013
Topsail Island Bridge 14 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

:: Widgeon grass observed through a view bucket, CZR, 04 June 2013
:: Aquatic worm casings with SAV incorporated from survey area, CZR, 16 July 2013
Topsail Island Bridge 15 December 2013
Replacement SAV Survey CZR Incorporated

17
00000�
110
50 N
.0
10
\7
Z10 50 IC-0 Bridae Site
110,
0
50
Gr
oo�Q5