20071766 Ver 1_Application_20071019

~~4
~~ ~ ~`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 17, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTENTION: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT'
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 Permit Application for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 20 over East Prong Broad Creek on SR
1124 {Nine Mile Road) in Carteret County. TIP B-3625, WBS
Element 33173.1.1.
Please find enclosed a copy of the permit drawings, half-size plans, and EEP mitigation
acceptance letter. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion {PCE) was completed for this
project on December 12, 2003, and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are
available upon request. NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 20, approximately 60
feet in length, with a 96-foot long single-span bridge on the same alignment, using an
offsite detour. Impacts for this project have been minimized to 0.13 acre of permanent
impacts to wetlands due to widening of the approaches leading up to the new structure.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Descriptions: East Prong Broad Creek will be completely spanned with the new
structure. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
classifies East Prong Broad Creek "SA HQW". This system contains the HWQ (High
Quality Water) secondary classification as East Prong Broad Creek is designated as a
Primary Nursery Area. East Prong Broad Creek is located in Hydrological Cataloguing
Unit 03020106 of the White Oak River Basin.
MAILING ADDRESS_ TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPETAL BLVD., SUITE 240
1595 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1595

Permanent Impacts: There will be at total of 0.13 acre of permanent riverine wetland
impacts for this project. Construction associated with the widening of the approach
shoulders leading up to the wider bridge will account for 0.06 acre of permanent fill in
wetlands and 0.07 acre of mechanized clearing.
Temporary Impacts:
No temporary impacts are associated with this project.
Utility Impacts:
There will be no jurisdictional impacts to utilities for this project. Power lines will be
temporally removed in the project area, and telephone lines will be directionally bored to
avoid impacts to jurisdictional resources.
Bridge Demolition:
No impacts are associated with the demolition of the current structure. NCDOT Best
Management Practices will be used and no temporary fill will enter East Prong Broad
Creek.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
As of May 10, 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists 14 federally protected
species for Carteret County (Table 1).
Table 1. F
Protected Species for C.:arteret ~:ounty.
erican alligator maranthus umilus T (S/A} N/A N/A
Eastern uma concolor cou uar E No No Effect
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T No No Effect
awksbill sea turtle retmochelys imbricata E No No Effect
emp's ridle sea turtle epidochelys kempii E No No Effect
eatherback sea turtle ermochelys coriacea E No No Effect
o gerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T No No Effect
i ing plover Charadrius melodus T No No Effect
ed-cockaded woodpecker icoides borealis E No No Effect
aseate tern terna dou allii dougallii E No No Effect
Shortnose sturgeon cipenser brevirostrum E No No Effect
est Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E No No Effect
ough-leaved loosestrife ysimachia asperulae olio E Yes 7/5/2007 No Effect
Seabeach amaranth maranthus pumitus T No No Effect

MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization: The construction of this project has minimized the extent
of the built-upon area by using the existing alignment for the replacement. Traffic will be
maintained using an offsite detour. The existing structure will be removed without
dropping any components into East Prong Broad Creek. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters be used to minimize water quality
impacts, and in compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) we have incorporated the use
of BMP's in the design of the project. Additional minimization measures include:
• NCDOT will adhere to Design Standards in Sensitive Waters.
• The hydraulic opening of the new structure replacing Bridge No. 20 will be
approximately 8' wider than the previous structure, thus increasing hydraulic capacity
and connectivity of East Prong Broad Creek.
• The abutments of a relic bridge (the bridge prior to the current structure) will be
removed, with the exception of the structure on the southern bank which should assist
with erosion control, as suggested by Michael Bell of the US Army Corps of
Engineers at a field meeting on July 14, 2005.
• Drainage will be directed to lateral ditching and thus will not directly discharge into
East Prong Broad Creek.
• 3:1 Slopes have been used to minimize impacts to jurisdictional resources.
Com~ensatox-Y Miti atg ion: A letter dated August 21, 2007 from the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) confirming they will provide mitigation for the
0.13 acre of impacts to riverine wetlands for this project is included with this application.
IN-WATER WORK MORATORIUM
As East Prong of Broad Creek is classified as a Primary Nursery Area, an in-stream work
moratorium is required from March 1, through July 31. However, no impacts to surface
waters are proposed for this project.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project schedule calls for a March 18, 2008 let date and a review date of January 29,
2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR §
771.11 S(b}. The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide
Permit 23 {72 FR 11092; March 12, 2007_)

Section 401 Permit: We anticipate that 401 General Certification number 3632 will apply
to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the aforementioned
certification, and therefore are not requesting writing concurrence from the North
Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing two
copies of this application to the NC DWQ, for their review.
US Forest Service: As the east side of this project impacts US Forest Service property,
permission was required to encroach on USFS property. The USFS easement and
Biological Evaluation are attached to this application. NCDOT will adhere to the
conservation measures found on page 3 of the Biological Evaluation for this project.
CAMA: Due to the absence of any Areas of Environmental Concern, this project will not
require a CAMA permit as confirmed by North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management staff. As previously stated, the project will require a Nationwide permit,
which has been determined to be consistent with the State's coastal program.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Michael Turchy at maturchy~7u dot.state.nc.us or
[phone].
Sincerely,
L '
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Ms. Pam Williams, PDEA

_~,
1124 1140
/~~ ~ ~
/ ` ~~
~~ 1124
11 ~ ~ ' ~'
'~ ~ v ~.
/ - ~~
- ~~,~ 1141
~•
-- \ 1141 _ 1 - - ~
r
_ ^ /
• ~ F~ ~ ~
1124 ~ s ~'
Z4 - • '
~~~~~~~~
lv~i ~
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CARTERET COUNTY
WBS N0.:33173.1.1 (B-3625)
BRIDGE N0.20 OVER EAST PRONG
OF BROAD CREEg ON SR 1124
SHEET 1 OF ~j."~' 6-23-03
NORTH CAROLINA

__ _ ._ -- -
- - -- -
/~ - =-~
O /
__
A T I\ ~ Q ~ _ ~ F

~ ~
, ~~1
o'
~~ t~ 1124 \ x
/ ~ I ` r
~ s+ ~ fir
f/,~ ~`'1-~ ; ~-~ -
~
/
'
\
/
J
~
\~
~
i
~ -~ - x + ~
O
, ,, `/
`\` a
~ ii ~ Z -I5 ~~ii
\~ /i / ~ 4
\\"((~I r ~ J' I ~I ~~r~ -1
`~ ` ~ I /~~
x
~
37 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~
\_
~~~
\ - -- )
., t V.r~ r -~ II
J ~ ~ ,~
-_ ~ -;'f. I', ~ ~,5 29 ~,~, ~' ~/~ ~ }U 11 1651 . ,. 11 Ik
~ ~ 5 55 - ~~~Ffry61i / ii a II ~I l
t-
~
~ ~ 5
=--u`
~
`
ll-
`

/ ~
~
~
~
1.
~,- ~~- P
~ I Di
S I ~N' \ ~ -_ I 11 p_ll ^ ~ c'Eh~»,--.ate / ;r
~ ~~~~~^\~`'l/. IL __ _; 25 = JI ~~'=t1U k .I`i .~'S _~ ~~-
n tl
~
it J If
j`"5
~ H
U
_
~
.
.dj `lr' •/~ J 114• ~~t/Y-ee 'kC"~ _ r~ I !-t ~_~ ~ 4
• ~!P ---_ - _
~2~\\~~ '~~~ ~ 110 ii• ~*~ 1..:~., • 11~•`:
11
•
•'
I
• 551. \\ ~.t ~~ 'I .IP. ~~ ~
.ll 1122 II'
.
-~~ w~ -II (l~
U f -`1 ..• •u •li i • ati .q ~FOUI
/
~~: .5~ - . 11 .~~c ~'~~ Piling -- .n~x3 - t~l)~Sl.~ - ASIA-:
tk ~5 ~ `~ -= ' tNYRACO
~
i5
11 ~---
` ~ ;Foul o Daybeacon
11 ~
25
5n 51 o Light
c-,` '~

~~~~T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CARTERET COUNTY

~(a ~ ~ ~ ~
1L PROJECT: 8.2160901 tB-3625)
, WBS NOa 331731.1
BRIDGE N0.20 ON SR 112 OVER
EAST PRONG OF BRAOD CREED
SHEET ~- OF ~ 06123i"2d~3

5PECIAI LATERAL 'V' DITCH SHQULDER BERM GUTTER ~
GRASS LINED STA 16+58.83 -L- ~LT~ T4 ~ ,
N SEE DETAIL E fOJ~ STA 16 + 12,00 -L- (L~ z ~, ~,
~ ~ o
o ~
Q~
a ' T4'
~ w ro
GARAGE m N
r' -• ,.
~ ~ LIGHT 1~ , ~ ,, ~ ~~ a o
v °~ ` , i
o w ~ , RIP RAP r 50~ m m~
v Q ~ CLASS B ~.
o ~ a - EST 2 TONS
~ 000 .~ ~ ESY 1 S,Y, FF
~J Zro uiDC ~~ ...., ~ _., M
BRANCH OF BANO CREEK
DENOTES MECHANIZED
~~ ~ ~ ~ CLEARING
DENOTES F[LL IN
WETLAND
F ~~.
~• \
R
STANDARD BASE DITCH
GRASS LINED
SEE DETAIL C
STRUG~URE PAY ITE~h
nnn~ CLASS II RIP RAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1 CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST 1

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY

Site
No.
Station
(FromlTo)
Structure
Size 1 Type
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp. Fill
In Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
In Wetlands
(ac) Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
(ac)
Fill In SW
(Natural)
(ac)
Fill In SW
(Pond)
(ac)
Temp. Fill
In SW
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacted
(ft) Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 -L- STA 17+44 BRIDGE 0.06 0.07

TOTALS: 0.0fi 0.07

NAMES AND ~DI)RESSES
1~ARCEL ND.
NAMES
~A~IE~ ~. Ia~$E~°I°, eE al
ANTH®N~ Ie. C. ~]ES°]C
IJNI~]El~ ~T~~IE~
~F A~t]EI~I~~
P~DDRESSES
1~.5 ~1$A~EN ~7ClE$QEIE(~~C
~SL/~ i/ Jl' ®~~g 1 V ~ ~lJ~~'lY
2~~~NINIE 1~IlL]Ei~ I$q®A1I~
N~ YY ~~~~y NC 6~~J
IL~]L ]E~~'lC ]FI~I~[]E]E~ ~~ENi.TI~
NIE~ ~]EI$N, NC ~~~~®

QUG ~ ~ 2007
1311fiSi4~ G~ i~4att'~'4`~,~~
PDEA OFFICE 6F ,~IASl1P-~L ENVIF,Oh~• ~~T
Y
o stem
En a ement
PROGRAM
August 21, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
$-3625, Replace Bridge Number 20 on SR 1124 over East Prong
of Broad Creek, Carteret County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory riparian wetland mitigation for the subject
project. Based on the information supplied by you on July 27, 2007, the impacts are
located in CU 03020106 of the White Oak River Basin in the Southern Outer Coastal
Plain (SOCP) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Riparian Wetlands:
0.13 acre
During the review of this request, it was noted that this project did not include any
wetland or stream impacts in the 2007 Impact Projection Database; however, EEP will
provide the requested riparian wetland mitigation. Depending on the availability and
projected need of stream mitigation in this cataloging unit, additional stream mitigation
may be required that was not included in the biennial budget submitted to NCDOT on
April 2, 2007 {revised April 16, 2007).
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory riparian wetland
mitigation to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year
in which this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2
to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
and the U. S. Army Carps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above
R.P~S~Dl~ ... ~L~~~~f' ... Z~Yd t~.G~ ©GGY StG~~ N~CENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-047b / www.nceep.net

referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no
longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
~.
Willi .Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. William Wescott, USACE -Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3625

~ u rC~t~
g•
uS~A United States Fores# National Forests in North Carolina 1b0 ZILLICOA ST STE A
Department of Service Supervisor's Office ASHEVII.LE NC 28801-1082
A¢riculture 828-257-4200
File Code: 2730-2
ate: February 27, 2007
Ms. Betty Yancey
Right of Way Agent """-'~---
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1546 Mail Service Center
~'~ ~ ~ ~
Raleigh, NC 27699-1546
Dear Ms. Yancey: ~ - ~ f/p~ j/~~~~ ~~~''~' ~~ '
F-F.!
t ,

M' F!f
}}~7/F
• ,Iii 1
We received a request for aRight-of-Way for Bridge #20 over East Prong of Broad CreeT~-on`
1..124 in Carteret County dated April 19, 2006. Attached to that request was a revised set of plans
dated September 29, "2005. We have reviewed those plans and conducted additional field work
based on those plans.
The Forest Service issued a Public Road Easement to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT} for this project on August 19m, 2003 based on plans .dated.. July 2,
1999. Amer reviewing the new plans and writing a supplement to the Biological Evaluation
(BE} dated December 20, 2006, we have deter~;ned that the easement as issued covers the work
as described in the plans dated September 29, 2005. That easement covers 50 foot from the
centerline excluding any cuts and fills. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue any additional
easement for this project as currently proposed.
For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of the previously issued easement and contract
stipulations for this project and a copy of the supplement to the BE. Please ensure that .your
engineer has incorporated the contract stipulations and previously prescribed mitigation
measures found on page three of the July 3, 2003 BE into the design of the project and that they
contact Croatan District Ranger Lauren Hillman at 252-638-5.628 prior to beginning
construction.
if you have any questions regarding the project for Bridge #20 in Carteret County please contact
me at 828-257-4230.
Sincerely,

KAREN L. COMPTON
Environmental Coordinator
Enclosure
cc: Pam Williams, NCDOT Bridge Unit
Lauren Hillman, Croatan District Ranger
Caring for the Land and Serving People Prirnea a, Recyc+ed Pew

Authorization ID: GR0101229
Contact ID. CRO1012
Expiration Date: None
Use Code: 741
Fs-2~oo-sr ~s~ss}
OMB No. 0.596-0082
U. S_ DEPARTMENT DF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service ~~ ~[~/j
PUBLIC ROAD EASEMENT 1[~j/) INrJ V
National Forest Roads and Trails Act,
October 13, 1964, (P. L 88-657j
36 CFR 257.50, et seq
THIS EASEMENT, dated this _19th_ day of August_ 2003, from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and
through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, hereinafter called Grantee_
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantee has applied for a grant of an easement under the Act of October 13, 1964 (78 Stat. 1089, 16
U_S_C. 532-538), for a road aver certain lands or assignabte easements owned by the United States in the County of
Carteret, State of North Carolina, and administered by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
NOW THEREFORE, Grantor does hereby grant to Grantee an easemerrt fora public road and highway along and
across a strip of land, hereinafter defined as the right of-way for Bridge #20 on SR 1124 on the north side of the East
Prong of Broad Creek over and across the lands in the County of Carteret, State of North Carolina, as described in
exhibit A attached hereto.
The word "right-of-way" when used herein means said strip of land whether or not there is an existing road or highway
located thereon. Except where it is defined more specifically, the word "highway" shall mean roads or highways now
existing or hereafter constructed on the right-of--way or any segment of such roads or highways.
This grant is made subject to the following terms, provisions, and conditions:
1. Outstanding valid claims, if any, existing on the date of this grant.
2. The easement herein granted is limited to use of the described right-of--way for the purpose of construction,
operation, and maintenance of a highway in accordance with approved plans, specifications, and stipulations
described in the following conditions numbered 3 and 4 and does not include the grant of any rights for
nonhighway purposes or facilities; Provided, That the Forest Service shall not exercise its right to use or
authorize the use of any portion of the right-of--way for nonhighway purposes when such use would inter ere
with the free flow of traffic or impair the full use and safety of the highway; and Provided further, That nothing
herein shall preclude the Forest Service from locating National Forest and other Department of Agriculture
infom~ation signs on the portions of the right-of--way outside of construction limits.

3_ The design and construction of the highway project situated on this right-of--way shall conform with plans,
specifications, and written stipulations approved by the Forest Supervisor.
4. Any reconstn.iction of the highway situated on this right-of-way shall conform with plans, specifications, and
written stipulations approved by the Forest Supervisor or authorized representative prior to beginning such
reconstruction.
5_ Consistent with highway safety standards, the Grantee shall:
{a) Protect and preserve soil and vegetative cover and scenic and esthetic values on the right-of--way outside
of construction limits.
(b) Provide for the prevention and control of soil erosion within the right-of--way and adjacent lands that might
be affected by the construction operation, or maintenance of the highway, and shall vegetate and keep
" vegetated with suitable species all earth cut or lip slopes feasible for revegetation or other areas on which
ground cover is destroyed. The Grantee shall pertorm these activities where it is deemed necessary
during a joint review between the authorized Forest Officer and Grantee prior to completion of the
highway. The Grantee also shall maintain alt terracing, water bars,. leadoff ditches, or other preventive
worksthat may be necessary to accomplish this objective_ This provision also shall apply to waste
disposal areas and slopes that are reshaped following slides tha# occur during or after construction.
fi_ The Grantee. shall- Establish no borrow, sand, or gravel pi#s; stone quany; permanent storage areas; sites for
highway-operation and -maintenance facilities; camps; supply depots; or disposat areas within the right-of--way,
unless shown on approved constriction plans, without first obtaining approval of the authorized Forest Officer.
7. The Grantee shall maintain the right-of--way Bearing by means of chemicals only after the Forest Supervisor
has given specific written approval. Application for such approval must be in writing and must specify the time,
method, chemicals, and the exact portion ofi the right-of--way to be chemically treated.
8. The Grantee does by the acceptance of this document covenant and agrees fvr itself, its assigns, and its
successors in interest to the property here granted or any part thereof, that the covenant set forth below shall
attach to and run with the land:
(a) That the Grantee shalt operate the described property and its appurtenant areas and its buildings and
facilities whether or not on the land therein granted as a pubtic road, in full compliance with T"rtle VI of the
Givil Rights Act of 1964 and aq requirements imposed by or pursuant to the regulations issued there under
by the t~epartment of Agriculture arxi in effect on the date of this document to the end that no person in the
United States shalt, on the grounds of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefrts of, or be subjected to discrimination under any programs or
activities provided thereon; and
{b) That the United States shall have the right to judicial enfiorcement of these covenants not only as to the
Grantee, its successors and assigns, but also as to lessees and licensees doing business or extending
services under contractual or other arrangements on the land therein conveyed.
The Chief, Forest Service, may terminate this easement, or any segment thereof, {1) by consent of the Grantee, (2}
by condemnation, or (3) after a five (5) year period of nonuse, by a determination to cancel after notification and
opportunity for hearing as prescribed by law_

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor, by its Forest Supervisor, Forest Service, has executed this easement pursuant
to the delegation of authority to the Chief, Forest Service, 7 CFR 2.60, and the delegation of authority by the Chief,
Forest Service, dated August 22, 1984 (49 FR 34283), on the day and year first above written_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JOHN F. RAMEY
Forest Supervisor
Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
1, Raymond M. Johns I1, a Notary Public for said County and State, do hereby certify tha# John F. Ramey, Forest
Supervisor, National Forests in North Carolina, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing ii-rstn,ment.
Witnessed my hand and official seal, this the ~~ day of s r , 2003_
r -. ~4 r+Lf~
Notary Public
My commission expires October 22, 200fi
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
1, ,Register of Deeds of Carteret County, North Carolina, do hereby certify that
the foregoing cettifcate of Raymond M. Johns ll, a Notary Public of Buncombe County, North Carolina, duty
authenticated by his notarial seal thereto affixed, is adjudged by me this day to be correct, in due form, and according
to law, and said instrument is adjudged duly acknowledged.
Register of Deeds
Filed far registration of the day of , 2003 at o'clock .M, and
registered and verified in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Carteret County, North Carolina, in Deed Book
page ,this the day of , 2003.
Register of Deeds

According to the Papervvork Reduction Act of 1995, no perswrs are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The slid OMB control number
for this information cdlection is 0596-OD82
This information is needed by the Forest Service to evaluate requests m use National Forest System lands and manage arose lands >o protect natural resources, administer the use, and ensure
public health and safety. This information cs required to obtain w retain a benefit The authority for that requirement is provided by the Organic Ac[ of 1897 and the Federal Land Policy and
ManagerrreM Act of 1976, which author¢e the Secretary of AgriculW re in promulgate rules acrd regulations fw authorizing and managing National Forest System lands. These ~+_++~ aiang with
tfre Term Permit Act, National Forest Ski Area Permit Act, Granger Thye Act, Mineral Leasing Act Alaska Term Permit Act, Act of Sep~-nber 3, 1954, wtdemess Act, National Forest Roads and
Trails Act, Act of November 1B, 1973, Archeological Resources Promeetion Act, and Alaska iVatiortal Imterest Lands Conservation AcR autfiorize the `' creTary of AgriculNre to issue authorizations for
the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands. The Secretary of Agriculture's regulations at 3f3 CFfi Part 251, Subpart B, establish procedures for issuing those auUwrizetiorrs.
The Privacy Act of '1974 (5 U.S.C. 552aj and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) gorem the confidentiality to be provided for information received by the Forest Service.
Public reporting burden for itriz collectiarr of irerormation, if requeaslad, is estimated to average 1 hour per response for anrruat financial informamon; average 1 hour per response to prepare w update
operation andlor maintenarroe plan• average 1 hour per response f+or inspection repo-~; and an average of 1 hour for each request that may include such things as reports, logs, facility and user
infomration, sublease information. and other s6nitarmimceYaneous 'vrfiurrration requests. This includes the time far reviewing instructions. searcfring e>osting data sources, gathering and mairrtainirrg
the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of irrrorrrration.

4.~
'Public :Road >Eas+ement -` SR 1124
Replacement of Bridge 'No.:20 - B=3525
:East ~~Prong Broad Creek
North Carolina .Department of Transportation
Bridge Replacement'.
'project Area
i

xID,.
r. ~„~_
C~'a~Ft~ K2~29. -
~~-
aGt
~<~
Q~°~~
~~
Legend ~
National- Forest
Such Bridge Replacement shall be in accordance
with the construction plan submitted and approved
NC ~ by the Forest Service on July 2, 1999 and biological
evaluation dated July 3, 2003_ Right-of--way width shad
be fifty foot from the centerline as noted in the plan.

Construction Stipulations
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Replacement of Bridge #2d on SR 1'[24 over East Prong of Broad Creek
Carteret County, North Carolina
This Stipulation, made this _18th_ day of August 2003, by and between the North Carolina Department of
Transpartatian, hereinafter referred to as the State, and the Forest Service,. United States Department of
Agriculture, acting herein by and through the Forest Supervisor, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Supervisor.
WHEREAS, the State is engaged in the replacement of Bridge #20 on SR 1124 over East Prong of Broad
Greek, located on the Croatan Ranger Distract, which #raverses {ands of the United States in the State of North
Carotins, County of Carteret administered by the Forest Service, 'and
WHEREAS, the State and the Forest Supervisor desire #o cooperate in the development and construction of a
highway that will protect adequately and afford adequate utilization of the lands of the United States traversed by
the highway for the purposes for which the lands are being administered.
NOW, THEREFORE, supplementary to the terms arm conditions of the highway easement deed between the
United States, and the State, the parties hereto agree to carry out the following provisions during the construction
stage: {Construction stage is to begin when construction activities commence on lands administered by the Forest
Service and end when the Forest Supervisor and the State mutually agree that any work done thereafter will be
considered as maintenance, EXCEPT, that the Forest Supervisor reserves the right to reinstate the provisions of
this stipulation i€ the State subsequently submits plans for reconstruction or alteration of the highway).
The State shall:
1. Before any clearing of the right-vf--way or construction of the bridge begins:
a. All plans and specifications must comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Biological Evaluation
dated July 3, 2003,- which are attached to and made part of these stipulations. Construction plans that address
these measures shat) be prepared and submitted for approval by the Forest Supervisor priorto beginning
construction_
b. .Prepare, in cooperation with the Forest Supervisor, a fire protection plan that sets forth in detail the fire
prevention, pre-suppression, and suppression measures that witl be-taken by the Grantee, its employees,
contractors, and subcontractors, and their employees in all operations during the construction stage_ The fire
plan shoal be made available to all bidders prior to letting contract and the Grantee shall cause its contractors to
comply with all provisions of the fire plan and of alt burning pemaits issued far disposal of flammable materiats.
c. Prepare, in cooperation with the Forest Supervisor, a clearing plan that sets forth an detail the procedures
and standards that will apply to all Gearing and disposal of merchantable timber and young growth in the right-
of--way and debris disposals, including debris removal from all streams_ Such plan shalt indude provision for
payment by the Grantee or its contractors for the merchantable timber on lands of the United States to be cut,
used, or destroyed in the construction of the highway or in clearing of said right-of-way_ Payment far
merchantable timber shall be at appraised value as determined by the Forest Supervisor: Provided, That the
Forest Supervisor may dispose of the merchantable, timber to other than the Grantee or its contractors at no
stumpage cost to the Grantee or its contractors_

d_ Prepare, in coopers#ion with the Forest Supervisor, a landscape and erosion control plan with the objective
of protecting, restoring, or enhancing the roadside landscape, protecting soil, and protecting or reestablishing
vegetative cover. Such plan shall, when appropriate, provide for vegetating cuts, fills, and other areas damaged
as a result of highway construction; maintenance or operation; and for. terraces, drainage, waste disposal areas,
soil replacement, and other related requirements necessary to achieve the objective. Contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control shat! be made available to-the Forest Service prior to contract advertisement.
2_ Dispose of waste material resulting from slides during and after construction and surplus material. at locations
approved by the Forest Supervisor. A plan showing the proposed method of disposal shall be submitted by the
Grantee at the time approval is requested.
3. Permanently monument the right-of--way in accordance with State requirements for such right-of--way before
completing construction, but in any event, the minimum requirements shall be to place permanent monuments at
the intersection of right-of--way with all properly lines, section lines, and at intervals of not more than 1,000 feet
along the right-of--way limits.
4_ Land monuments and property comers or witness markers shall not be damaged, destroyed, or obliterated
without the prior permission of the Forest Supervisor and shalt be Felocated or reestablished in accordance with
standards satisfactory to the Forest Supervisor_
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Stipulation to be executed on the day and year
first above written.
North Carolina Department
of Transportation:
~~ ~ ~
JOHN B_ WILLtAMSON, JR.
Manager of Right-of-Way
North Carolina Department of Transportation
United States Forest Service:
JOH F. RAMEY
Forest Supervisor
National Forests in North Carolina
Qate: ~~ 3p '~ ~ .~
Date: ~S

FIRE PROTECTIQN PLAN
During the period of construction, the Grantee shall both independently and in cooperation with the Forest
Service, do everything that is reasonable and practical to prevent and suppress forest fires on the easemen# area
and in its immediate vicinity. All contracts and subcontracts for the construction of the road shall inGude
provisions requiring contractors, subcontractors, and their respective employees to do likewise. The Grantee, the
contractors, and subcontractors will conform to, but not be limped to, the following Fire Plan:
1. Take immediate independent or cooperative action to control and extinguish any fire, regardless of cause,
within the easement area and its vicinity.
2_ Be responsible for all damage and fire suppression costs incurred by any Government agency resulting from
this use of National Forest lands. The contractor will require his personnel and .equipment to be available for
fire suppression, under the direction of the Forest Service, for all fires resulting from his operation.
3. The contractor will be required to contact the N.G. Forest Service and the U.S. Forest- Service to obtain a
permit for burning on the granted area. The N.G. State Forest Service will coordinate their burning permit with the
U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service will be corrtaded by the contractor if burning on private land is near
Forest Service land.
4. At all times, when burning, the contractor shall have on the project a sufficient number of personnel and
equipment to keep fire(s) under control.
5. Conduct 6uming operations on National Forest land in a manner prescribed by, and satisfactory to, the
National Forest Officer in charge.
fi. Provide adequate spark arrestors acceptable to the Forest Officer on all steam and internal combustion
engines, including tractors, trucks power rollers, power shovels, and chain saws_ The use of welding equipment,
cutting torches, and similar flammable equipment must be done in an area deared of all vegetation, leaves and
debris. Power saws shall not be refueled while hot and shalt be refueled in a roadway or other cleared area.
7. When the Forest Service advises the State that local fire weather conditions are becoming critical, the Grantee
shall keep with gasoline chain saws at all times, a shovel, and take precautionary measures requested by the
Forest Service.

CLEARING PLAN
The Grantee, or his contractors and subcontractors will conform to the following Clearing Pian:
1. The Grantee, or his contractors, will pay for all merchantable timber on National Forest land to be cut, used, or
destroyed in the construction of the highway or in clearing of said right-of-way. Lump sum payment for
mert.,han#abte timber will be appraised value as determined by the District Ranger using the R-8 timber appraisal
schedule; provided, that the District Ranger may dispose of the merchantable timt~er to other than the Grantee or
its contractors at no stumpage cost to the Grantee or its contractors.
2. Unmerchantable materials, inducting tops and branches, shall be disposed of by being used as brush bamers
as directed by the Forest Service. Alternative methods of disposal, including-any of the following methods ar
combinations of methods {lop and scatter, chip, remove, pile only}, must be approved in advance by the Forest
Service.
3. The maximum Bearing and grubbing limits are to be set at 5 feet outside actual construction lines except that
cutting of hazard trees outside these limits may be done with approval. Construction machinery is to be
contained within the clearing limits. However, no Gearing shall be done outside the south right-of way limits.
4. The Grantee does hereby agree that prior to clearing operations within the easement limits, that in consultation
with the Forest Supervisor, the mitigation measures contained in the Biological Evaluation (B_E.) will be
incorporated into-the construction plan. If during the Bearing-phase of construction endangered, threatened, and
sensitive species are encountered, the Forest Supervisor will be notified before clearing proceeds and a specific
B.E. will be pertorrned_ If the B.E. concludes that adverse effects to endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species is likely to occur, then it will be necessary to consult with the Forest Supervisor regarding the findings and
diverse mitigation measures to ensure protection of the species.

CULTURAL RESQURCE PLAN
1. Assure that the project area has been surveyed by a professional Archaeologist. (A professional
Archaeologist is one whose qualifications meets or exceeds those of the Society of Professional Archaeologists.)
2. In consultation with the Forest Supervisor, conduct an archaeological survey of sufficient quality and scope to
determine if significant cultural resources exist {those that meet or may meet National Register criteria).
Archaeological reports will be submitted to the Forest Supervisor for review. Reports will address the following:
(a} Introduction (setting, location, sites plotted by UTM with statement of significance, historical background
research description of project.)
(b) Surrey methodology employed_
(c} Survey results, including discussion of sites found; person-hours in field and report preparation; mitigation
alternatives and costs, if any; evaluation of adequacy of survey work.
(d} Bibliography, photographs, and completed State site forms.
3. If, during the survey of construction, archaeofogica! sites are discovered, each will be evaluated by a
professional archaeologist using the National Register of Historic Places, criteria of significance, using known
data.
(a) In the event that archaeological site testing is required to evaluate significance, and the construction project
cannot be moved so that no adverse effect will occur to the cultural resource, the public road agency will notify
the Forest Supervisor for consultation before construction begins or resumes.
(b) All activities requiring modifications to National Register listed or eligible sites will be coordinated by the
Forest Service and the Advisory Coundl on Historic Places and the State Historic Preservation Officer, whether
under easement or not_
(c} Testing or mitigating National Register sites will require a 1906 Antiquities Act permit, authorized by the
Regional Forester and the Smithsonian Institution_ The perrnit shall be sought prior to any investigations of this
Drier.
(d) A report describing the sites found, their sign~cance, and the judgments used to arrive at significant
determinations, wip be prepared by the public road agency's professional archaeologist and submitted to the
Forest Supervisor for review.
(e) A "site" is defrned as more than two artifacts in close proximity and older than 50 years.

LANDSCAPE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
The Grantee or Contractor shall take necessary measures to prevent and control soil erosion within the right-of-
way and on adjacent lands that might be affected by construction, operation, or maintenance of the highway; and
shall revegetate, and keep revegetated, all areas of sail made bare by these activities, and shall constrain eroded
material within the construction limits. to meet this objective the Grantee or Contractor will accomplish the
following provisions during construction:
1. Slope cut banks in earth yr mixed earth and rock to a 1:1 or flatter slope, so that the banks will remain stable
and support vegetation. Round top of bank.
2. Leave cut banks in a rough condition to provide good seed bed. Use serrated banks where needed to provide
adequate seed bed.
3. Construction intercepting ditches above cut banks 30 feet or more in height. Ditches will have a 2 percent
gradient to carry runoff into an adjacent stable channel.
4. Maintain uniform cut and fill slopes_ Do not permit steep pitches, particularly at the toe of the slope.
5. Leave raised berm along fill sections until fill is stabiiized_ Provide stable drainage channels through berm and
down fills at adequate intervals to prevent water concentration and gullying.
6. Protect fills with a suitable riprap where rills or gullies develop.
7. Slope earth fills to 1-1/2:1 or flatter to reduce sloughing.
8. Do not remove and replace culverts outside the normal seeding season, April 1 to September 30, or when
precipitation is expected.
9. Install culverts en natural slope or so that they will drain on stable material. Use water spreading devices
where needed to prevent gullying below culvert.
10. Construct toe walls or retaining walls at the toe of fills on steep slopes where sediment from the fill would
reach the high water level or a live stream.
11 _ Establish and maintain a vegetative cover on all earth cut and fll banks on all mixed earth and rock banks
which have enough soil due to construction. General guidelines for stabilization include:
(a) Seeding as construction progresses. A temporary cover crop will be established i# there is a conflict in
planting season. A permanent cover crop will be established at the first approved time of planting.
(b) Completing all seeding, fertilizing, and mulching within 30 days of construction during the seeding season,
unless drought conditions prevail
(c) Using a seed mixture adapted to soil, climate, and season. Mulching with straw tied down with asphalt
emulsion.
12. Seed bare soils within 1 DO feet of riparian area the same day as completion of soil disturbance.
13. Use stream spanning structures in place of culverts at stream crossings where possible.
14. Comply with the Mitigation Measures contained within the Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared for the project.
If any of the above stipulations conflict with the mitigation contained in the BE, those contained in the BE shall
take precedence.
6

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
(2006 supplement)
Croatan National Forest, Croatan Ranger District
Carteret County, North Carolina
DOT Bridge #20 Replacement Project
Discussion
In August, 2003 The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) was
granted an easement along SR 1124 for the replacement of Bridge #20 over the East
Prong of Broad Creek, located on the Croatan Ranger District. `This project has not been
initiated due to a recent request for additional easement rights. This Biological
Evaluation is meant to supplement the results and determination of effects from the
original Biological Evaluation, Aquatic Resource Analysis, and Botanical Survey that
were conducted between 2001 and 2003.
Pro~-osed Actions
The original right-of--way request was 30 feet on either side of the centerline. NCDOT
has now requested 50 feet on either side of the centerline plus easement to tie the slope to
the existing natural ground. No other changes were requested from the original Decision
Memo and Easement request.
Resurlts and Determination of Effect
Bart Kicklighter, Wildlife Biologist and Will Dienst, Silviculturist for the Croatan
National Forest surveyed the proposed easement area in November, 2006. No Proposed,
Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) terrestrial wildlife or plants were observed
within the previous and recently requested easement area. Several pulp and sawtimber
sized trees lie within the proposed easement. The removal of these trees will require
further consultation with the Croatan National Forest timber managers. There is no
change in the Determination of Effect from the original Biological Evaluation.
Original Determination of Effect:
Implementation of any action alternative proposed for the replacement of Bridge #20
over East Prong Broad Creek will not affect threatened, endangered, or proposed aquatic
species, nor will suitable habitat be affected. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is not required.
Implementation of any action alternative proposed for the replacement of Bridge #20
over East Prong Broad Creek will not have long-term impacts on aquatic sensitive

(Croatan crayfish) or Forest concern (elfin skimmer) species, nor will project
implementation result in a trend toward.Iisting for either of these species assuming that
the above mitigation measures are implemented successfully. Habitat for these species
could be temporarily affected, with conditions quickly returning to normal upon project
completion.
It was determined that this project may directly affect individuals of the mimic glass
lizard. 'The Buchholz' dart moth, Arogos skipper, ~7enus flytrap cutworm moth, and
Byssus skipper may be directly affected if eggs are laid within the area where ground
disturbance and vegetation removal are proposed. The Bachman's sparrow may be
directly affected if nests with eggs are crushed during project implementation. However,
due to the very small area impacted, it is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing
of any sensitive terrestrial wildlife species or a loss of viability to any PETS terrestrial
wildlife species. No indirect or cumulative effects will occur. Consultation with the
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Implementation of this project will have no effect on botanical resources. Consultation
with. the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
prepared by:
/s/ mart C 7~ic~CzgFiter
Bart C. Kicklighter
Wildlife Biologist
Croatan National Forest
December 20, X006

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Croatan National Forest, Croatan Ranger District
Carteret County, North Carolina
.DOT Bridge #20 Replacement Project
Ezisting_Conditions and Proposed Actions
This .document discloses the effects to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS}
terrestrial wiidlife,_plants, and aquatic species as a result of the replacement of Bridge #20. This
bridge. is located across -the east prong of Broad Creek- in Carteret County, North Carolina. The road,
SR 1124 (Nine Mile Road), is located at :the southern end of the Croatan National Forest: 'National
Forest land occurs directly adjacent to the road and north of -the creek, while private land can be
found directly adjacent to the ~ road and south of the creek_ There were three alternatives and three
"sub" alternatives considered in this proposal (reference project file). John O. Fussell, :III, Contract
Botanist, ..also visited the. site on August 27, September 18, and October 7, 2001. Sheryl Bryan,
Fishery Biologist, visited the site- on August 23, 2001. Megan York (formerly Megan Martoglio),
Wildlife. Biologist, visited the area several times during this time period. Additional information for
this project was received from Dennis Foster,`Assistant Ranger, on the Croatan National Forest.
Of the seven proposed alternatives (reference the original proposal or supporting environmental
documentation}, the decision has`been made to implement Alternative 3B.
Results and.Discussion
Species .considered for this ,project include those listed for the Croatan National Forest in the
National .Forests in North Carolina PETS Species -List (reference attached species lists). As part of
the .determination of .effects tv PETS species,. occurrence records of rare species and communities for
the project area were reviewed. 'Information collected from Mr_ Alvin Braswell, Curator of Reptiles
at the NC Museum of Natural Science,-was used to make determinations of habitat suitability for this
project. Information received from Mr. Bo Sullivan, a private individual specializing °in moths and
butterflies, was also used to make. determinations of effects_
Aquatic Resources
Forty-five rare aquatic species have been listed by the NCWRC, USFWS or NCNHP as occurring or
potentially occurring on the Croatan National Forest (reference attached list). Of -the 45 aquatic
species inciuded on the original list for analysis, 43 were dropped as a result of a likelihood of
occurrence evaluation based on preferred habitat elements and field survey results. Species that do
not occur (based on survey results) or are not likely to occur (based on a lack of suitable habitat) are
removed from the list of species considered. Species that may occur due to the presence of suitable
habitat, but that have not been documented as occurring in the vicinity of the analysis area are not
considered in this analysis. This analysis will address habitat suitability for two rare aquatic species
that may occur within the aquatic analysis area, although the species were not found during recent

surveys. These species are the Croatan crayfish (Procambarus plumimanis) and the Elfin skimmer
(Nannolhemis fella).
No rare aquatic insects were found during these surveys. 4f the aquatic insects sampled from East
Prong Broad Creek in August .200 ~, approximately l 7% are members of the orders Ephemeroptera
(mayflies}, Plecoptera (stoneflies), or Trichoptera (caddisflies) (EPT organisms}. These orders are
typically indicators of good water quality and stream health. ,This collective relative abundance has
been indexed as a metric for use in determining overall .stream health (EPT index} by the North
Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). NCDENR records
from the Croatan National Forest indicate that approximately .150 species of aquatic insects and
invertebrates (other than species considered above) occur across the Forest, with. approximately 4?
(31 %) of these species representing EPT taxa_ In this light, overall stream health within Easf Prong
Broad Creek appears to be somewhat affected by .surrounding land uses. The dominance of flies and
midges (and not EPT organisms) generally indicates lower -water quality_ Within the aquatic
analysis azea, land use is primarily road right-of--way. Beyond this area, rural development
(including housing and businesses) .dominates local wand .use.
Implementation of this project will result in some disturbance to East Prong Broad' Creek within the
project ..area. .Included are disturbances ao he riverbanks .and bottom during construction of bridge
abutments .(either temporary or permanent) and at equ~prnent access points. Also, turbidity is likely
to be increased during the implementation of any alternative.
Disturbance of~the riverbanks .and ..bottom will result in the sedimentation of-local and downstream
habitats. Sedimentation of aquatic resources reduces the amount of habitat available to fish and
other aquatic organisms. This includes the loss if interstitial space within the substrate, which is
particularly important for aquatic invertebrates (including mussels and crayfish), as well as for fish
and .salamander .spawning and rearing .areas. In addition, fine sediment .particles, such as silt,
decrease oxygen transport .to and from .aquatic .populations and increase the risk of disease
introduction. Long-term loss of suitable habitat can result. in ,a decline in,fish, invertebrate, and other
aquatic organism .productivity. However, the.:method of project implementation can' affect how
much sediment is transported and how much habitat is affected. Therefore, the mitigation measures
listed below are required. to minimize these negative effects during project implementation.
Aquatic habitat within area streams. may be lost locally to increased sedimentation and turbidity
during and after bridge replacement; however, such losses are expected to be of short duration. As
bare soil is revegetated and sediments are flushed downstream, local aquatic invertebrate
communities will recolonize quickly. Long-term changes in ~ local hydrology and aquatic
microhabitat distribution will not .affect aquatic insect community composition since no habitats will
be Lost-- only "reorganized"
Sediments that are- flushed downstream may also temporarily affect habitats downstream in East
Prong Broad Creek. However, these potential effects are not likely to be measurable based on flow
volume and potential sediment transport rates within system.
Mobile species, such as juvenile and adult f sh and crayfish will likely respond to disturbance by
leaving the area during adverse conditions, and return when conditions improve. In addition, aquatic
2

insect communities generally adapt quickly to local conditions, and have demonstrated the ability to
recolonize affected areas quickly after disturbance (Rosenberg and Resh 1983}. Aquatic
communities within East.Prong Broad Creek have, over time, adapted to the conditions associated
with coastal river systems. And.in. general, species persisting in these systems are the ones that are
tolerant of these temporary conditions.
Mites Acton Measures-Aquatic Resources
Mitigation measures -.are.. .:management actions .that are required to maintain compliance with
environmental laws :andregulations -and are required in either action alternative to- achieve the
determination. of effect below_
1. Erosion control such as {but not limited to) silt fence should be placed along. the length of -
river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the water's edge, prior to
project implementation to minimize soil entering East Prong Broad Creek. Erosion control
eBiciency should be_maintained until vegetative cover is established upon project
.completion.
2. All coffer dams should be constructed using pre-formed concrete and other non-toxic
materials unless the work area can be completely dry during- installation and curing. If
uncured concrete is used to form abutments or center supports behind a coffer dam, one or
more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, NCWRC, USFWS, or USFS should be present to
.insure that -no uncured concrete comes in contact with East Prong Broad Creek_ Uncured
concrete is toxic to most aquatic life.
Terrestrial l~ldli_fe Resources
Fifteen :terrestrial wildlife .PETS ...species are listed for the Croatan National Forest_ All were
considered in this document. According to the I~CNI-Il' records, none are known to occur within the
.project vicinity_ :.S.uitable habitat -occurs within the. project area for seven sensitive species_ .These
are -the mimic glass lizard, Bachman's sparrow, Byssus skipper, Buchholz' dart moth, Carolina
gopher frog, Arogos skipper, and Venus flytrap cutworm moth_
Carteret County is -the northernmost part of the range of the mimic ,glass lizard. This species is
known to -:.occur west. of the ;project, area within a Natural Heritage Area along- Millis Road_ Mr.
Fussell also found. Pixidcrnthercr, host plant for the Buchholz' dart moth, and -Venus flytrap slightly
west. of the project area_ Therefore, the Buchholz' dart moth and Venus flytrap cutworm moth are
likely to occur because their host plants occur within the vicinity and because there is high quality
.habitat within the project area. The Byssus skipper may occur within the project area because high
quality :grasses occur here, and the Arogos skipper could use the ecotonal area_ No fish-free ponds
used for breeding are known to occur.within the vicinity of the project .area, and none were found
during the survey_ Therefore it was determined that the Carolina gopher frog does not occur within
the project area.
It was determined that this project may directly affect individuals of the mimic glass lizard. The
Buchholz' dart moth, Arogos skipper, Venus flytrap cutworm moth, and Byssus skipper may be
3

directly affected if eggs are laid within .the area where ground disturbance and vegetation removal
are proposed. The Bachman's sparrow may be directly affected if nests with eggs are crushed
during project implementation. However, due to the very small area impacted, it is not likely to
cause a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive terrestrial wildlife species or a loss of viability to
any PETS terrestrial wildlife species. No indirect or cumulative effects will occur.
Botanical Resources
Mr. Fussell observed several sensitive plant species within the proposed project area. These include
Venus flytrap, savanna cowbane, Carolina asphodel, and Carolina goldenrod. In addition, savanna
yellow-eyed-grass has been previously documented within this same -area {Jeannie Kraus, N.C.
Maritime Museum, pers. com_, August 2001), and it is likely that it still occurs here, although it was
not observed during recent survey.
Implementation of this project will .avoid all sites having Sensitive plant species. However, one site
lies within 50' of the proposed detour route: Thus, any poorly supervised work that leads to
disturbance only a short distance beyond the proposed detour route could result in the destruction of
individuals of Venus flytrap, .savanna cowbane, and Carolina goldenrod, as well as southern white
beaksedge if it,.also occurs: here.
Determination of Effect
Implementation of any action .alternative proposed for the replacement of Bridge #20 over East
Prong Broad Creek will not affect threatened, endangered, or proposed aquatic. species, nor will
suitable habitat be affected. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Implementation of any .action alternative proposed for the replacement of Bridge #20 over East
.Prong Broad Creek will not have long-terns impacts on aquatic sensitive (Croatan crayfish) or.Forest
concern (elfin skimmer) pecies, nor will project implementation result in a trend toward listing far
either of these species. assuming-that the above mitigation measures :are implemented successfully
Habitat for these species could`' be temporarily affected, with conditions quickly returning `to normal
upon project completion.
It was determined that this project may directly affect individuals of the mimic glass lizard. The
..Buchholz' dart. moth, Arogos skipper, Venus flytrap cutworm moth, and Byssus skipper may be
directly affected if eggs are aaid within the area where ground disturbance and vegetation removal
are proposed. The Bachman's sparrow may be directly affected if nests with eggs are ~ crushed
during project implementation. However, due to the very small area impacted, it is not likely to
cause a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive terrestrial wildlife species or a loss of viability to
any PETS terrestrial wildlife species. No indirect or cumulative effects will occur. Consultation
with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Implementation of this .project will have no effect on botanical resources. Consultation with the
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
4

Prepared by:
/s/ ShP.ryL 74 _ '3 ryay~
SHERYL A. BRYAN
Fisheries Biologist
National Forests in North Carolina
3uly 3, 2003

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species on
the Croatan National Forest
Species Habitat US Fish and State Forest Suitable
Association Wildlife Status Service Habitat
Service Status Status Occurs in tht
-Pro' ect Area
M~in~s~ic
eastern cougar extensive forests, Endangered Endangered Endangered No
Felix concolor cou ar remote areas
RirA c
Bachman's sparrow
Aimophila aestivalis pine savannas; old
fields Federal
Species of
Concern Special
Concern Sensitive No
bald eagle large bodies of Threatened Endangered Threatened No
Heliueetus water with mature
leucocephalus trees nearby for
erchin
red-cockaded pine savannas; Endangered Endangered Endangered No
woodpecker nesting habitat is
Picoides borealis pines 80+ years of
age; foraging
habitat is 50°/a+
pines at least 30
ears in a e
7?s~filoslA mr~iail~i.sre
American alligator
Alligator
mississi iensis fresh to brackish
lakes, ponds,
rivers, and marshes Threatened Threatened Threatened Yes
mimic glass Lizard pine flatwoods, Federal Special Sensitive No
4phisaurus mimicus savannas, pine/oak Species of Concern
sandhill s Concern
Carolina gopher frog temporary fish-free Federal Special Sensitive No
Rana CapTfO CCIpItO pools for breeding; Species of Concern
forages in dry, Concern
sand woods

171Vf.lau/a~~a~ava~
Buchholz' dart moth
flatwoods with
Federal Significantly
Sensitive ---
No
Agrotis buchholzi pixie moss Species of rare
(Pyxidanthera Concern
Carter's noctnid moth savannas:-and Federal Significantly Sensitive No
,Spartiniphaga carterae sandhills with Species of rare
pinebarrens Concern
sandreed
Arogos skipper savannas, open Federal Significantly Sensitive No
Atrytone arogos pinewoods, -and Species of -rare
arogos other relatively _ Concern
undisturbed
grasslands; host
lant Calamovilfa
Duke's skipper ecotones of - Significantly Sensitive No
Euphyes dukesi brackish or fresh rare
marshes with
swamps; host
lants are sed es
Venus flytrap cutworm savannas with Federal Significantly Sensitive No
moth Venus flytraps Species of rare
Hemipachnobia Concern
sub o ria
an owlet moth coastal marshes - Significantly Sensitive No
Meropleon rare
diversicolor sullivuni
rare skipper fresh to brackish Federal Significantly Sensitive No
Problema bulenta marshes with tall Species of rare
asses Concern
Byssus skipper savannas, marshes, - Significantly Sensitive No
Problema byssus and other high rare
quality grassy
areas; host plants
are grasses

AQUATIC RESOURCE ANALYSIS (AQUA)
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST
SR 1124 Bridge # 20 .Replacement
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Carteret County, North Carolina
Analysis Prepared By:
SHERYL A. BRYAN
Fisheries Biologist
October 31, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Legal Requirements for AQUAs
Project Proposal Description
Issues Considered in This AQUA
Affected Environment
Aquatic Project and Analysis Areas
Existing Condition _
Data Sources and Surveys Conducted
Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic Populations
Species Considered ira AQUA
Rare Aquatic Species
.Likelihood of Occurrence
Aquatic Management Indicator Species
Rationale for Selection
Effects Analysis by Alternative
Alternative 4 (No Action)
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Mitigation Measures
Determination of Effect
Persons Contacted
References
Appendix Tables
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
7
9
9
9
9
10
10
to
to
11
12
12
12
17
2

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AQUAS
This section should be considered a summary of environmental laws and regulations most
applicable to this analysis. References for these and other environmental laws and regulations can
be found at the end of this document.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that effects of a project proposal on Federally-listed
(threatened or endangered) species and species proposed for Federal listing be analyzed, and that a
determination of potential effects be made for each of these species. Consultation with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required to assess these potential effects to a listed or
proposed species, which results in concurrence by the USFWS or the issuance of a jeopardy
opinion.
The National Forest Management Act (NFIVIA) requires that. potential effects of a proposed project
on identified {and appropriate) management indicator species (MIS) be analyzed and disclosed.
Furthermore, the NFMA requires potential effects on MIS viability at local and regional scales be
analyzed and disclosed.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that potential effects of a proposed project
on natural resources be analyzed for a reasonable range of alternatives, and that such effects be
disclosed and made available to the public_ .
Forest Service Manual 26?O (FSM 2670} is directly related to the ESA, and also allows the Forest
Service to iderrtify species as sensitive based on regional data and species information. FSM 2670
applies to Federally-listed and proposed species and Forest Service sensitive species, and requires
that the Forest Service:
"1. Manage habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and
wildlife species in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species;
2_ Conduct activities and programs to assist in the identification and recovery of
Threatened and endangered plant and animal species; and
3 _ Avoid actions which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered."
The Land and Resource Management Plan {LRMP) for the Uwharrie National Forest (hereafter, the
Forest) identifies species that are considered to be generally rare based on Local data and
information as Forest concern and requires that effects on these species be considered in project
anaiyses_
In addition, the LRMP includes practice standards and desired future conditions for the Forests that
are related to several environmental laws or regulations. Particular attention is given to riparian
areas and associated aquatic resources. Incorporation of LRMP standards during project planning
and successful adherence to them during implementation virtually ensures compliance with
environmental Laws and regulations involving aquatic resources. The LRMP allows for mitigation
measures to be implemented that minimize or eliminate potential effects.

PROJECT PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
A more complete description of the project proposal can be found in the environmental assessment
(EA) or other environmental documentation for this project. In summary, three action alternatives
are being considered by the NCDOT for this project. For this analysis, the alternatives are
identif ed as:
1. (a) Replace.bridge #20 with two 8' x 6' concrete box culverts at approximately the same
location and at approximately the same elevation. Maintain traffic along a temporary
replacement structure (72" corrugated metal pipe) to the East (upstream) during
construction.
(b) Replace bridge°#20 wi#h a 70' bridge at approximately the same location and at
approximately the same elevation_ Maintain traffic along a temporary replacement
structure {72" corrugated metal pipe) to the East (upstream) during construction.
2_ (a) Replace bridge #20 with two 8' x 6' concrete box culverts at approximately the same
location and at approximately the same elevation. Maintain trai~ic along a temporary
replacement: structure (72" corrugated metal pipe) to the West (downstream) during
construction.
{b) Replace bridge #20 with a 70' bridge at approximately the same location and at
approximately. the same elevation. Maintain traffic along .a temporary replacement
structure (72" corrugated metal pipe) to the West (downstream) 'during construction_
3 _ (a) .Replace bridge #20 with. asingle-barrel culvert at approximately the same location
and . at approximately the same elevation. Maintain traffic using an off-site detour during
ConstrUCtlon.
(b) Replace bridge #20 with a 70' bridge at approximately the same Location and at
approximately the same elevation. Maintain trams c using an off-site detour during
construction.
4. No action.
ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THIS AQUA
Table 1 lists issues related to aquatic resources identified by the Forest Service interdisciplinary
team {IDT), other resource agencies, and the public far the SR 1124 Bridge #20 Replacement
Project.

Ta61e 1. Issues related to aquatic resources identified during the NEPA process for
the SR 1124 Bridge #20 Replacement Project.
Identified
Issue Bv~
Effects on water quality within Broad Creek agency, public
Sedimentation .of Broad Creek agency, public
Effects on local aquatic habitat and populations agency, public
Effects on freshwater mussels agency,
Effects on other rare aquatic species agency
'Members otthe general public :and environmental organizations who provided comments dnrlQag the NEPA
process are not ide~ii3ed by name in this AQUA Tbey arc referred tO-as the "pnbiic"_ other State and
Federal resonrcc agencies providing comments during the NEPA process sre identified as "agency".
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed.. project lies.within.the Broad Creek (hereafter, the'Creek) dranage'basin.
Specifically, the project proposes to cross the East Prong Broad Creek- at or in-the'vicinity of the
existing Bridge #20. There are no tributaries involved.
For this analysis„the_aquatc, project area is defined from 100 meters downstream of the existing
bridge upstream .to 100 meters above the existing bridge, for a total of approximately 200 meters of
the East Prong Broad Creek.
The_aquatic analysis area is defined as the above area and extends downstream approximately 300
meters {to consider potential sediment transport), for a total of approximately 500 -meters of the East
Prong Broad Creek.
The aquatic project area is defined as the area immediately adjacent to ground-disturbing activities,
where aquatic habitat and populations may be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected. The
aquatic analysis area, or area of this effects analysis, includes the aquatic project area and
downstream reaches potentially affected (indirectly and cumulatively) by the project proposal_
Downstream boundaries of the aquatic analysis area are based on local conditions and
recommendations made by the Forest Hydrologist. In the absence of aproject-specific
recommendation-by the Forest Hydrologist, a logical downstream point will be identified based on
field observations (by a Forest Service Fisheries Biologist) of local stream and landscape
conditions.
EXISTING CoNDTITOly
Data Sources and Surveys Conducted
Existing data for aquatic resources within an aquatic analysis area is used to the extent it is relevant
to the project proposal. This data exists in two forms: general inventory and monitoring of Forest
aquatic resources, and data provided by cooperating resource agencies from aquatic resources on or
flawing through the Forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are

used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 is used sparingly (mostly as a
historical reference). Project-specific surveys are conducted to obtain reliable data where none
exis#s.
Table 2 lists survey methods used for aquatic resource parameters and references to descriptions of
the methods. All data used in this AQUA (existing or project-specific) was collected using an
appropriate survey method. Full citations of listed references can be found at the end of this
document.
Table 2. Data collection methods for aquatic resource parameters used in AQUAS.
Parameter
Fish populations (streams)
Fish populations (rivers)
Fish populations (ponds,
reservoirs, rivers
Aquatic insects and crayfish
Freshwater mussels
Aquatic salamanders
Habitat
Substrate composition
Method
backpack electrofishing
visual (snorkel}
IBI
boat electrofishing
visual (snorkel, SCUBA)
netsftraps
net samplers (Surber,
kick, drift)
visual (snorkel, SCUBA)
backpack electrofishing
visual (snorkel, SCUBA)
BVET
pebble count
Reference(s)
Murphy and"Willis 1996
Schreck and Moyle 1990
SD-AF S 1992
Dolloff et al. 1993
Hanlon and Reeves 1988
Karret al_ `1986
Lyons 1992
Murphy and Willis 1996
Schreck and Moyle 1990
Murphy and Willis 1996
Schreck,and'1Vioyle 1.990
Murphy ~ and Willis 1996
Schredk and Moyle 1990
Brigham et a1_ -1982
Hauer and Resh 1996
Hawkins et al_ 1998
Hobbs 1972
Merritt et al. T996
Rosenburg •and Resh 1993
USEPA 1989
A.thearn 1.969
Cummings et al. 1.993
Williams and Hocutt 1981
Williams and Hocutt 1981
Dolloff et al_ 1993
Harkin and Reeves 1988
Harrel son et a1. 1994
Bevenger and King 1995
Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic habitat within the aquatic analysis area was surveyed on August 23, ZOU1 by Sheryl Bryan„
Forest Service Fisheries Biologist.

Within the aquatic analysis area, the East Prang Broad Creek is a narrow, shallow, sandy-bottomed
stream with little to no flow. Substrate consists primarily of uniformly-sized sand nuxed with small
gravel and organic debris. Flow obstructions such as the existing bridge supports accumulate larger
substrate and woody debris, which provides some instream cover_ Riparian vegetation also
provides. habitat diversity in terms of overhead cover, large wood accumulations, and- thermal refuge
(i. e. shade). East Prong Broad Creek flows through wetlands, which likely adds to aquatic
diversity.
Aquatic Populations
Qualitative mussel and aquatic-insect_surveys were conducted in East Prong Broad Creek on August
23, 2001by Sheryl Bryan_ 'These surveys were conducted to familiarize the biologist with the
stream and local aquatic fauna, and to look for the sensitive- species` identified in Table 4_
Historical fish species data.: from this site. is also available for use in this analysis_ East Fork Broad
Creek at the SR 11.24 bridge:: is a. small hlackwater stream_ It is too small to support a diverse fish
community. Therefore, the.historical'data is presumed. to represent the local fish community. No
additional fish surveys were conducted for this project..
Fish
Table 3 lists fish species occurring in East Fork Broad Creek_ This stream is a small, but apparently
stable system with little (if any) tidal influence_ Because of aquatic habitat (imitations (i.e. lack of
heterogeneity), the. local. fish community is not diverse. However, it is suspected that the fish
community and species:. populations, while naturally dynamic, are relatively stable based- on habitat
suitability and stability.
Table 3. Fish species occurring in East Fork Broad Creek at the SR 1124 bridge (Davis
and McCoy 1.965).

Common Name
Scientific 1Yame USFWS
Status NC
Status USES
Status
redfin ickerel Esox_umericarrus None None -MIS
mud sunfish Acantharchus .mobs None None None
irate erch A hredcx~erus s None None None
ellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis None None None
American eel An ills rostrata None None None
Freshwater mussels. cravfish_ and aquatic snails
Alderman et al. (1994) found no freshwater mussels in the vicinity of East Prong Broad Creek. This
was confirmed by the August 2001 surveys conducted by Sheryl Bryan_ In addition, one
unidentified aquatic snail species was found in East Prong. Broad Creek and surrounding wetlands
(in the vicinity of the SR 1124 bridge) during August 2001 survey by Sheryl Bryan.

One species of crayfish, Procamharus acutus, was found during both of these collections
(Alderman et al. 1994 and August 2001 surveys by Sheryl Bryan}. 'The Croatan crayfish
(Procamburus plumimamrs} was not found in the East Prong Broad Creek or surrounding wetlands
during these two sampling efforts. This species is listed as Sensitive by-the Regional Forester,
although it receives no other State or Federal protection.
Aquatic insects and other invertebrates
Recent qualitative aquatic invertebrate community surveys are summarized in Figure 1. No rare
aquatic insects were .found during. these surveys.
Figure 1. Aquatic insect and other invertebrate community structyre within the East Prong
Broad Creek at Bridge #20, SR 1.124,.Carteret County, North Carolina.
Of the aquatic insects. sampled. from East Prong Broad Creek in August 200.1, approximately 17%
are members ofthe orders Ephemeroptera.(mayt7ies),`Plecoptera (stoneflies), or Trichoptera
(caddisflies) (EPT :organisms), as :indicated in`Figure 1 _ These orders -are typically indicators of
good water quality and stream health. This coljective relative abundance has been indexed as a
metric for use in de#ermining overall stream health (EPT index) by the NCDENR.
NCDENR records from the Croatan National Forest indicate that approximately 150 species of
aquatic insects and. invertebrates (other than species considered above) occur across the Forest, with
approximately 47 (31%} of these species representing EPT taxa. This data is summarized in
Alderman and McCrrath 1994, and more detailed information is available from the NCDENR
(www.esb.enr. state.nc-usBAU-html).
In this light, overall stream health within East Prong Broad Creek appears to be somewhat affected
by surrounding Land uses. The dominance of flies and midges (and not EPT organisms) generally
S

indicates lower water quality. -Within the aquatic analysis area, land use is primarily road right-of-
way. Beyond this area, rural development (including housing and businesses) dominates local land
use.
AQUATIC SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE AQUA
Rare Aquatic Species
National Forests in North Carolina recognizes three types of rare species during a NEPA analysis,
which aze described below_
A proposed .threatened or endangered species (T_ E. PT. and PE) is a species that has been
formally listed or is proposed for listing by the United :States. Fish and Wildlife Service. These
species are included in every AQUA conducted for projects within a watershed where the species is
known to, likely to, or may occur. These species are also included in AQUAS far watersheds where
the species occurred historically but hasn't been found during recent surveys:
A sensitive species`(S) is a species appearing-on the-Regional Forester's Sensitive Species list for
the Southern Region. These species-may dr may,not have a federal or State status, but generally
have a global rank of Gl, G2, or G3. and a:''Staterank of S1 or S2_ "These species are included in
every AQUA conducted for projects within a watershed where the pecies is known to, ikely to, or
may occur.
A Forest concern species (FC)" is a species; which National Forests in'NOrth Carolina considers to
be generally rare, and an important part ofahe biodiversity across the Forests that do not fall within
one of the above categories. These species may or may not have a Federal or State status, and
generally have a global rank of G3 or;lower and "a State-rank_of S.l or dower. These species are
included in every AQUA conducted for projects"within.~a watershed where the species is known to
or is likely to occur. The large group of Forestconcern peces, which may occur within the aquatic
analysis azea, but are not known to or are notelikely'to~. occur"within this area aze addressed
collectively as the aquatic insect community_
Forty-five,rare aquatic species have been listed by the NCWRC, U.SFWS or NCNHP as occurring
or potentially occurring on the Croatan National Forest. These species are listed in Appendix Table
1. Of the 45 aquatic pecies included on the originalIist for analysis, 43 were dropped as a result of
a likelihood of occurrence evaluation based on preferred habitat elements and Wield survey results.
Species that do not occur (based on survey results) or are not likely to occur (based on a lack of
suitable habitat) are removed from the list of species considered_ Species that may occur due to the
presence of suitable habitat, but that have not been documented as occurring in the vicinity of the
analysis area are not considered in this analysis. This analysis will address habitat suitability for
two rare aquatic species that may occur within the aquatic analysis area, although the species were
not found during recent surveys .(Table 4).
Manage=ment Indicator Species (MIS)
Redfin pickerel are known to occur within the aquatic analysis azea_ Therefore, the species was
chosen as pro}ect-level management indicator species since it is sensitive to changes in habitat

condition and are the best representative of the type of aquatic habitat within the aquatic analysis
area.
A management indicator species is a species identif ed in the Forest Plan that represents a
community, assemblage, or special habitat in the- Forests. IVIIS are intended to aid in the description
of biodiversity and to serve as a mechanism for monitoring population viability across the Forests.
Therefore,, potential .effects of the propose project on one aquatic MIS and two rare aquatic species
will be analyzed, in this report_ These species-are listed in Table 4.
Table 4_ Aquatic species considered in the AQUA for the Bridge #20 (SR 1124)~Replacement
project.
`Rationale
Syecies Tvae for Incinsion
redfin;pickerel {Esox americarrus) fish management indicator species
Croatan crayfish {Procambarus plumimanis) crayfish Forest concern species
Elf n skimmer {Nannothemis bedla) dragonfly Forest concern species
DISCUSSION
Please. refer to the Environmental Assessment for a complete list of project issues and a detailed
description of each alternative_ Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing each
alternative on aquatic resources will be discussed using a tiered approach. First, ef~'ects on aquatic
community, structure will be examined.. Second, if necessary, effects on pecif c parts ofthe
community {e,g. insects, f sh, etc.) will be evaluated. And third, species-specific effects will be
discussed -when a species will be affected differently than other` species in the community.
Mitigation measures will be stated where such actions are necessary to comply with local, State, and
Federal envu-onmental regulations. Management recommendations to protect or enhance-aquatic
resources are made where practical.
Potential Effects of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 4}
Implementation of the no action alternative will avoid disturbance of the river bottom and banks,
which avoids any potential effects on aquatic species and habitats_ Natural aquatic community
dynamics will continue. However, continued deterioration of the existing structwe could ultimately
result in bridge collapse, which would cause a major disturbance to East Prong Broad Creek.
Potential Effects Common to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Implementation of any action alternative will result in some disturbance to East Prong Broad Creek
within the aquatic project area. Included are disturbances to the riverbanks and bottom during
construction of bridge abutments (either temporary or permanent) and at equipment access points.
Also, turbidity is likely to be increased during the implementation of any alternative.
10

Disturbance of the riverbanks and bottom will result in the sedimentation of local and downstream
habitats. Sedimentation of aquatic resources reduces the amount of habitat available to fish and
other aquatic organisms_ This includes the ..loss if interstitial space within the substrate, which is
particularly important. far :aquatic ..invertebrates .(including mussels and crayfish), as well as for f sh
and salamander spawning and rearing areas. In addition, fine sediment particles, such as silt,
decrease oxygen transport to and from aquatic populations and increase the risk of disease
introduction. Long-term loss of suitable .-habitat can result in a decline in fish, invertebrate, and
other aquatic organism productivity. However, the method of project imglernentation can affect
how much sediment is transported and how much habitat is affected. 'T'herefore, the mitigation
measures listed below are required to minimize these negative effects during project
implementation.
Aquatic habitat within area .streams may be lost locally to increased sedimentation and turbidity
during and after bridge :replacement; however, such losses are expected to be of short duration. As
bare soil is .revegetated and sediments are flushed downstream, ~ local aquatic invertebrate
communities -will recolonize .quickly. .Long-term changes in local hydrolggy and aquatic
microhabitat -.:distribution will not affect ..aquatic insect community -composition since no habitats
will be lost-- only "reorganized" _
Sedimerrts that are flushed downstream may also temporarily affect interstitial habitats downstream
in East Prong Broad Creek_ However, these potential effects are not Likely to be measurable based
on flow volume and potential sedimenttransport rates within system.
Mobile species,. such as juvenile-.and adult fish and crayfish will likely respond to disturbance by
leaving the.:area during: adverse.conditons, :and return when. conditions improve. In addition,
aquatic insect:.communities;generally;adapt quickly.to local ,conditions, and'have demonstrated the
ability to recolonize affected areas quickly after disturbance (Rosenberg and Resh "I983). Aquatic
communities within East Prong Broad Creek have, over: time, adapted to the conditions associated
with coastal river systems_ And- in general, species persistingin these systems -are the ones that are
tolerant of>these temporary conditions_
However, for management indicators, such as redfin pickerel, as well as other fish species, the
timing of project implementation can be .important to avoid key spawning and rearing times (which
for most species is early to mid spring), as the egg and larval -life stages of fish are less mobile and
therefore more vulnerable to the effects of turbidity and sedimentation.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are management actions that are required to maintain compliance with
environmental laws and regulations and are required in either action alternative to achieve the
determination of effect below.
1. Erosion control such as (but not limited to) silt fence should be placed along the length of
river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the water's edge, prior to
.project implementation to minimize soil entering East Prong Broad Creek. Erosion control
efficiency should be maintained until vegetative cover is established upon project
completion.
11

2. All coffer damp should be constructed using pre-formed concrete and other non-toxic
materials unless the work area can be completely dry during installation and curing. If
uncured concrete is used to form abutments or center supports behind a coffer dam, one. or
more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, NCWRC, USFWS, or USFS should be present to
insure that no uncured concrete comes in contact with East Prong Broad Creek_ Uncured
concrete is toxic to most aquatic life_
Potential EiI'ects of Alternative 3
Additionally, implementation of Alternative 3 has the potential. to reduce or eliminate fish passage
along East Prong Broad -Creek -with the=installation of a corrugated metal pipe instead of a spanning
structure (bridge or concrete box}. The installation of an impassable barrier {likely due'to
insufficient water depth) to the instream movement of redfin pickerel could isolate populations up-
or downstream. This isolation can ultimately lead to reduced genetic diversity and viability within
the isolated populations.
Therefore, in addition to the mitigation measures .listed above, any culverts should be installed to
maintain pre-project water depths to facilitate instream movement offish populations.
DETERMINATION OF.EFFECT
Implementation of any action alternative proposed. for-the replacement of Bridge #20 over East
Prong Broad Creek will not affect_threatened, endangered, or proposed aquatic species, nor will
suitable habitat be affected. Consultation with theU_S. Fish and Wildlife Service is notrequired_
Implementation ofany action alternative proposed for the replacement of Bridge #20 over East
Prong -Broad Creek will not have long-term impacts on aquatic sensitive (Croatan crayfish) or
Forest concern (elfin skimmer) species, nor will project implementation result in atrend toward
listing for either of these species assuming that the above mitigation measures are implemented
successfully. Habitat. for these species could be temporarily affected, with conditions quickly
returning to normal upon project completion.
PERSONS CONTACTED
Megan Martoglio, USFS Wildlife Biologist
Dennis Foster, Croatan National Forest
Christian Waters, NCWRC District Fisheries Biologist
Mason Herndon, NCDOT Environmental Ofd cer
REFERENCES
Alderman, J.M., T_ Conant, T. Henson, and C. McGrath. 1994. Croata.n National Forest inventory:
mollusks, crayfish, and mammals. Report to the U.S. Forest Service, N.C_ Department of
Natural Resources, and the N.C_ Wildlife Resources Commission Nongame Division_ 55
pages.
12

Athearn, H.D. 1969_ Haw to find freshwater clams in creek-sized streams. American
Malacological Union Annual:Report (1969), pages 31=33.
Bevenger, G_S. and R.M. King_ 1995. A pebble count procedure for assessing watershed
cumulative effects. USDA-FS Research Paper RM-RP-319. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 17 pages.
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka (editors)_ 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes
of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois.
837 .pages.
Bryan, C_F_.and D:A. Rutherford (editors)_ 1993. Impacts on warmwater streams: guidelines-for
evaluation. Southern Division American Fisheries Society, Little `Rock, Arkansas, 285
pages_
Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 1948. P.L. 80-845; 62 Stat. 1155,
as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251, .1254, 1323, 1324, 1329, 1342, 1344.
Comings, K. S_, A_C_ Buchanan, and L.M_ Koch (editors)_ 1993 _ Conservation and management
of freshwater mussels. Proceedings of a UNBtCC symposium. Upper Mississippi`River
River Conservation Committee, Rock. Island, Illinois_ .189 pages.
Davis, 7.R. and E.G_ McCoy. 1.965_ survey and classification- of the New-White Oak-Newport
Rivers and tributaries, North Carolina. 12 pages plus appendices_
Dolloff, C.A., D_~. Hankin, and G_H_ Reeves. 1993. Basinwide estimation of habitat- and f sh
popula#ions in streams. GTR.SE-83. USDA FS southeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Asheville, North. Carolina_ 25 pages.
Endangered Species Act. 1973_ P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1536,
153 8-1540.
Environmental Quality Improvement Act. 1970_ P_L_ 91-224, 84 Stat_ 1.14, as amended;
42 U=S.C. 4371(note), 4371-4374.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act. 1965. P.L. 89-72, 79 Stat. 213; 16 U.S.C. 4601=12,
4601-18.
Fish and Wildlife Act_ 1956_ P.L. 84-1024, Ch. 1036, 70 Stat. 1119, 16 U_S.C. 742x, 742d,
742e, 742i, 742j.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. 1980. P.L_ 96-366, 96 Stat_ 1322, 16 U.S.C. 2901(note),
2901 2904; lb U.S.C_ 2905-291:1.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 1934_ P_L_ 73-321, Ch. 55, 48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661, 662(a), 662(h), 663(c), 63(f).
13

Georgian, T.J_ and J.B. Wallace. 1983. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild of
periphyton-grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64:1236-1248.
Grant, G. 1988_ The RAPID technique: a new method for evaluating downstream effects of
forest practices on riparian zones.. PNW-GTR-220. Portland, Oregon: USDA-FS, Pacific
Northwest Station. "36 pages.
Hankins, D_G. and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in
small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries .and
Aquatic Sciences 45.(5):834-844.
Harrelson, C.G_, C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated. guide to field technique. GTR RM-245. Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 61 pages.
Hauer, F.R_ :and V_H..Resh. 1996..:: Benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapter 16 in Methods in
stream- ecology- (F:R_ Hauer and G.A. Lamberti, editors), Academic Press, Inc., San
Diego, California.
Hawkins, C. 3. Ostermiller, and M, Vinson. 1998. Stream invertebrate and environmental
sampling associated with biological water quality assessments. Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 1 S pages plus appendices.
Hobbs, H.H. 1972. Biota of freshwater ecosystems identification manual #9: crayfishes of North
and Middle America. EPA Project # 18050-ELD_ 173 pages.
Karr, J.R_, K_D. Fausch, P_L. Angermeiex; P.R Yant, and I:J Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History
Survey .Special Publication #5. 28 pages.
Kohler, C_C. and W.A_ Hubert (editors). 1993. Inland fisheries management in North America.
American Fisheries .Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. 1965. P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897 as amended; Y 6
U. 5. C. 4601-4{note); 4601-4 through 6a, 4601--7 through 4601=1 O, 4601=1 Oa-d.
Lyons, J. 192_ Using_the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to measure environmental quality in
warmwater streams of Wisconsin. GTR NC-149. North Central Forest Experiment
Station, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
MacDonald, L.H_, A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wismar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate
effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U. S. EPA,
Region 10, Water Division, EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, Washington. 166 pages_
Menhenick, E_F. 1991. Freshwater fishes on North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 pages.
14

Menhenick, E_F. and A. Braswell _ 1997. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North
Carolina, Part IV: a reevaluation of the freshwater fishes. North Carolina Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North
America. Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962~pages.
Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act_ 1960. P.L. 86-5I7, 74 Stat. 2I5; 16 U.S.C. 528(note),
528-531.
Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis (editors). 1996. Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland_
National Environmental Policy Act. 1969_ P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852; 42 U_S.C. 4321(note),
4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4-346, 4346a-b, 4347.
National Forest Management Act_ 1976. P.L_ 94-588, 90 Stat_ 2949, as amended; 16 U `S.C.
4?2a, 476, 476{note), 500, 513-516, 518, SZlb, 528{note), 576b, 594-2(note), 1600(note),
1601(note), 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614.
Reiman, B. and 7. Clayton. 1997. Wldfre and native fish: issues of forest health and
conservation of sensitive species. Fisheries 22(11):6-15_
Resh, V_H. and D.M. Rosenburg (editors). 1984_ The ecology of aquatic insects_ Praeger
Publishers, New York_ 625 pages_
Rosenburg, D.M.. and V_H_ Resh_ 1993.. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Chapman and HaII Publishing, New York, New York.
Schreck, C_B_ and P_B. Moyle (editors)_ 1990. Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries
.Society, Bethesda, Maryland_
Scientif c Council of Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation status of North
Carolina's freshwater f shes. _Annual report prepared in Accordance with Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statues of north Carolina_ 17 pages plus appendices.
Scientific Council of Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna_ 1990. A report on the conservation
status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna: Annual report
prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 1 13 of the General Statues of North
Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices.
Sikes Act (Fish and Wildlife Conservation). 1960_ P.L. 86-797, "74 Stat. 1052, as amended;
16 U. S. C . 670g-6701, 6700.
Smock, L_A. and C.L_ Burcher. ZO00. The Odonata of the Croatan National Forest_ Report to the
U.S. Forest Service, 22 pages.
I5

Terwilliger. K_ (editor). 1991. Virginia's endangered species_ McDonald and Woodward
Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pages.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Rapid bioassessrnent
protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/
4-89-001.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland_ 251 pages.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. 1954. P.L. 83-566, 68 Stat_ 666 as amended;
16 U.S.C. 1001(note), 1001-1003, -1003 a, -1004-1006, 1006a-b, 1008, 1 O 10; 3 3 U. S . C.
701 b(note).
Wild and Scenic R.ivers_Act. 1968. P.L_ 90-542, 82 Stat. 906, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
1271(note), i 271-1287.
16

Survey/Evaluation of Habitat Suitability for
Sensitive Plant ..Species at
Site of Proposed Bridge Replacement,
Bridge No_ 2O, East Prong of Broad Creek, SR 1124,
Carteret County, N.C.
7 October 2001
prepared by John O_ Fussell III,
for the U.S_ Forest Service

INTRODUCTION/PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the replacement of the NC 1124 bridge
over the East Prong of Broad Creek, in Carteret County (see
Figure 1 for location of project) Part of the project area i s
on Federal land (Croatan National Forest) .
Three alternates have been proposed: In Alternate 1, a
temporary bridge/road will be located east of the existing
highway (up to 75' from it) Approximately a 500'-length of this
temporary .road will lie on Croatan National Forest land. In
Alternate 2, a temporary bridgelroad will be located west of the
existing highway (up to 75' from it),_ Approximately a 500'-
length of this temporary road will lie on Croa-tan National Forest
land_ In Alternate 3, there will be no temporary bridge/road on-
site during bridge construction--a detour will be along other
state roads.
In August 2001, I was asked by Dennis Faster of the L7_S_
Forest Service to survey the Forest Service lands that would be
affected by Alternates 1 and 2, and 1} look for Sensitive plant
species, and 2} evaluate the areas as habitat for Sensitive plant
species_
N!E THOD S
Plants considered "Sensitive" are ones that have a Global
rarity status of G1 or G2 or a State rarity status of S1, S2, or
S3, as rated by the Nature Conservancy and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Based on the types of habitat I observed in the area on my
initial visit in August 2001, I developed a list of Sensitive
plant species that I considered to be of potential occurrence in
the project area (see Table 1) This list is also based in part
on a prior evaluation of Sensitive plant habitat within this
general area that I conducted for the Forest Service in 2001
(Fussell 2001) .
1

I surveyed the project area on three dates: 27 August,
18 September, and 7 October. Coverage on these dates combined is
adequate to find all of the Sensitive plant species that might
occur in this area.
Common names are based primarily on Schafale and Weakley
(1990} In a few cases, scientific names are added far clarity.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
General description of habitats present
(Note: the following description applies only to the portion of
the project that is part of the Croatan National Forest, i.e.
from the bridge northward).
West side of highway
Within approximately 20' of the highway, there is a
maintained road shoulder_ The most common plant species here are
Bahia grass and other common exotic grasses, common horseweed,
and other .weedy, ubiquitous .species.
Beyond the maintained road shoulder, the land is wooded..
Within about 2~0' of the bridge and creek, the canopy consists
primarily of loblolly pine, and is open in structure. There is a
dense .shrub growth. Common species in this stratum are
fetterbush, wax-myrtle, cane, red-bay, ti-ti, red maple, water
oak, and inkberry_ Common herb species in this area are cinnamon
fern, bracken, and Virginia chainfern.
From about 200' to 500' N of the bridge and creek, there is
a noticeable uphill slope (see contour lines in Figure 1)_ In
this area, there is a very open canopy of mature loblolly and
pond pines southward which shifts to dominance by sapling pines
(loblolly, longleaf, and pond) northward_ Near .500' from the
bridge, a plantation structure with pines in rows and old bedding
is evident_ In this area (200'-500' N), shrub stratum vegetation
is generally dense. Common species are fetterbush, inkberry,
gallberry, coastal sweet pepperbush, wax-myrtle (dwarf form),
southern blueberry, and creeping blueberry. Common and
widespread herbs are bracken and cinnamon fern. At a few sites,
water seepage to the surface is evident. Sphagnum moss is common
in these areas. Many of the seepage areas are shaded by tree and
shrub vegetation, but a few are open to the sunlight_ A few such
open seepage areas occur near the proposed detour road, perhaps
within about 50' of it. Common species in these seepage areas,
in addition to Sphagnum mosses, are insectivous species like
Venus flytrap, pink sundew, slender bladderwort, blue butterwort,
and sweet pitcherplant, as well as numerous other herb species,
2

such as pineland rayless-goldenrod, orange milkwort, savanna
cowbane, white colicroot, and savanna coreopsis.
East side o~ highway
Within approximately 20' of the highway, there is a
maintained road shoulder_ The most common plant species here are
Bahia grass and other common exotic grasses, common horseweed,
and other weedy, ubiquitous species.
A powerline parallels the highway_ The center of the
powe-rune is about 40' from the highway edge. Associated with
the powerline is a band of herbaceous and shrub vegetation that
extends from the edge of the maintained highway shoulder (about
20' from highway) out to 60"' from the highway (and up to 100' in
places). Also ~w'thin this band is an ATV trail. Within 200' of
the bridge and creek, common species within the powerline
corridor are coinwort,"flat-topped goldenrod, bushy broomsedge,
pineywoods goldenrod,` dogfennel, several species of Juncus,
several species of Rhynchospora, slender spikegrass, beautyberry,
and ragweed.
From about 2,00_' to .50.0' N of the 'bridge and creek, there is a
noticeable slope {see above) and the powerline corridor here has
a rich diversity of ;pine savanna species. Species common at the
time of my visits were Caro7iria asphodel, Carolina goldenrod,
savanna cowbane, pineland rayless-goldenrod, savanna coreopsis,
white colicroot, coinwort, orange milkwort, several species of
Rhynchospora, bog blazing-star, roundleaf eupatorium, as well as
insectivous species like pink sundew and blue butterwort.
East of the powerline corridor, the land is wooded. Within
approximately 200' of the bridge, there is a swamp forest
associated with the creek. The dominant tree here is swamp black
gum_ Farther north, within the .slope area, there is an open
pinewoods dominated by longleaf and pond pines. Ground cover
within this area is mostly shrubs, but a prescribed burn two-
three years ago has increased .herbaceous cover somewhat. Many of
the herb species that occur within the powerline corridor likely
also occur here, but in much lower densities.
Observations of Sensitive plants species within proposed project
area
Qbservations of Sensitive plant species are summarized in
Table 2.
3

West side of highway
No Sensitive plant species were observed within the
projected footprint of the detour road (Alternate 2 ) or within
the area lying between the detour road and SR 1124. However, in
an opening about 50' from the projected detour road, I observed
numerous Venus flytraps, several .savanna cowbanes, and a few
Carolina goldenrods. Tlie location of these Sensitive plants is
shown in Figure 2 (Area A)
East side of highway
Three Sensitive plant species were observed within the area.
that would be impacted by the detour road (Alternate 1)_ In the
area indicated by Area B (Figure 2), there are numerous savanna
cowbane, numerous Carolina goldenrod, and nume_rou Carolina
asphodel. In addition, savanna yellow-eyed-grass has been
previously documented within .this same area (.Jeannie Kraus, N.C.
Maritime Museum, pers. crom., August 2001), and it is likely that
it still occurs here, although it was not observed during the
current survey. Additionally, although_no Venus flytraps were
observed within Area B, it is likely that at least a 'few plants
do occur, in that the ..habitat is very good. The species has
previously been .found here., although it was subjec ed to
collecting pressures (Jeannie Kraus, pers.com., August 2001).
Expected impacts to Sensitive ,plant species for each of the three
a1 ternates
A~ t erns t e I
Expected impacts to Sensitive plant species from this
alternate are summarized in Table 3-1.
The Federally listed rough-leaf loosestrife was not observed
in the immediate project area, and it has not been observed here
previously (Jeannie Kraus, per.s_ com.) However, the ecotonal
habitat present here is excellent habitat for the species, and it
has been recorded within one-quarter mile of the site (Natural
Heritage Program database) Thus, it is probably best to assume
that this alternate may destroy some individuals of the species;
it will certainly. impact habitat for the species.
This alternate will result in the loss of numerous
individuals of three other Sensitive species: savanna cowbane,
Carolina goldenrod, and Carolina asphodel, and it will probably
result in the loss of some individuals of savanna yellow-eyed-
grass As noted above, it will likely Lead to the loss of at
4

least a few Venus flytrap_
Just recently (September 2001), the presence of southern
white beaksedge (an Sl species) in the Croatan was documented
(report by John Fussell to the Natural Heritage Program). The
single known location is about five miles to the NE, and the
plants were found on seepage slopes. Thus, the. habitat to be
impacted by Alternate 1 is probably excellent for the species.
(By the time the species was discovered, it was already too late
in the season to confirm its presence/absence at the project
site.) It is probably best to assume that Alternate 1 may
destroy some individuals of this species_
In addition, habitat (at least marginal habitat) for
12 other Sensitive species is likely to be impacted by this
alternate (see Table 3-1)_
Al t erna t e 2
Many decades .ago, wheri the natural fire regime was in
effect, the west side of .the project area north of the .East
Prong, with its numerous seepage sites, was certainly excellent
habitat for savanna species. However, the area has been subject
to a very .long period o`f fire suppression, and now there are only
a few sites (openings) with a rich diversity of savanna species.
Tt appears that the footprint for the detour route for
Alternate 2 will avoid all sites having Sensitive plant species_
However, one site lies within 50' of the proposed detour route_
Thus, any poorly supervised work that leads ~to disturbance only
a short distance beyond the proposed detour route could result in
the destruction of individuals of Venus flytrap, savanna cowbane,
and Carolina goldenrod, as well as southern white beaksedge if it
also occurs here.
In addition, this proposed alternate will lead to the loss
of marginal (i.e. long fire-suppressed? habitat for 10 other
Sensitive species, including the Federally listed rough-leaf
loosestrife_
Alternate 3
This alternate will not lead to the loss of any Sensitive
plant species or any loss of habitat for such species.. This
statement assumes that disturbance will be limited strictly to
the current roadway and no mare than 20' from it on the east and
no more than 30' from it on the west side.
5

Other issues
The project area and vicinity is an important field trip
locat-ion for the N.C. Maritime Museum and other local
institutions. They regularly visit the powerline corridor (east
side of highway) as well as the seepage openings west of the
highway.
Both sides of the highway are part of the Nine Mile
Road/Broad Creek Pinewoods Natural Area, recognized by the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program_
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM[~ENDATIONS
1. Alternate 1 would be the most damaging alternate. It would
result in the loss of habitat for the Federally listed
rough-leaf loosestrife and might destroy individuals of
this species as well. Additionally, it wou"1d destroy
.numerous individuals:of three Sensitive species:
savanna cowbane, Carolina goldenrod, anal Carolina asphodel.
It would destroy some number of individua s of the
savanna yellow-eyed-grass {Sensitive) and. would probably
destroy some individuals of Venus flytrap (Sensitive)_
It wit result in the Goss of habitat for several other
Sensitive species as well.
2. Alternate 2, if very _carefully supervised, will be much
less damaging to Sensitive plant species.. If it
strictly follows the plans, it will result in loss
of marginal (i.e. fire suppressed} habitat for several
Sensitive species, but will not destroy any individuals
of these species or impact any prime habitat_ However,
if incidental work intrudes more than 50' westward from
the planned route, then individuals of at least three
Sensitive species may be destroyed-: Venus flytrap, savanna
cowbane, and Carolina goldenrod. Additionally, individuals
of the recently discovered (in the Croatan) southern white
beaksedge may be destroyed as well.
3. Alternate 3 is the most desirable alternate for protecting
Sensitive plant-species and their habitat_ However, it
is imperative that disturbance be .strictly limited to the
present roadway and no more than 20' to the east and 30'
to the west in order that Sensitive plant species and
their habitat not be impacted.
4. Considering that Alternate 3 will probably be very
unattractive to DOT because detours would require such
long distances, perhaps a modified version of Alternate 2
6

might be considered. If Alternate 2 does not extend more
than 40' west of the current highway, and, perhaps more
important, does not extend mare than 250' N of the bridge,
it almost certainly will not impact any individuals of
Sensitive species_
5. No matter what alternate is selected, there will be a
very real risk of significant damage. to Sensitive plant
.species if the project is not very strictly supervised.
For instance, it is almost inevitable that trucks
associated with this project will be parked within the
powerline corridor .north of .the bridge (where parking is
relatively easy), resulting in maximum damage to Sensitive
plant species, unless a major effort is made beforehand
to prevent this from happening.
7

LITERATURE C I TED
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina_ N.C. Dept. of Environment,
Health, and .Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Fussell, John Q. III_ 2001. An Evaluation of Effects of the
2002-2004 Croatan Prescribed Burning Project on Sensitive Plant
Species. Report to the U_S. Forest Service.
Schafale, Ni.. S . and A. S. Weakley. 1990.. Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation.
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh.
8

Table 1. Sensitive species evaluated as being potentially
affected by the replacement of .Bridge No. 20.
[Preferred habitats are from Amoroso (2999)]_
Rank Primary
Global S tats Habitat (s }
VASCUI..AR PLANTS
Agalinis aphy.~ha G3G4
Scale-leaf gerardia
Agal~nis virgata G3G4Q
Branched gerardia
Asclepias pedicellata G3.?
Savanna milkweed '
Dionaea muscipula G3
Venus flytrap
La chnoca u1 on .beyr.i chi anum G2 G3
Southern bogbutton -
Lysimachia asperu~ifolia G3
Rough-leaf loosestrife
Oxypolis ternata G3?
Savanna cowbane
Pel tandra sagi ttifo~ia G3
Spoonflower
Pinguicula pumila G4
Small butterwort
Platanthera Integra G3G4
Yellow fringeless
orchid
Pot yga~ a hool~eri G3
Hooker's milkwort
Rhynchospora a~ba G5
Northern white beaksedge
S3 wet savannas,
sandhill/pocosin
ecotones
S2 savannas
52 savannas
S3 savannas, seepage
bogs,. pocosin edges
5253 sandhills, sandhill/
pocosin ecotones
S3 pocosin/savanna
ecotones
S3 pine savannas,
sandhill seeps
S2S3 pocosins, other wet,
peaty sites
S2 savannas
Sl savannas
S2 savannas
S2 bogs, pocosin
openings, limesink
ponds
9

Table 1 (continued) _
Rank
G1aba1 State
Rhynchospora macra G3 Sl
Southern white beaksedge
Rhynchospora breviseta G3G4 S2
Short-bristled beaksedge
Rhynchospora glo:bular~s G5T3? S1
var pinetoruln
Small's beaksedge-
Rhynchospora oligantha G4 S2S3
Feather-bristled
beaksedge
Rhynchospora scirpoides G4 S2'
Lang-beak beldsedge
Scleria baldwini~ G4 S1
Baldwin's nutrush
Sc1 eri a georgi ana G4 S2
Georgia nutrush
Scleria vert3cillata G5 S1
Savanna nutrush
Soiidago leavenworthii G3G4 S1
Leavenworth's goldenrod
Soiidago pulchra G3 S3
Carolina goldenrod
Spiranthes longi.labris G3 S1
Giant spiral orchid
Tofi el di a g1 abra G 3 S 3
Carolina asphodel
Xyris brevi.folia G4G5 S2
Shortleaf yellow-
eyed-grass
Primary
Habitat (s )
seepage bogs
savannas
wet savannas
savannas, seepage
bogs
limesnk ponds, wet
savannas
wet savannas
savannas
intermediate swales
savannas, pocosin
borders, peaty seeps
savanna ecotones
savannas
savannas, sandhill
seeps, sandhill/
pocosin ecotones
s avannas
10

Table 1 (continued) .
Xyris elliottii
Elliott's yellow-
eyed grass
Xyri s fl ab el 1 i ~'orrni s
Savanna yellow-eyed-
grass
Xyris stricta
a yellow-eyed-grass
MASSES
Carnpylopils carolinae
Savanna campylopus
Sphagnum ~itzgeraldii
Fitzgerald`s peatmoss
Rank
Global State
G4 Sl
Primary
Habitat { s )
low wet areas
G4 S1 savannas
G3G4 S1 savannas
G1 S1 savannas, sandhills
G2G3 525.3 pocosins and
savannas
11

Table 2. Observations of Sensitive species within or adjacent to
project area_
Species/Location{S}
Dionaea rrtuscipuia (Venus flytrap)
West side of high way: Numerous plants in a clearing within pine
plantation about 50' W of northern terminus of project (see
Area A in Figure 2).
East side of highway: None observed, but high probability of at
least a few plants in powerline clearing, about 200-400' N of
bridge (Area B in Figure 2)_
~xypol~s ternata (Savanna cowbane}
West side of highway: Several plants in a clearing within pine
plantation about 50' W of northern terminus of project (see
Brea A in Figure 2 } .
East suede of highway: Numerous plants in powerline clearing,
about 200-400' N of bridge (Area B in Figure 2).
So~idago pulchra (Carolina goldenrod)
West side of highway: A few plants in a clearing within pine
plantation about 5Oi W of northern terminus of project (see
area A in Figure 2).
East side o~ highway: Numerous plants in powerline clearing,
about 200-400' N of bridge (Area B in Figure 2)_
Tofield~a gla~bra (Carolina asphodel)
West side of highway: None observed.
East side of highway: Numerous (hundreds) plants in powerline
clearing, about 200-400' N of bridge (Area B in Figure 2)_
Xyris fla.be~li_formis (Savanna yellow-eyed-grass)
West side o.f highway: None observed.
East side o.f highway: None observed during this survey, but
previously documented in powerline clearing, about 200-400' N of
Bridge (Area B in Figure 2) (Jeannie Kraus, pers _ com. ,
August 2 001) .
12

Table 3-1_ Expected impacts to Sensitive plant species from
Alternate 1 (detour bridge to east) .
Species
Agal i ni s aph y11 a
Scale-leaf gerardia
Aga~.inis virgata
Branched gerardia
Dionaea mvscipula
Venus flytrap
Lysimachia asperu.Iifolia
Rough-leaf loosestrife
pxypolis ternata
Savanna cowbane
Pet tandra sagi ttifoli a
Spoonflower
Platanthera Integra
Yellow fringeless
orchid
Rhynchospora macra
Southern white beaksedge
Rhynchospora }~reviseta
Short-bristled beaksedge
Rhynchospora oligantha
Feather-bristled
beaksedge
Scleria .baldwinii
Baldwin`s nutrush
Scl eri a georgi ana
Georgia nutrush
Soiidago leavenworthii
Leavenworth`s goldenrod
Expected impacts
loss of marginal habitat
loss of habitat
possible loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
passible loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of numerous individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of marginal habitat
loss of habitat
possible loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of habitat
loss of habitat
z
loss of habitat
loss of habitat
loss of marginal habitat
13

Table 3-1 (continued) _
Species
Soli dago pub chra
Carolina goldenrod
~'ofi el di a g1 abra
Carolina asphodel
Xyri s brevi fof i a
Shortleaf yellow-
eyed-grass
Xyri s f1 abe.l l 1 formi s
Savanna yellow-eyed-
grass
Campylopus caro3inae
Savanna caanpylopus
Sphagnum fi tzgeralcli.i
Fitzgerald's peatmoss
Expected impacts
loss of numerous individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of numerous individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of habitat
loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of habitat
loss of habitat
14

Table 3-2. Expected impacts to Sensitive plant species from
Al ternate 2 {detour bridge to west}.
Note: "Possible loss of individuals" for four species below
assumes some incidental disturbance up to 50' west of actual
alternate roadway.
Species
Aga l i ni s vi rga t o
Branched gerardia
Di onaea muscipul a
Venus flytrap
Lysirnachia asperuli~olla
Rough-leaf loosestrife
Oxyp8lis ternata
Savanna cowbane
platanthera Integra
Yellow fringeless
orchid
Expected impacts
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed)-habitat
possible loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed) habitat
possible loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of marginal (fire- _
suppressed) habitat
Rhynchospora rnacra
Southern white beaksedge
Rhynchospora ~brevlseta
Short-bristled beaksedge
~hynchospora oligantha
Feather-bristled
beaksedge
Scleria ba~dwinii
Baldwin's nutrush
Sc1 eri a georgl ana
Georgia nutrush
Solidago pulchra
Carolina goldenrod
T'o~I el di a g1 abra
Carolina asphodel
possible loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed) habitat
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed) habitat
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed) habitat
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed} habitat
possible loss of individuals,
loss of habitat
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed) habitat
15

Xyri s brevi fob i a
Shortleaf yellow-
eyed-grass
Xyris flabelliforrnis
Savanna yellow-eyed-
grass
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed) habitat
loss of marginal (fire-
suppressed} habitat
Ta.b1e 3-3. Expected impacts to Sensitive plant species from
Alternate 3 (detour on-site) .
No impacts to Sensitive plants species are expected from this
alternative.
(NOTE: The above conclusion assumes that disturbance associated
with bridge construction does not occur more than 20' from. the
current paved roadway)
16

K
A.
B.
C.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
WBS No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-3625
33173.1.1
8.2160901
BRSTP-i 124(3)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 20 on SR 1124 {Nine Mile Road) over East
Prong of Broad Creek in Carteret County. The bridge will be replaced with a new
bridge approximately 70 feet in length and 32 feet in width. This width will
provide fora 24-foot travelway and 4 foot offsets on each side. The new
approach roadway will also have a 24-foot travelway with 4-foot paved shoulders
and a total shoulder width of at Least 8 feet. Shoulder width will be increased at
least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. Total project length is 500 feet. Traffic
will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Purpose and Need-
Bridge No. 20 has a sufficiency rating of 7.0 out of 100. The deck is only 25.8
feet wide and the substructure is composed of timber piles. For these reasons, the
bridge needs to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1.
2.
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merges, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail

d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j . Performing cleaz zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint) scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
dO. Replacing a bridge {structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas_
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks, and related street improvements} when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment far planned construction

projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development
on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil or
groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 400,000
Right of Way $ 12,000
Total $ 412,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 4600 vpd
Year 2025 - 8500 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 3
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The new approach roadway will have a 24-foot travelway with 4-foot paved shoulders
and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet. Shoulder width will be increased at least 3
feet where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
60 mph
Design Exceptions:
None
Functional Classification:
SR 1124 is classified as a Rural Major Collector Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division 2 Construction Engineer supports the chosen alternate. The detour route to
be utilized during construction consists of NC 24, SR 1141, US 70, and SR 1124.
3

Bridge Demolition:
The superstructure of the bridge is composed of pre-stressed concrete channels that can
be lifted off with a large crane after the transverse post tensing strands have been
removed. The substructure is composed of timber piles with concrete caps, which can be
removed without any falling debris. Therefore, the bridge will be removed without
dropping any component into Waters of the United States during construction.
Alternatives Discussion: (including Studied ~ffsite Detour Evaluation)
According to the Transportation Director for Carteret County Schools, this road is in the
middle of three school districts, used by all the schools and the special needs bus. If they
could have adequate warning of road closure, they- can re-route the buses.
Emergency Management Services states they can handle a temporary affsite detour.
The detour route will utilize NC 24, SR 1141, US 70, and SR 1124.
Other alternatives studied included an onsite detour to the east and an onsite detour to the
west. Structural replacement was also considered for a bridge and a culvert. The onsite
detours were eliminated from further study due to their impacts on the Croatan National
Forest and surrounding environment. The culvert structure was eliminated due to the
construction impacts it would cause to the living organisms and their environment.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing
bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is
neither practical nor economical.
4

1

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent andlor temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1 / 10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous material sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
5

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? a X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X

6

(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
i 966)?
(31)
(32)
Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended?
Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers?
X
X
X
X
X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Item (2)
Suitable habitat exists for both the red-cockaded woodpecker and the rough-leaf
loosestrife. On May 10, 2001, NCDOT biologists conducted a survey for each of
the species. No populations were identified in the project area. In addition, the
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) had no records of either of these species being
sited in the project area. The Biological Conclusion is `No Effect.'
Item (5) and (30)
This project is located on National Forest System lands with the center of Broad
Creek being the property boundary. The specific US Forest System is the
Croatan National Forest. This area of the forest is not designated as public parks,
recreation lands, nor wildlife and waterfowl refuges. Therefore, a Section 4 (fj is
not warranted. The US Forest Service has completed a Biological Evaluation
(see letter dated July 3, 2003) and no direct or cumulative effects are expected if
Green Sheet commitments are met.
Item (7)
There are waters within the project region classified as Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters {HQW). The DENR stream
classifications show the East Prong of Broad Creek classified as SA HQW. The
ORW is Bogue Sound, which Broad Creek flows in to approximately 2 miles
downstream from the project site

G. CE A,Qproval _ '
TIP Project No.
WBS No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 20 on SR 1124 (Nine Mile Road) over East Prong of
Broad Creek in Carteret County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge
approximately 70 feet in length and 32 feet in width. This width will provide fora 24-
foot travelway and 4 foot offsets on each side. The new approach roadway will also have
a 24-foot travelway with 4-foot paved shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8
feet. Shoulder width will be increased at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. Total
project length is 500 feet. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during
construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
B-3625
33173.1.1
8.2160901
BRSTP-1124(3)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II(B)
App roved
_ r,
~/
Date Teresa Hart, PE, CPM, Assistant Manager
Project Development 8z Environmental Analysis Branch
I~. 4~~ 'a
Date
~~
William T. Gocldwin; Jr:, PE, Proj+~ct Planning Unit Head,
Project Development & Environn"lental Analysis Branch
`~ ~ ~
Date Robin Y. Han ck, Project Development Engineer,
Project Development 8i Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
-,
Date ~v.~John F. Sullivan, III, Division Administrator
,; Federal Highway Administration
8

Detour Route
~'" North Carolina Department of
~ Transportation
Division of Highways
~ ~~ Project Development F~'
Environmentat Analysis Branch
Carteret County
Replace Bridge No. 20 on SR ll24
Over the.. East Prong of Broad Creek
B-3625
SCALE: 1 in = 1 mi Figure 1

BIOLOGICAL EVAi,IIATION
Croatan N;ition;zl Fores#, Croatan Ranger District
Carteret County, North Carolina
DOT Bridge #20 Replacement Projezt
Existing Conditions and Proposed Actions
This document discloses the effects to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS)
terrestrial wildlife, plants, and aquatic species as a result of the replacement of Bridge #20. This
bridge is located across the east prong of Broad Creek in Carteret County, North Carolina. The road,
SR 1 i 24 (Nine Mile Road), is located at the southern end of the Croatan National Forest. National
Forest land occurs directly adjacent to the road and north of the creek, while private land can be
found directly adjacent to the road and south of the creek. There were three alternatives and three
"sub" alternatives considered in this proposal (reference project file). John O. Fussell, III, Contract
Botanist, also visited the site on August 27, September 18, and October ~, 2001. Sheryl Bryan,
Fishery Biologist, visited the site on August 23, 2001. Megan York {formerly Megan Martoglio),
Wildlife Biologist, visited the area several times during this time period. :additional information for
this project was received from Dennis Foster, :assistant Ranger, on the Croa~an National Forest.
Of the seven proposed alternatives (reference the original proposal or supporting environmental
documentation), the decision has been made to implement Alternative 3 B.
Results and Discussion
Species considered for this project include those listed for the Croatan National Forest in the
National Forests in North Carolina PETS Species List (reference attached species lists}. As part of
the determination of effects to PETS species, occurrence records of rare species and communities for
the project area were reviewed. Information collected from Mr. Alvin Braswell, Curator of Reptiles
at the NC Museum of Natural Science, was used to make determinations of habitat suitability for this
project. Information received from Mr. Bo Sullivan, a private individual specializing in moths and
butterflies, was also used to make determinations of effects.
Aquatic Resources
Forty-flue rare aquatic species nave been listed by the NCWRC, USFWS or NCNI-IP as occurring or
potentially occurring on the Croatan National Forest (reference attached list). Of the 45 aquatic
species included on the original list for analysis, 43 were dropped as a result of a likelihood of
occurrence evaluation based on preferred habitat elements and field survey results. Species that do
not occur (based on survey results) or are not likely to occur (based on a lack of suitable habitat} are
removed from the list of species considered. Species that may occur due to the presence of suitable
habitat, but that have not been documented as occurring in the vicinity of the analysis area are not
considered in this analysis. This analysis will address habitat suitability for two rare aquatic species
that may occur within the aquatic analysis area, although the species were not found during recent

surveys. These species are the Croatan crayfish {Procambarx~s plzrmimarris) and the Elfin skimmer ~,
{Nannorhemis bella). `
No rare aquatic insects were found during these surveys. Of the aquatic insects sampled Ii-orn East
Prong Broad Creek in August 2001, approximately 17% are members of the orders Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), or Trichoptera (caddistlies) (EPT organisms). These orders are
typically indicators of good water quality and stream health. This collective relative abundance has
been indexed as a metric for use in determining overall stream health (EPT index) by the North
Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources ~CDENR)_ NCDENR records
from the Croatan National Forest indicate that approximately I50 species of aquatic insects and
invertebrates (other than species considered above) occur across the Forest, with approximately 47
(3 I %) of these species representing EPT taxa_ In this light, overall stream health within East Prong
Broad Creek appears to be somewhat affected by surrounding Iand uses. The dominance of flies and
midges (and not EPT organisms) generally indicates lower water quality. Within the aquatic
analysis area, land use is primarily road right-of--way. Beyond this area, rural development
(including housing and businesses) dominates local land use.
Implementation of this project will result in some disturbance to East Prong Broad Creek within the
project area. Included are disturbances to the riverbanks and bottom during construction of bridge
abutments (either temporary or permanent) and at equipment access points. Also, turbidity is likely
to be increased during the implementation of any alternative.
Disturbance of the riverbanks and bottom will result in the sedimentation of local and downstream
habitats. Sedimentation of aquatic resources reduces the amount of habitat available to fish and
other aquatic or_anisms. This includes the loss if interstitial space within the substrate, which is
particularly important for aquatic invertebrates (including mussels and crayfish), as well as for fish
and salamander spawning and rearing areas. In addition, fine sediment particles, such as silt,
decrease oxygen transport to and from aquatic populations and increase the risk of disease
introduction. Long-term loss of suitable habitat can result in a decline in fish, invertebrate, and other
aquatic organism productivity. However, the method of project implementation can affect how
much sediment is transported and haw much habitat is affected. Therefore, the mitigation measures
listed below are required to minimize these negative effects during project implementation.
Aquatic habitat within area streams may be lost locally to increased sedimentation and turbidity
during and after bridge replacement; however, such Iosses are expected to be of short duration. a s
bare soil is revegetated and sediments are flushed downstream., local aquatic invertebrate
communities will recolonize quickly. Long-term changes in local hydrology and aquatic
microhabitat distribution will not affect aquatic insect community composition since no habitats will
be lost-- only "reorganized".
Sediments that are flushed downstream may also temporarily affect habitats downstream in East
Prong Broad Creek. However, these potential effects are not likely to be measurable based on flow
volume and potential sediment transport rates within system.
Mobile species, such as juvenile and adult fsh and crayfish will likely respond to disturbance by
[caving the area during adverse conditions, and return when conditions improve. In addition, aquatic

insect communities generally adapt quickly to local conditions, and have demonstrated the ability to
recolonize affected areas quickly after disturbance (Rosenberg and Resh 1983)_ Aquatic
communities within East Prong Broad Creek have, over time, adapted to the conditions associated
with coastal river systems. And in general, species persisting in these systems are the ones that are
tolerant of these temporary conditions.
_~Iitiga~ion N~easures-Aquatic Resources
Mitigation measures are management actions that are required to maintain compliance with
environmental laws and regulations and are required in either action alternative to achieve the
determination of effect below.
1 _ Erosion control such as (but not limited to) silt fence should be placed along the length of
river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the water's edge, prior to
project implementation to minimize soil entering East Prong Broad Creek- Erosion control
et~iciency should be maintained until vegetative cover is established upon project
completion.
2. All coffer dams should be constructed using pre-formed concrete and other non-toxic
materials unless the work area can be completely dry during installation and curinQ_ If
uncured concrete is used to form abutments or center supports behind a coffer dam, one or
more aquatic biologist from the NCD4T, NCWRC, USFWS, or U SFS should be present to
insure that no uncured concrete comes in contact with East Prom Broad Creek. uncured
concrete is toxic to most aquatic life. /
Terrestrial l~ldli}e Resources
Fir~een terrestrial wildlife PETS species are listed for the Croatan ;~iational Forest- .-~11 were
considered in this document. According to the NCiVI-lp records, none are known to occur within the
project vicinity. Suitable habitat occurs within the project area for seven sensitive species- These
are the mimic glass lizard, Bachman's sparrow, Byssus skipper, Buchholz' dart moth, Carolina
gopher frog, Arogos skipper, and Venus flytrap cutworm moth_
Carteret County is the northernmost part of the range of the mimic Mass lizard- This species is
known to occur west of the project area within a Natural Heritage Area along Millis Road. yLr.
Fussell also found Pixidantherci, host plant for the Buchholz' dart moth, and Venus flytrap slightly
west of the project area. Therefoi-e, the Buchholz' dart moth and Venus flytrap cutworm moth are
likely to occur because their host plants occur within the vicinity and because there is high quality
Habitat within the project area. The Byssus skipper may occur within the project area because high
quality grasses occur here, and the Arogos skipper could use the ecotonal area- No fish-free ponds
used for breeding are known to occur within the vicinity of the project area, and none were found
during the survey. Therefore it was determined that the Carolina gopher Frog does not occur within
the project area_
It was determined that this project may directly affect individuals of the mimic glass lizard- The
Buchholz' dart moth, Arogos skipper, Venus flytrap cutworm moth, and Byssus skipper may be

.~
.`
directly affected if eggs are laid within the area where ground disturbance and vegetation removal ~.,
are proposed. The Bachman's sparrow may be directly affected if nests with eggs are crushed
during project implementation. However, due to the very small area impacted, it is not likely to
cause a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive terrestrial wildlife species or a lass of viability to
any PETS terrestrial wildlife species. No indirect or cumulative etFects will occur.
Botanical Resources
lVir_ Fussell observed several sensitive plant species within the proposed project area. These include
Venus flytrap, savanna cowbane, Carolina asphodel, and Carolina goldenrod. In addition, savanna
yellow-eyed-grass has been previously documented within this same area (Jeannie Kraus, N.C.
Maritime Museum, pers. com_, August 2001), and it is likely that it still occurs here, although it was
not observed during recent survey.
Implementation of this project will avoid alI sites having Sensitive plant species. However, one site
lies within 50' of the proposed detour route. Thus, any poorly supervised work that leads to
disturbance only a short distance beyond the proposed detour route could result in the destruction of
individuals of Venus flytrap, savanna cowbane, and Carolina goldenrod, as well as southern white
beaksedge if it also occurs here. v
Deterrninatio~a of Effect
Implementation of any action alternative proposed for the replacement of Bride X20 over East
Prong Broad Creek will not affect threatened, endangered, or proposed aquatic species, nor will
suitable habitat be affected. Consultation with the U_S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Implementation of any action alternative proposed for the replacement of Bride ,,=20 over Easz
Prong Broad Creek will not have loner term impacts on aquatic sensitive {Croatan craytish) or Forest
concern (elfn skimmer) species, nor will project implementation result in a trend toward listing for
either of these species assuming that the above mitigation measures are implemented successfully.
Habitat for these species could be temporarily affected, with conditions quickly returnin¢ to normal
upon project completion.
It was determined that this project may directly atTect individuals of the mimic ¢iass lizard. The
Buchholz' dart moth, <4r-ogos skipper, Venus flytrap cutworm moth, and Byssusyskipper may be
directly affected if egos are laid within the area where ground disturbance-and vegetation removal
are proposed. The Bachman's sparrow may be directly affected if nests with eggs are crushed
during project implementation. However, due to the very small area impacted, it is not likely to
cause a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive terrestrial wildlife species or a loss of viability to
any PETS terrestrial wildlife species. No indirect or cumulative effects will occur. Consultation
with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Implementation of this project will have no eiTect on botanical resources. Consultation with the
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
4

Prepared by_
I s/ Sh.es-yL ~t _ 3 rya.vt~
S~-IERYL ~. BRYAN
Fisheries Biologist
National Forests in North Carolina
July 3, 2003

.~' „ SiAR',
1 W ~''t - i
v ~}e
/? `.1'
yf `~-~ ,_
. ,~"„ -
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preser~-ation Office
David L_ S. Brooh.:~dministrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
Szptember 14, ?000
Division of Archives and History
Jerfrey J. Crow, Director
i~iE1~IORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore. P.E._ ~~Ianaaer
Project Developn~d En~~irorunental .-~nalvsis Branch
~,~ _ ~ •
From: David Brook ~.~ ~~ ~~.L~-~-~~; i ' , ~
Deputy State IvIistoric Preserti-ation Ofl~c~
Re: Replacement of Bridge Rio. ?0 on SRI 1 `?-' over Over Branch of
Band Creek. TIP Rio. B- ~6--'~_ Cartzret Countti•.
In ~iavember 1999, April tilontgomer~~ of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation {NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerninU the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photo<~raphs and the information discussed at the me;rtin<?.
we offer our preliminary comments ret7arding this project_ `
In terms of historic architectural resources ~'`~e are a~~-are of no historic structures Located
within the area of potential effect. W'e recommend that no historic architectural survey
be conducted for this project- -
There are no Known archaeological sites within the proposed project area_ Based on our
present lcnuwledge of the area_ it is unlikely that any archaeolo~~ical resources ~~~hich lna~•
be eligibles for inclusion in the ~!~ational Register of Historic Places. will be affected by
• the project construction. W"e_ tilereti)re_ recommend that no archaeological in~Festi`~ation
he conducted in connection with this project.
1-favin~~ pre~vide:d this information_ '`•v~ luul: furwtzrci tc~ the rt~c:eipt oFrvither tt L'at~r~orie:al
L:~clusion ~)r Lnvirunmental :~~5sc55n~u11t_ which indic:~lt~s hc~`vv tiCD(~'I- ad~iross~d uur-
comment~-
I.+~caliu° - - ~laiiin;; \drlrcti~ - - _ fclcll.hunc. I :r~ -
tllVlltilti"I'12:\'I~IU\ ~rli .V lsl~runt 5t IC,:Irr:ch `~,r ~r,i- `•.l.ul ~~:r.r,_ ~ .._, I:.:ic~_~ri '.l "r,~~~_.nr~ ri.r, - - -
_ r
:\12 C: I1:11•:O1.O!:}' -l'! '~: k;l~~u:u 5t !?.:Ir:cu \r ~nl'~ '.1.u1 '~~:.:_. ~ .r~_• '.rl,:u~~ ~~,~~ ~r,: ~ ,r.,, .__. .,
121•=h'IY)12 \'1'101 ~! \ Ei1~~unE It - I:.rit.~!i .t _ - .._ _ _
~1't.\ 1~:1 .C I't.'.\ t\r, ,cur,. ~r ,~_ ., - __ ..._._ ., ., ,.-- _

Page 2 of 2
William D. Gilmore
September 14. ?000
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservations Regulations for
Compliance with Section I06 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning
the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley Environmental Review Coordinator
at 919 733-=1763.

Cam~1~,~
Federal rEid #BRSTP- i 124(3 I) TfP #B-3625 County: Carteret
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Desorption: Replace Hridszc No. ZQ on SR 1 ! 24 over East Dro~Q of Broad Creek
On April 20, 2000, rcpreseatatives of the
~~ Noah Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Q~ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the Subject project at
a scoping meeting
~~phocoeraph revie•N session/consultation
Q other
.-~li parties present weed
!! ~ there are no properties over nnv years old withir_ the project s a:ea oi= potential ~.-~_-
~.
S i Qned:
mere are no properties less than Etrty years old whic:2 are considered to rase°t C: heron
/-Consideration G within the project's area of pore^tiai eri:ect.
C/ there are properties over firrv years old (list attac:~eC) ~~irnin the proiec,'s area oc ootential e;7e~r.
but based on the Historical inT'ormat~ion available and tfte pitotoQraDits of esc;z prope^v, prooe:-ties
idenntied as Bridge No. ?D are considered not eli_Qible [or
~e National Register anti ao Further evaluation or thetas is necessar~.~.
C There are no National Re=inter-listed properties located within the project's area or potential eriet~
~ ~c~._ ~{ - 2b - d a
Representative, N DOT ~ Date
~ ~ ~,, ~/
r:-iW,~,, for the Division .adminisrrator_ or other Federal ~genc~~ ~ Date
~~~/d~
Repr~sentatty , SHPO Daze
/~~ ~
State Historic Preservation Oii•icer ate
!t .i ~ur~~v rcpurt i; E~r~;~;ircd. ,~ ~in:11 ~opv ~t~this t~<~rri _~n~i the attachrci list will be incluti~:I.

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
X12 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Young, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordi
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 10, 2000
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Carteret, Caswell, and Chatham
counties. TIP Nos. B-3625, B-3628, and B-3634.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
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 are as
follows:
1. 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 March 10, 2000
5. 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 3 March 10, 2000
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:
1. B-3625 -Carteret County -Bridge No. 20 over East Prong of Broad Creek. We
would prefer this bridge be replaced with a bridge. There appears to be wetlands on
both sides of the bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
2. B-3628 -Caswell County -Bridge No. 45 over Moon Creek. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-3634 -Chatham County -Bridge No. 1 17 over Dry Creek. Dry Creek is a tributary
to the Haw River that drains directly into known Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) habitat. We recommend that NCDOT hold an on-site field meeting to
discuss this project. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Other
standard recommendations apply.
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.

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Carteret County
Bridge No. 20 on SR 1124
Over the East Prong of Broad Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1124 (3)
WBS 33173.1.1
State Project 8.2160901
TIP No. B-3625
Commitments Developed Through Proiect Development and Design
Division 2 Construction, Roadside Environmental Unit, Structure Design Unit,
Project Development 8c Environmental Analysis (Natural Resource Specialist)
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices .for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be
implemented during the construction of Bridge No. 20. The superstructure is composing of
pre-stressed concrete channels that can be lifted off with a large crane after the transverse post
tensing strands have been removed. The substructure is composed of timber piles with concrete
caps, which can be removed without any falling debris. Therefore, the bridge will be removed
without dropping components into Waters of the United States during construction.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 2 Construction, Roadway Design Unit
Due to the potential sedimentation concerns resulting from demolition of the bridge, where it is
possible to do so, a turbidity curtain shall be included to contain and minimize sedimentation in
the stream. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls must be maintained during the entire life
of the. project.
Per the Biological Evaluation, the US Forest Service requires the following mitigation measures:
1. Erosion control such as (but not limited to) silt fence should be placed along the length of
river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the water's edge, prior to
project implementation to minimize soil entering East Prong Broad Creek. Erosion control
efficiency should be maintained until vegetative cover is established upon project
completion.
2. All coffer dams should be constructed using pre-formed concrete and other non-toxic
materials unless the work area can be completely dry during installation and curing. If
uncured concrete is used to form abutments or center supports behind a coffer dam, one or
more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, NCWRC, USFWS, or USFS should be present to
insure that no uncured concrete comes in contact with East Prong Broad Creek. Uncured
concrete is toxic to most aquatic life.
3. from the US Forest Service, it is imperative that disturbance be strictly limited to the present
roadway and no more than 20 feet to the east and 30 feet to the west in order that Sensitive
plant species and their habitat not be impacted. In addition, there is a very real risk of
significant damage to the plant species if trucks and other equipment involved in construction
are parked within the powerline corridor north of the bridge (resulting in maximum damage
to the plant species). An effort should be made to prevent this from happening.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
December 2003

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Carteret County
Bridge No. 20 on SR 1124
Over the East Prong of Broad Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1124 (3}
WBS 33173.1.1
State Project 8.2160901
TIP No. B-3b25
Commitments Developed Through Proiect_ Development and Desi
Division 2 Construction, Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit
A Primary Nursery Area located within the project requires an in-stream moratorium from
March 1 to July 31.
Division 2 Construction
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) time to prepare for road closure, the
NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Michael G. Addertion with Carteret County EMS at
[phone] of the bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure.
Division 2 Construction
In order to allow Carteret County Schools tune to prepare for road closure, the NCDOT
Resident Engineer will notify Sohn Barbour with Carteret County Schools at [phone] of
the bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure.
Project Development ~ Environmental Analysis (Natural Resource Specialist)
Updated surveys for the Red-cockaded woodpecker and the rough-leaved loosestrife are
scheduled for the s»mmer of 2004. These surveys must be completed before this project is let
for construction.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Page 2 of 2