U-92

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2m09
Bridge Maintenance Mitigation Site
New Hanover County
Project No. 8.2250109
TIP No. U-92 WM
V 11
r ?t
I
Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary ........................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction 3
1.1 Project Description ...................... ............................................................3
1.2 Purpose ...................................... ............................................................3
1.3 Project History .........................................................................................3
1.4 Debit
Ledger ...................................... ............................ 3
2.0 Hydrology 5
2.1 Success Criteria ......................... .............................................................5
2.2 Hydrologic Description ............... .............................................................5
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring ............................................................6
2.3.1 Site Data ............................. .............................................................7
2.3.2 Climatic Data ...................... .............................................................7
2.4 Conclusions ............................ .............................................................7
3.0 Vegetation 9
3.1A Success Criteria (Bald Cypress Area) .....................................................9
3.1B Success Criteria (Marsh Grass Area) .....................................................9
3.2A&B Description of Planted Areas ............................................................10
3.3A Results of Vegetation Monitoring (Bald Cypress Area) .........................10
3.3B Results of Vegetation Monitoring (Marsh Grass Area) .......................... 11
3.4A Conclusions (Bald Cypress Area) .........................................................12
3.4B Conclusions (Marsh Grass Area) ..........................................................13
4.0 Overall Conclusions / Recommendations ..................... 15
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ...........................................................................................3
Figure 2. Surface Gage Location Map ............................................................................ 5
Figure 3. 30-70 Percentile Graph ................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Plot and Photo Locations Map ......................................................................12
APPENDICES
Appendix A Surface Water Depth Plot .........................................................................14
Appendix B Site Photos ................................................................................................16
SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in 2001 at
the Bridge Maintenance Mitigation Site, representing the second year of monitoring of
the Phase One section.
This site will be constructed in two phases. Phase One, which will encompass the
majority of the site (5.76 acres), involved grading and planting up to the right-of-way
limits for the proposed Section A of the Smith Creek Parkway. Phase Two will involve
the remainder of the site (0.63 acre) inside the right-of-way boundary up to
approximately ten feet outside of the fill slope, and will be completed during construction
of Section A of the Smith Creek Parkway.
The site is equipped with 1 surface gauge. Since the site is a tide-driven system,
groundwater and rain gauges were not installed. The surface gauge was installed on
July 20, 2000. The surface gauge showed that during the 2001 monitoring period the
site was inundated on a daily basis for 58% of the time for the growing season from
February 27 to November 26 (271 days). This exceeds the success criteria requirement
of 56%.
Two tree monitoring plots and eighty-five herbaceous vegetation monitoring plots are
located on the site. Tidal cypress swamp and herbaceous marsh were the two plant
communities restored on the site. Two 100'x 100' plots have been set and will be
counted as part of the bald cypress vegetation monitoring for the site. The success
criteria for the cypress swamp requires 50 five-year old cypress trees per acre surviving
after the end of the fifth growing season. During the planning phase of the project, it
was noted that the cypress may not survive because of increases in salinity, tidal
amplitude, and sea level (Hackney and Yelverton, 1990). Consequently, if cypress
mortality occurs and the area develops into an emergent marsh community, the
vegetated success criteria will be based on emergent marsh vegetation (see Section
10.0 Contigency Plans, Bridge Maintenance Site Compensatory Mitigation Plan,
(Revised) November 30, 1999).
The vegetative marsh success of the wetland site will be determined in accordance with
NMFS Guidelines. Monitoring plots found to be located within the open water channel
will not be evaluated, and will not count to the final count of plots. The vegetation
component of the wetland site will be deemed successful if the following criteria are
met.
1. At year five, the average of all plots should have a scale value of 5 (75%
vegetative cover) consisting of wetland herbaceous species, not including any
invasive species.
2. A minimum of 70% of the plots shall contain the target (planted) specie.
Based on vegetative monitoring results, there was an average density of 108 bald
cypress trees per acre, which exceeds the required success criteria of 50 trees per acre
after the fifth year of monitoring. The percent frequency of target species for the marsh
grass area is at 31.4% with a vegetative cover scale value of 1.0. As expected, the
marsh grass area did not meet the success criteria, but it has continued to increase
since planting.
Based on monitoring results of 2001, NCDOT recommends that monitoring continue on
this site.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The Bridge Maintenance Mitigation Site is located in New Hanover County, adjacent to
Smith Creek and the U-92A project in Wilmington (Figure 1). Totaling 6.4 acres in size,
the site provides compensatory mitigation for a portion of the wetland impacts
associated with U-92C. Phase One of the site (5.76 acres) has been constructed and
planted, and Phase Two will be constructed concurrent with construction of U-92A. The
site consists of tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp Forest restoration, and contains a system of
swales to facilitate drainage as the tide goes out and help prevent ponding.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, the Bridge Maintenance site is monitored
for both hydrology and vegetation. 2001 marks the second year of monitoring for the
site. The following report describes the results of both hydrologic and vegetation
monitoring for 2001.
1.3 Project History
March- May 2000
May 2000
July 2000
July- December 2000
August 2000
February - November 2001
September 2001
1.4 Debit Ledger
Site Constructed - Phase 1
Site Planted - Phase 1
Surfacewater Gauge Installed
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 1)
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1)
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 2)
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2)
Tidal Cypress-Gum Swamp and Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Bridge Maintenance 4 acres restoration
2.4 acres creation
Total 6.4 acres credit
Total Site debited for TIP Project U-92C

4

?
I
.;
tt
C
:
f(
-J j
r ,
Cge
7 n.lt
-
..tpe f r ,r C1)n It
I

1
Hrid;c Nlaintonan" "'litigatilln Size

i I r
}
l
?
t
:l lnn,taf {?1.1-: ir. r.r_•cdn f?FC.ir Tr l?rtGi
tr rta`
tj -
_?=?'-. I '-•1-?.
'
-- --
?rlr
l
•
?t..-? -•e ? r ah:i?nt v?+c? 1 1 a ? Ur;r
?f I?
I
,
CIYI? t l err ?1(
?) I , (..,
? - l
S r ' •_. ( ..I
('
?
r ,
r
iillrr
,r l'
a,G
nn
r l
arr;
?
,? j?Wilmlton /
-- ,
r
?
I,r
f
?
:
,

-
71
?

lilus?: c 1 r l t ?i ( h} F tr ,?e r C_ r r ! t ?'r '?, ..
1>.l t..r Nvrcrtl

,
? r
1

??
'•r 1'ra 1
f rUnlry rl
-
,
.?A
1
,
l )
' sir _t '..:t 1.
FIGURE I . Sito Location Map
4
2.0 Hydrology
2.1 Success Criteria
Because this is a tidal system, groundwater monitoring is not required at this site.
Instead, data from an on-site tide gauge (collected 10-10-96 through 11-21-97) was
used to estimate the percent of time the site would remain flooded, at specific
elevations. A target elevation of 2.5 feet above mean sea level was selected based on
elevations of desired vegetation communities at the adjacent proposed Smith Creek
Mitigation Site. Using the '96/'97 data, it was calculated that this would result in the site
being inundated 37% of the time.
However, prior to construction, it was decided that an elevation of 2.5 feet was too high,
based on the elevation of the adjacent wetland to the east. An on-site meeting was held
with the Corps of Engineers in January 2000 to discuss this issue. They agreed that
lowering the proposed grade to an elevation of approximately 1.0 foot above mean sea
level at the edge of the creek (match existing mudflat) and then gradually sloping up to
an elevation of approximately 1.8 feet above mean sea level at the upper edge of the
site would be acceptable.
Revised calculations of the inundation time, based on the `96/'97 data, yielded a result
of 56% for the proposed average elevation of the site (1.4 feet).
Therefore, the site will be considered hydrologically successful if it is inundated 56% of
the time for the growing season from February 27 to November 26 (271 days).
2.2 Hydrologic Description
One 40-inch surface gauge, set to record hourly readings, was installed in July of 2000
(Figure 2). The elevation of the calibration point of the gauge was located using survey
equipment, and was found to be at 33 inches above sea level. On November 6, 2000,
the gauge was raised 12 inches on the pole to avoid being submerged during high
water.
Appendix A contains a plot of the water depth for the surface gauge. Monitoring results
are shown for the growing season for the 2001 monitoring period. The actual average
elevation across the site (14.3 inches) is also shown on this graph, calculated from
elevation data taken on the same day that the elevation of the surface water gauge
calibration point was determined.
t'I
u '?I
1 1
I I 1
fI
t\

t'j
13
\ \"? ? ?? It I?
i

Q.
V/
U
(II
D
LL
I'D
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The surface water gauge on the site recorded water levels greater than the actual
average site elevation (14.3 inches above sea level) for 58% of the monitoring period
(February through November, excluding missing data intervals).
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 3 represents an examination of the local climate in comparison with historical
data to determine if 2001 rainfall falls within the normal rainfall range of the area. The
historical data was provided by the National Climatic Data Center; the recent rainfall
data was provided by the rain gage at the Spring Branch Mitigation site.
January, October, and November were the only months with below normal rainfall for
the Wilmington area. Monthly rainfall totals for the majority of the growing season were
within the normal monthly range. The success of the hydrology on site is not based on
rainfall, and the rainfall data is presented for information purposes only.
2.4 Conclusions
The Bridge Maintenance Mitigation Site met the hydrologic success criterion during the
2001 monitoring period.
u
o M

W

()

o LL
z
z
CL
?a
C9
m
c
d
v
d
a
0
ti
0
M
d
V
C
tti
C
d
C
d
CJ1
m
r
O
O
N
0
a.
d
Q
0
r`
I
o
' o
co
co
C
c 'm
0
0
N
T
m
n
Q
e`a
a
d
u.
c
.o
00
O O 00 1- (D U) <! Cl) N r' O
r
(-ui) jajumpunojE) o) yidap
3.0 Vegetation: Bridge Maintenance Mitigation Site (Year 2 Of 5)
3.1A Success Criteria (Bald cypress Area)
Two 100' x 100' plots were set and surveyed as part of the vegetation monitoring for the
site.
The revised mitigation plan for the Bridge Maintenance Site dated November 30, 1999
states:
The site will be considered a success for the bald cypress if there are 50 five-
year old trees per acre after the end of the fifth growing season.... changes in
the hydrology of Smith Creek have caused the decline in natural bald cypress
populations, and it is uncertain if the planted bald cypress trees will survive. If
the bald cypress survivorship declines to below the success criteria, then the
Department of Transportation will consult with the Corps of Engineers to
determine appropriate action.
The plan also states:
Establishment of cypress trees over the restoration area of the Bridge
Maintenance Site is proposed, although there is evidence that they may not
survive because of increases in salinity, tidal amplitude, and sea level
(Hackney and Yelverton, 1990). Consequently, if cypress mortality occurs
and the area develops into an emergent marsh community, the vegetation
success criteria will be based on emergent marsh vegetation.
3.1 B Success Criteria (Marsh Grass Area)
The vegetative marsh success of the wetland site will be determined in accordance with
NMFS Guidelines. Monitoring plots found to be located within the open water channel
will not be evaluated, and will not count to the final count of plots. The vegetation
component of the wetland site will be deemed successful if the following criteria are
met.
1. At year five, the average of all plots should have a scale value of 5 (75%
vegetative cover) consisting of wetland herbaceous species, not including
any invasive species.
2. A minimum of 70% of the plots shall contain the target (planted) specie.
3.2A & B Description of Planted Areas
The following plant communities were planted throughout the Bridge Maintenance site:
Approximately 5.7 acres
Spartina cynosuroides, Big Cordgrass
Spartina atemiflora, Smooth Cordgrass
Cladium jamaicense, Sawgrass
Taxodium distichum, Bald cypress
3.3A Results of Vegetation Monitoring (Bald cypress Area)

u

? u

C3 C)
1 26 26 108
2 15 15 108
AVG. DENSITY 108
10
3.313 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (Marsh Grass Area)
W
O s
- ? ? e¦
5
Notes
Cattail
catt2il
, J ?

5 C'Ittail

n sed?c
? ?

J
?
I cattail

S
16 C'Itt,141

17
3.0 J ?
Camlif
19 Catnil
19 Untflil
l Cattail
Cittnil
J J
J J
14 -)
0
J
J Cittail
,S - Camil
26 Cattlil
17 Cattail

,Q
3

7
? J
S ? J

p J J

S
Cattail

16 C,tnil
J J
! J
! J
t
s
s, ! J
s
s
ss ! !
s
17
s ! !
r
60 C"tt'it
61
J
! if
61 C,,tt,;I
63 C'mil
64
s

66 J J
67
! !

70 C'n"il
71
72
71 C"tt"il

75 1 0
!
J
76 C
77
79
!
J Sm.,rtw-d- Cattail
79
i
P ! !

R7 C"tt"il
RI
! J
s ! J J
86
R7 0 p,
! J
! !
90 0 Lance-leaved Saritta ria cattail

5 C..
PI,t, with

Site Notes: There is 100% frequency of cattails noted throughout the site where there
was not open water.
3.4A Conclusions (Bald cypress Area)
Bald cypress was planted on 20' centers throughout the approximately 5.7 acre site.
Two 100'x 100' plots were established in the planting area. The vegetation monitoring
of the planted area revealed an average of 108 bald cypress trees per acre.
12
3.413 Conclusions (Marsh Grass Area)
O Percent Frequency of Target Species (Big Cordgrass, Smooth Cordgrass,
Sawgrass) 31.4%
Frequency of 70% required.
Vegetative Cover Scale Value 1.0
Scale Value of 5 required for year 5.
Approximately 5.7 acres of this site involve marsh grass plantings. As expected for the
second monitoring year, vegetative coverage does not meet the success criteria;
however, it has increased since planting. NCDOT will continue to monitor the progress
of the marsh. If cattails become a problem to the success of the mitigation site,
remedial actions will be coordinated with the regulatory agencies
13
ti
? ' t= ? Ci C? SS 1? v
r
\ w I
Scpl
?- a
Q
c?
O
c?
U
O
J
O
O
N
O
0_
LL

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
During the second year of monitoring, the Bridge Maintenance Site (Phase One)
was inundated on a daily basis for entire time it was operational. The site
exceeded the hydrologic success criterion, since it was inundated 58% of the
monitoring period.
There was an average density of 108 cypress trees per acre surveyed after the
second year of monitoring which exceeds the required number of 50 trees per
acre at year 5. As expected for the second monitoring year, herbaceous
vegetative coverage does not meet the success criteria; however, it has
significantly increased since planting. The percent frequency of target species is
at 31.4% (70% required at year 5), and the vegetative cover scale value is 1.0
(5.0 required at year 5). NCDOT will monitor the cattails and coordinate with
agencies if any action is to be taken.
There is also evidence that the site is functioning to increase wildlife habitat in
the area. At various times during the summer of 2001, many species were
observed using the area, including fiddler crabs, blue crabs, various shorebirds
and wading birds, turtles, alligators, and insects. There are also naturally-
regenerating cypress seedlings along the upper edge of the site.
Based on monitoring results of 2001, NCDOT recommends that monitoring
continue on this site for a third year in 2002.
15
APPENDIX A
SURFACE WATER DEPTH PLOT
16

Aim"NUAL REPORT FOR 200'V
Spring Branch Mitigation Site
New Hanover County
Project No. 8.2250109
TIP No. U-92 WM
?,cnt,r
y r
P Syr ? ? ? i ?'??
Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.2 Hydrologic Description ............................................................................5
4.0 Overall Conclusions/ Recommendations ..........................................13
Summary .......................................................... ....................................1
1.0 Introduction .............................................. ...................................
1.1 Project Description ....................................... ...........................................2
1.2 Purpose ....................................................... ...........................................2
1.3 Project History .............................................. ...........................................2
1.4 Debit Ledger ...........................................................................
2.0 Hydrology ................................................ ....................................
2.1 Success Criteria ........................................... ...........................................5

2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring ..........................................................55
2.3.1 Site Data .........:................................................................................5
2.3.2 Climatic Data ...................................................................................6
2.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................66
3.0 Vegetation ..............................................................................
3.1 Success Criteria ....................................................................................10
3.2 Description of Species ..........................................................................10
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (4 year) .............................................10
3.4 Conclusions ..........................................................................................11
TABLES
Table 1. Hydrologic Monitoring Results ..........................................................................6
Table 2. Vegetation Monitoring Results .......................................................................... 9
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ...........................................................................................4
Figure 2. Monitoring Gage Location Map ....................................................................... 7
Figure 3. 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring Results ................................................................8
Figure 4. 30-70 Percentile Graph ..................................................................................12
Figure 5. Photo and Plot Locations ..............................................................................
APPENDICES

Appendix A Depth to Groundwater and Surfacewater Plots
Appendix B Site Photos
SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in
2001 at the Spring Branch Mitigation Site, representing the fourth year of
monitoring.
The site is equipped with 3 groundwater-monitoring gauges, 2 surface gauges,
and 1 rain gauge. The rain gauge, an automatic recording tipping bucket type,
was installed on May 18, 2000. The data from the rain gauge was utilized for this
report.
Hydrologic monitoring results were similar to the previous years. The site was
saturated to the soil surface or inundated for the entire growing season.
Four vegetation-monitoring plots are located on the site. The site met the
vegetation success criteria with an average of 489 trees per acre.
Based on monitoring results of 2001, NCDOT recommends that monitoring of the
site be continued.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The Spring Branch Mitigation Site is located in New Hanover County, adjacent to
the U-92C (Corps AID No. 199300597) alignment project in Wilmington (Figure
1). Approximately 11 acres in size, the site provides compensatory mitigation for
a portion of the U-92C wetland impacts. The site consists of swamp and
bottomland forest and an open water habitat. This establishes a wetland system
including a creek, open water, and an associated floodway.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, the Spring Branch site is
monitored for both hydrology and vegetation. 2001 marks the fourth year of
monitoring for the site. The following report describes the results of both
hydrologic and vegetation monitoring for 2001.
1.3 Project History
December 1997
March 1998
March 1998
March- November 1998
August 1998
March- November 1999
October 1999
March- November 2000
September 2000
March- November 2001
September 2001
Site Constructed
Site Planted
Monitoring Wells Installed
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (4 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.)
2
1.4 Debit Ledger
Spring Branch
New Hanover
Habitat
SPH/BLH Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement, Preservation
TOTAL
Mit. Plan TIP DEBIT
Acres at Acres U-92C
Start: Remaining
11 0 11
0
3
--
r--,
\ >!
f '? 1 T 411
r,: IV
?.I kit ?i
ud tixy
f -- _
Sprtn6, Dra ;h Ntit! .ion Si C?
1 - -- x - F`a'0 _ ,ru )ft^ + -?F`?,r9e?h; 11
Y `•-? 1 4 ?. `? ' i _ ` ? - r .ter
l.lut f t
f - -?
%
.r yJ ,L_>rl? rtTln.tO it ;t N,
r .1 7vti-..r :fir t r _>('•.. _?F.r Il ?rti:.
-• f? \ _ t l A \ ' - if xrt7an1? r
'_r T? _ 7.1,.rtry r r'.t
• t r ` 4 Ix }
- i
f.- j. r!1! pf J rti..n
T" G,
NGURE I - Sitr Locauon %Lp

2.0 Hydrology
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria
for hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of
the surface) by surface or ground water for a consecutive 12.5% of the growing
season. Areas inundated less than 5% of the growing season are always
classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing
season can be classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as the
presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.
The growing season in New Hanover County begins February 27 and lasts until
November 26. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that air temperature
will drop to 28° F or lower after February 27 and before November 26.1 Thus the
growing season is 271 days; optimum hydrology requires 12.5% of this season,
or 34 days. Local climate must represent average conditions for the area.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Three monitoring wells, two surface gauges, and one rain gauge were installed in
March of 1998 (Figure 2). Because of the amount of surface water on the site,
each groundwater well was installed to record water levels both above and below
ground level. Daily readings are taken throughout the growing season.
Appendix A contains a plot of the water depth for each monitoring well and
surface gauge. Monitoring results are shown from February 27 to November 26.
Daily precipitation data is provided on each graph.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within
twelve inches of the surface was determined for each well. This number was
converted into a percentage of the 271-day growing season. Because it is
uncertain if all wetlands impacted by NCDOT highway projects meet the 12.5%
criteria, the monitoring well results are segmented into percentage ranges. Table
1 presents the monitoring results for the 2001 growing season as a range of
percentages, actual percentage, and success dates of the longest hydroperiod
on the site
1 Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of New Hanover County, North Carolina, 1977.
Table 1 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
Monitoring
Well < 5% 5% - 8% 8% -12.5% > 12.5% Actual %
SB-1 ? 100 Feb 27 - Dec 6
SB-3 ? 100 Feb 27 - Dec 6
SB-5 ? 92.6 Feb 27 -Dec 6
The three well sites recorded the water table within 12 inches of the surface for
more than 12.5% of the growing season. The surface water gauges indicated a
consistent presence of surface water throughout the growing season. Figure 3 is
a graphic representation of the 2001 monitoring results.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 represents an examination of the local climate in comparison with
historical data to determine if 2001 rainfall falls within the average rainfall range
of the area. The historical data was provided by the National Climatic Data
Center; the recent rainfall data was provided by the on-site rain gauge.
March and June were the two months that experienced greater than average
rainfall for the Wilmington area. Monthly rainfall totals for the majority of the
growing season were within or below the average monthly range.
2.4 Conclusions
The Spring Branch Mitigation site met the hydrologic success criteria during
2001. The hydrologic monitoring results were consistent with results from 1999
and 2000, with the soil saturation at the surface or inundation of the site
throughout the majority of the growing season.
6
_ a.
Q ,.

f,l 00-
z
~
+.

W
q ?'' ?.

w

w < Q .
cvm0
"
toq
? w c9
f{t W
11 ?i. W ?. W W LLNU•

ILL I,
A
l cv - --n v7
FF
//)) CO
U) M
V) y
CO
(9 M
LO

VVV
!
?' l
F

It

40

<< M }

j kt L Y.

1

t? !
y
._ 1 to
,J
1/.?
A
A
41 s
4
47
p
o

h

.10
.? .4 in tn V
p 0 0 0

•a
y
J
4a
k r
1%1 y H
00
M
C6
,L^
V
O
.C
d
0-
CD
N
0
M
L
V
R
L
m
tm
a
Cl)
T -
C)
0
N
(ui) uoriepdiowd
m ti O LO V Cl) N O
v
m
O
0
Z
U
O
Cl
d
In
? o
Q O
r
I
o
-, o
Cl)
ro
O
C C
7 ?
O
O
N
T
A
L
n
Q
m
a
01
LL
C
b
O O co I-- (D (f) It CO N O
(,ui) lojeMpuno.jE:) of 41doCl
v
W
w
D
0
LL
Cl%
3.0 Vegetation: Spring Branch Mitigation Site
3.1 Success Criteria
Success Criteria states that there must be a minimum of 320 trees per acre
surviving for three consecutive years. NCDOT has agreed to monitor this site for
5 years or until success criteria is met. The required survival criterion will
decrease by 10% per year after the third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for
an expected 290 stems per acre for year 4, and 260 stems per acre for year 5).
3.2 Description of Species
The following tree species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Nyssa aquatica, Tupelo Gum
Quercus lyrata, Overcup Oak
Taxodium distichum, Bald Cypress
Quercus pagoda, Cherrybark Oak
Cephalanthus occidentalis, Buttonbush
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (4 year)
Table 2. Vegetation Monitoring Results
u
C.? L
u
? 1

v
y
C
?
,-` S ?`
CS C
? V
L
G ?' C h , r

E-
G
`
L`
G
-t t7
cs
r
,
'a ZA
C O U •C

G.
b
F...
d _
J
f f
"'
?'+

?9 44 448
3 15
4 RLH R 21 2 1 32 37 599
AVEI2AC:E DENSITY 489
Site Notes: Other species noted: black willow, Juncus sp., Cyperus sp., cattail,
smartweed, woolgrass, Pluchea sp., cardinal flower, and Bidens sp. 4" of
standing water noted in Plot 1. 8" to 20" of standing water noted in Plot 2. 10" to
20" of standing water noted in Plot 3. 6" to 20" of standing water noted in Plot 4.
Several oaks noted outside of Plot 2 in higher elevations. Beaver activity was
noted on site. Trees do not appear to have been damaged. Beaver dam was
removed by NCDOT in October 2001.
10
3.4 Conclusions
A total of 9.5 acres on this site involved tree planting. Four vegetation-monitoring
plots were established in the planting area. The 2001 vegetation monitoring of
these plots revealed an average density of 489 trees per acre, which is well
above the success criteria requirement of 320 trees per acre.

11J ;;N?,'' 1

;.t
El

I1 r1
,
?
cit ly
t 1'1 ??
r cq] L

.S pt
rt

z
c

Q

N
zu3
Q 64 L
a O
F°1 'o °'
vaj z a c°?
tit
"A
1 _ S
t?

f
btl .;F? l ? Is
?1 I
I
r, ? f ? i ? t

T

4.1

tn
L
CA

Y

FYr; ,

I ib
iU
11
? R

fl
t ,7
y

? `l1[7 t

11,? ?, l? n 1
1
'
tl?` FF
E oryc?±
ti S1 ?. \
?
Fi 4, o.?oN.nti
1

t t rf
1 ?nttn??
J
?
r
I I.

4.0 Overall Conclusions/ Recommendations
Though originally proposed for a three-year monitoring period, it was agreed to
modify the monitoring period to five years. During the fourth year of monitoring,
the Spring Branch Site showed saturation or inundation for the entire season.
Vegetation monitoring yielded an average density of 489 trees per acre.
Based on these results, NCDOT recommends that monitoring be continued. The
site has met the hydrological and vegetative success criteria for four consecutive
years, and the site will be monitored for the fifth year in 2002 to determine
success.
13
APPENDIX A
Depth to Groundwater / Surfacewater Plots
14
(ul) uolieildlOOld
U? U? L
? ch m N N r O O
T7
m
N
t
v
c
ca
m
c
L
Q
U)
0
O
N
i _-
I '
i =
I
I =
I =
i
I
I -
I
I =
1 -
i -
I =
i
I =
L -
+I -
1 =
I =
I
w
M I
Cl) N
i
I
I -
I =
i
I -_
I
i
I =
i -
LO o "?
60-000-£0
60-AOWVZ
60-noN-S6
60-noN-90
W-100-8Z
60.100.66
60-100.06
60.100-60
60-daS-ZZ
60-&S-£6
60-daS-b0
LO.6nV-9Z
LO.6nd-L6
60.6ny-80
60-Inf -0£
60-Inf-6Z
0
60-Inf -Z6
60-Inf-£0
60-unr.vz
60-unf-S6
60-unf -90
60-AUvd-8Z
60-ALW-66
60-Acwu
60-AvW-60
60-jdV-ZZ
60-jdv-£6
60-jdv-ti0
60-1UNIZ
60-a'W-L6
60.1 IN-80
6O.9aA-LZ
o ?n
w
0
0
w
G?
U
w
U-
0
v
N
U7
m
U)
I
J
J
Q
U-
z
Q
(•ul).aajcmpunoaE) oz iiidaa
N
m
Cf)
t
L)
C
co
ML
W
L
Q
N
0
0
N
- LO-aa0•ti0
LO•noN•9Z
LO-AOW L
LO•noN-U
LO-AOWZO
LO•la0-SZ
LO.3a0•LL
LO-la0.60
LO-3a0•LO
LO•daS•£Z
LO-daS•SL
L0-daS-LO
LO.Ond•0£
LO.6nd-ZZ
LO.6nV-VL
LO-6ny-90
LO•Inf•6Z
LO•Inf•LZ
LO•Inf•£L
LO•Inf•SO
LO•unf -1Z
Lp-unf•6L
1
LO•unf•LL
- LO-unf•£0
LO•hW•9Z
LO-AuW•8L
L O-I(eWO L
LO•AeW-ZO
LO-AV-VZ
LO•jdd•9L
LO-AV-80
LO-1eW•L£
LO•JeW•£Z
LO•JeW•5L
LO•gaA•LZ
M 00 Cl) CO Cl) Oo M 00 CO N
V co co N N ?-
(•uI) aalLsmpunoa!D of iildap
0)
ca
0
CO
m
0
v
N
U)
N
m
U)
I
(ul) uollelldlooJd
U? Lq U? Lq
V c'7 M N N O O
M
m
U)
t
C)
C
ca
L
m
t?
c
-L
Q
N
T -
C)
0
N
ti
v
M
co
N
10.300-£0
LO-AOWVZ
6O-AON-S 1
10-^a N-90
W-100.8Z
10-}00.61
WPO.01
10.130-10
10-d0S-ZZ
10-d0S-£1
10-&S-r0
LO.6nV-9Z
10.6nV-80
10-Inf-0£
10-Inmz
10-Inr-Z1
LO-Inf-£0
10-unr-bZ
10-unf-S1
10-unr-90
whIN-8Z
WAUVI-61
whw-01
whw-10
10-jdV-ZZ
LO•add-£1
10-AV-p0
10-aeW-9Z
WJUVJ-L1
10.1ew-80
10-Q0J-LZ
LO C) LO C) U') o
•-- ? N
(-ul).cojcmpunoaE) of t;ldoa
a
w
0
0
w
d
w
0
rn
0
M
? N
U)
0 1 co
m
J
J
Q
U -
z
D
1'
m
m
t
V
c
M
L
C13
c
•L
Q.
C/)
r
O
0
N
_ 6p•aaa•b0
lO-AON•9Z
_ ?O-AO U
LO•noN•O6
6O-AO "ZO
LO.3?0•SZ
l0•??0.16
60.330.60
6U"3?0' ? 0
10-&S•£Z
60•daS"S6
60-&S-LO
6O-Ont1.0£
1O-GnV-ZZ
6O.Ond-V6
60-6nd•90
LO•Inf•6Z
60'Inf"6Z
60"Inf•£ 6
lO-Inr-SO
LO•unr-LZ
LO-unf•66
60•unm-
LO•unf•£0
LO•AL,W•9Z
6042W•86
60-AuW•06
6O-AeW•ZO
6O'AV-VZ
6O-A J•96
60-AV-g0
60"JUW•6£
60•JeW'£Z
60•JpW•S6
60"RWLO
Lo-gOJ-LZ
N
co 00 M co Cl) GO M 00 Cl)
'ct' M Cl) N N r-
(•ul) AolempunoJE) of tlidoa
cn
0
?n
M
M
M
U)
Y
co
U)
11
m
t
v
c
cv
L
00
c
L
Q
Cf)
T-
0
O
N
W-ae0-£0
LO-AONIZ
6O-noN-S 6
6O-^ON-90
W-130.8Z
60.300.66
60-330.06
60-330.60
LO-d3S-ZZ
60-daS-£6
60-d3S-ti0
60.6n`d-9Z
1O-Ond-L6
60.6nV-80
60-Inf -0£
60-Inf-6Z
60-inr-Z6
LO-Inf •£0
60-unf-vz
60-unf-S6
60-unp-90
60-AeW-8Z
60-ft-66
60-AeW-06
60-AeW-60
60-add-ZZ
LO-Ad-£6
60-jdV-ti0
w
w
0
0
w
a!
0
w
rn
w
O
v
r-
N
U)
LO
m
U)
J
J
Q
U-
Z
Q
D!
(ui) uoi;egidiooJd
LQ LQ Ll?
M Cl) N N O O
APPENDIX B
Site Photos
i

,
^^ Y
?Y
t"+ Y

t
r
" r
tf{' VIM
., ??,?, •:, it ' ,;i?,l
.t y?yy
f t '1
r
Photo 3
u ,+. 1 a ?.ok°14?A•, ?LTi?7'iE1 ? f i ??
- 4j,
b5' ? eJi y •
7
F s _ u 1',
r1'." 1? ,K t
4;1
+
Photo 5 7755??iii
(Photograph locations are shown on Figure 5)

11??
!s
f) x y4.+
} 1q i yy?.,f( 'yam
VV.
't Y{4 rRr ?
Photo 2
s
y.. 'r.

ii
art
Photo 4
".f e,'`Ta

,MI4 ? A^t
?? a sl q. \ - '? I t ti
,f1Y??ii11.

1
J

Spring Branch
J 1 1 I ? 4i
U-92C
Spring Branch
Finley McMillan
Bridge Maint.
(Impacts = 20.4 acres)
(RestJCreation Total =14.4 acres)
Restoration Creation Enhancement Preservation
8.0
4.0 2.4
U-92AB (Impacts = 6.5 acres)
(RestJCreation Total =13.4 acres)
Smith Creek 10.9
McRae Street 0.9 12.7
Third Street 1.6 2.4 (??)
Kerr Avenue
3.0
102.0
18.0
47.0
Total Impacts U-92ABC = 26.9 ac
Total RestJCreation U-92ABC = 27.8 ac
ew surzv
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Hennessy,
6 July 1999 4 [ [?;
0
'WATER OL;,ItiY ct
Enclosed please find the cover pages of the design sheets for the Smith Creek
Parkway (A and B Sections), as you requested during our phone conversation on 23 June
1999. I realize that the scale is rather small on these, but I will have full-size design
sheets at the meeting on 15 July 1999, when everyone gets together at the Century
Center. If you have any questions before then, please call me at 733-1143.
Sincerely,

Susan G. Brady
Natural Systems Specialist
Project Development and
` ? r /
?- Environmental Analysis Branch
U-92C (impacts = 20A a res
RestJCreation T tal =14.4 acr s
Restoration Creation Enhancement Preservation
Spring Branch 8.0 3.0
Finley McMillan 102.0
Bride Maint. 4.0 2.4

U-92A6 (Impacts = 6.5 ac res)
RestJCreation R AM =13.4 acr s
Smith Creek 10.9 18.0
McRae Street 0.9 12.7
Third Street 1.6 2.4 ??
Kerr Avenue 47.0

otal Impacts U-92A C = 26.9 ac
otal RestJCreation 1 1-92ABC = 27.8 a
n addition 4.5 acres f successful BL mitigation is in the round at U- 2D Site

Wetland Mitigation Proposal
for the
Wilmington Bypass, TIP Project No. R-2633
Wliv Mitigate?
Whenever the DOT builds a highway, it avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands to the
greatest extent possible. Whatever cannot be avoided or minimized, the DOT agrees to provide
mitigation as compensation.
What is Wetland Mitigation?
Wetland mitigation can take several forms. The most desirable form is restoration,
which involves converting a previously-drained wetland back into a wetland. Other forms are
enhancement, which involves making an existing wetland better through planting desirable
vegetation; creation, which involves making a wetland in an area suitable for a wetland: and
preservation, which placing use restrictions on an existing wetland to prevent it from bcinL
drained.
What are the Wetland Impacts of the Wilmington Bypass?
The current estimate for wetland impacts is 433 acres, although after design is completes'
on the entire highway project, total impacts are expected to he lower.
What Mitigation is Propose'
The proposed mitigation will compensate for up to 433 acres of wetland impacts.' The
mitigation is proposed to be provided on five (5) sites ofa combined size of 1,062 acres, all
located within 20 miles of the proposed highway. The sites arc:
81-acre Dale "Tract, in Brunswick County;
20-acre Rowel Branch Tract, in Brunswick County;
143-acre Mcintvre Tract, in Brunswick County;
450-acre Fail le Brunswick Tract, in Brunswick County, and
168-acre Squires Site, in Bladen County.
Who is Implementing the Mitigation?
The DOT has contracted with the private firm EcoBank to purchase the parcels, prepare
mitigation plans and designs, construct the sites, plant the sites, and monitor the sites for success
for the next five years.
What Happens to the Mitigation After It Is Considered Successful?
The land will be deeded to a conservation agency that will manage it as wetlands in
perpetuity, with possible hunting, recreation, education, and other wetland-compatible uses.
Who to Contact for More Information?
David Robinson, Deputy Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
919-733-7844, Ext. 310; or drobinsonndot.state.tic. us
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Kiesau
Through: John Domey 0,63 r
From: Cyndi Bell C L3
D E N R
June 1, 1998
Subject: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f)
Statement for Smith Creek Parkway from Third Street to Kornegay Avenue in
Wilmington
New Hanover County
State Project No. 6.2250101, T.I.P. Nos. U-92A and;B,
DENR # 98-0728, DWQ # 12079
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. Construction of the referenced
sections of the Smith Creek Parkway will involve fill in 5.22 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and
0.71 acre of fill in waters. The 1998 FSEIS has been prepared in order to discuss two feasible
build alternatives (1991 FSEIS Preferred Design Alternative and Northern Design Alternative
with 3`d Street Extension) which have been refined since publication of the 1996 DSEIS. The
Northern Design Alternative with 3`d Street Extension is now the designated Preferred Design
Alternative in the 1998 FSEIS. DWQ offers the following comments based upon review of the
FSEIS:
A) DWQ appreciates the commitments made by DOT to reduce wetland and stream impacts
associated with the Northern Alternative. Based upon DOT's efforts to develop this
alternative in cooperation with the review agencies, DWQ endorses the refined version
of the Northern Alternative with 3rd Street Extension (Preferred Design Alternative).
B) DOT has pursued location of a wetland mitigation site concurrent to development of the
preferred alternative. Following a substantial inventory of the project area, a single
property known as the Bridge Maintenance Site has been identified. DOT has
committed to using this site for wetland restoration and/or creation if at all possible,
along with preservation of tidal swamp forest within the Smith Creek watershed. DOT
has acknowledged that the Bridge Maintenance Site may prove to be unsuitable for
mitigation, based largely on logistical problems. In the event this site is not feasible,
then another mitigation site offering restoration/creation opportunities must be
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
1
A
;.i.. M Std/! o
State of North Carolina ?. k o
Department of Environment, Health, and Nat ?.o .z -r" re
Division of Environmental Management °''
f? r 7 w r t..??l` 1
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carol
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary October 7, 1991 Director
MEMORANDUM
Regional Offices
Asheville To: Melba McGee
704/251-6208
F From: Alan Clark
ayetteville
919/486-1541
Subject: Final EIS - Smith Creek Parkway and Downtown Spur,
Mooresville Wilmington, New Hanover County; EHNR 92-0159
704/663-1699
Raleigh The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The
919/733-2314 Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the
Washington issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
919/946-6481 activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
Wilmington FONS'I prepared for this project.
919/395-39W
cr-6
Winston-Salem 1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
9198967007 additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated
spoil material, as a source of borrow material or other
construction related activities.
2. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required for this project.
3. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of
the 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
4. Mitigation will probably be greater than the 1:1 acreage
ratio suggested in the document. MMost DOT projects
eventually mitigate at higher acreage rations after agency
review. This is especially true when mitigation is on done
on a value basis.
5. Mitigation should be done as much in-kind as possible. There-
fore, there should be separate mitigation proposals for the
pocosin, bottomland hardwood forest and tidal marsh impacts.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
SmithNew,Doc/REF1
cc: Ron Ferrell
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 276264535 Telephone [phone] / Pollution Prevention Pays
An f.qual Opportunity Affirmative Action ? nipllrycr
? fem. ^c+
,J
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
-5z'(W
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicat d below:
Regional Office/Phono Regional Office Area In-House ReV(ew..
? Asheville ?All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marlne Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning

?Mooresvili ? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
e ?Groundwater 'PWlldlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington E] Recreational Consultant Land Resources David Foster

? Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Others Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem

Manager Sign-Off/Rogion: Date.

-7 ( 01 In-Ho so Ravi
ower Agency:

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficlent Information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes Incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(les) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPPAA and SEPA
M-0` her (specify and attach comments)
C S 1 u 1 7( P Z-?
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
os +o4
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.

MEMO
DATE: ?' 3
TO: L? / 6o?z SUBJECT:
S
D
?? ? 'CCU
VV17
r/ -I(I
From:
ar 3,.? North Carolina Department of Environment
11o 17
Health, and Natural Resources
Y Printed on Recycled Paper
AAA
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number. County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?AII R/O Areas ?Soil and Water 1, Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville :Air ]Coastal Management I Water Planning

? Mooresville ater ? Water Resources Environmental Health
Groundwater `Wildlife Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washin
ton Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
g
VVVTTT 111
Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant' arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
n Others _ Environmental Management
LJ Winston-Salem
FEB 24 199
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Review r/Agency:

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed ? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? No Comment ?Applicant has been contacted
? Insufficient information to complete review ? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached) NEPA and SEPA
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive 1 /Other (specify and attach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments n /LA
4W/
attached/authority(ies) cited) VJ }I'r?'^
RETURN T0: 1 1f•?? Q}y??,?.? ?{ ?n,? ?t ?Q?'d/r,?.?'7
Melba McGee l/V iVVU?T"D"ivviis`i/oVn of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.

post-it`" bra?tax ansmittal memo 7671 not Pages
Frortv7{L
To
J AMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
_. ". ,jzul, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
R M
IFLu 1 71993 1
WETLANDS GROIIi'
'ATER QUALITY SECTICIt
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
February 12, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Smith Creek Parkway and Downtown Spur, Wilmington, New
Hanover County, North Carolina, State Project No.
8.2250102, T.I.P. U-92
is to solicit comments and coordinate regul tory agency rev' this
phase of the subject project.
PROJECT HISTORY ' i t V?
The Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, is preparing
a Feasibility Study to consider an alternative alignment for the proposed
Smith Creek Parkway and Downtown Spur in Wilmington, New Hanover County.
Although a preferred alternative corridor was recommended in the Supplemental
Final Environmental Impact Statement EI mpq-ete Ju_1y-199- u b s e q u e n t
review of the findings of the r "or along with public-comment has warr ed-
investigation of an alternr,.Determination alignment. If this alternative alignment is
found to be feasible, an aonal supplemental environmental document will
be prepared and distribute of the feasibility of this
alternative alignment shou cur by June 1993. The purpose of this letteK
The proposed Smith Creek Parkway was adopted as a Phase I priority of the
Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan in 1972. This plan also included improvements
to Market Street to improve downtown access. In 1975, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation approved the preparation of an EIS for the project.
Public environmental concerns led to the deletion of the Market Street
widening portion of the project and the substitution of a downtown highway
spur. In 1980, NCDOT recommended a preferred corridor alignment in a Final
EIS; however, state funding priorities deferred construction of the project.
NCDOT began studying the project again in the mid 1980s, and a supplemental
EIS, initiated in 1988, revealed that several conditions relevant to the
project's impacts had changed. NCDOT completed a Supplemental Final EIS in
July 1991, recommending a preferred alternative.

IMPORTANT
To Date n Time
?,LV
ILE YOU WERE OUT
A-e-
M D7 ,
0
Phone 76
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
A,
Message
?I
Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
??(J Printed on Recycled Paper
February 12, 1993
Page 2
Upon reviewing the findings of the Supplemental Final EIS, along with public
comment, NCDOT determined that it was necessary to study the feasibility of a
revised alignment of the western portion of the preferred corridor
alternative.
This additional study was deemed necessary to consider an alignment that
would more clearly eliminate conflicts with the Burnt Mill Creek landfill as
well as to minimize impacts on the Carolco Film Studies (formerly DEG Film
Studios).
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT REVISIONS UNDER STUDY
As shown on the attached exhibit, the feasibility study will investigate the
following alignment revisions:
1. Smith Creek Parkway -- Beginning at 4th Street, the parkway would be
redirected north of Smith Creek, crossing it near 9th Street to
eliminate conflict with the McRae Street and Burnt Mill Creek landfills
and to minimize impacts to Carolco Film Studios. This revision would
also entail an interchange at 23rd Street, where the proposed parkway
would cross back over Smith Creek. One ramp of the interchange would
loop around the back of industrial facilities on the east side of 23rd
Street. From 26th Street near the Creekwood Subdivision to the east,
the parkway would resume the same course as the 1991 Final EIS preferred
corridor alternative.
2. Downtown Spur -- The proposed Downtown Spur would be realigned so that
its interchange with the proposed Smith Creek Parkway would be located
further west to eliminate conflict with the McRae Street Landfill. This
revision would also necessitate intersecting US 117 (Castle Hayne Road)
south of Smith Creek rather than north of it.
3. US 117 Connector -- Rather than constructing a Downtown Spur connection
south of Smith Creek, as noted in item 2 above, a connection north of
the creek between US 117 and the revised corridor alignment of the Smith
Creek Parkway (item 1 above) will be investigated. This US 117
Connector would branch off the parkway south of Division Road and join
US 117 south of its intersection with Gordon Road. This proposed
alignment would eliminate the need for the existing US 117 crossing of
Smith Creek, a bridge which will soon need to be replaced.
ENVIRONMENT
The project study area contains incorporated portions of the City of
Wilmington and unincorporated portions of New Hanover County. Existing land
uses within the study area include active residential, commercial and
industrial uses, along with a substantial amount of vacant land resulting
from abandonment. Wetlands are prevalent along the banks of Smith Creek.
Although natural woodlands constitute the predominate land cover in the
eastern portion of the proposed Smith Creek Parkway study area, only
scattered stands of trees exist within the area examined by this Feasibility
Study.
February 12, 1993
Page 3
In order to investigate all social, economic and environmental factors that
may be involved with the project, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation is distributing this letter to obtain comments relative to
effects on the natural and human environment. No formal scoping meeting will
be held for this project at this time.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation would appreciate any comments
to be made on this project by March 22, 1993. If further information is
needed, please contact Ms. Leigh Cobb, Project Engineer, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch, at (919)
733-7842.
LC/wp
p v f? /
lhCOS)
ki3 L I ` River
LS , LNobj Fear
ULI) is OUT
LS Hlt• ?1 ? ? ?' i''III? ? Z ?
91
15 HL? < _ I r K."d-. O f M
w I z? U)
u
74 + a -ri m ?" ??IIIIUI!° "? -U)-1 O D
r in
M"REA ST. 9TH 3 C Z
w} yy? 0 z
z o ylkfx` ?.. m
x a
' Fr, Co____ z IOT m
m 4N S
N p ? A
z n Z a 11711 97' ti n; Sn \ 7 h
c m w
I -4 70 n ti? , <
m -+c? ' quill I ?I??I o Ro
i .? f?yi1 6 +. II II I?I?? ?• l?l'il' rnn
m Ili
c) m
1331115 H19 C- .? ;u C I O
tl NLL'. n O mz x 0
jj?.'jr 4
3 15 x
3 N D O

Aei
i
Z O D a I 0 I lli ii; 9
z a
O v o
28 N
La 010
z 23RD ST, 0
.fi w' n+ O C<qY
? Z I ,??1 1 ilk '?
?. r C t uI,,; P`g N
II
C p
DFL
° Z 26TH ST. l??l 7 / "? = I tt?cK
A O' h n
M Lo
m m\ f -
G) ro 3nv m -
' N
? AVO3NbQ'. >? ? ? \
Z C .? J
/ 1s HIOT HIOT o \ g
1 W `O m
? N / -
0 c
3AY YOIV O \
_0 -u
3 0 r- Z,
m m t-J
I` z 0 ( Q :0
\ \
D d0 S1lIH r -0 -1
? l?11d8 1
O Z l J
O m m ?.
0 m a' m
O \
2 ? l
O ]7 a = Z \
m 0 NORTH KERR AVE.
o n o
c 3:) , 70 m
> m m
m
? •t m
A
W r. -u
? PRING BRANCH
op
v
CD 1 0
f- X • z
m _ a OWA R x x w 0
m b a
ni
°
T1
s
z m
>+ x
M O --I Z c.
< U D- D3) v
F
Z cn Z _
N Z Z '9 X J? LEOE
'fl r O Z D ROAD
D D 0 -j 1 o
mzC) z
2z R_
a p
5i >
m v Y 0. O °
> 41
-C z m m D r / m o
C o > z m m -1 00
T`
`' m To
v z o F} z
.
_ ?. ?, m 0
"fu
et c m
U) m
m
mv0
M'REA 6T ±`l rN S.'F ' ""-.qU ?I O
9TH ] :f C z
?k k "r z
foT
I 4 ? ? ?' y , oy .?:? Q
33b.5 w1Y' i O
:33tl:5 ?? 09 m
? ?? 1, ??? ? O d z lXl
2]RD si_9'0.:..1
?- C
o Z \ 26TH ]T. , ?? /C I 1? To-c DR
O
m
FTA
m !/I '3nV h m
z •-•i AaV3Nb4 1
O la ruoc D ruoc o \ D 4? n
W A t
D N
11i '?9 '3nV POIV
JJ 0 r O >,
I = ° ? .i of \`
0 HO 11'11H 0
0
a rZ / ' ?,oeyc _ O
v m co
C) F
m 7J ?1\ /4
N c :?
9 O RORTM KERR AVE, A = z
y , ^
o m m
A m m
5 ?c? N
\ AR ? a c
L
x \
PRING BR4n CM
i
Cl)
D
m (7 'n0 ONN33 Ao
z m n ?y o
z m
m -
vo -rz
r - z O Y
_D y 9 o
m ONS {` F
N v
X
0 0 "GE 8040
T L1`
m :1) D
D a „ n
^ Z 0
Vl O y r- m m-L
O Z v O 7p L y
C:
:mc
8
~ 5: m 0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
WATER QUALITY SECTION
FAX # [phone]
TELECOPY TO:
FAX NUMBER: - 3 J
FROM:__ ? ejEl PHONE:
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THE COVER SHEET:
T?/Cr?.-! ?j-"'`'?< ?jiS Crd-y,?y? 4?J tde ?+? a
O?L
o-w cam . ?G..-?s .
y
TRAHSHISSIOH REPORT
+::}:**1+:;+:x;+:*;+;+::+*,+?:f,*:+:J,: J,
( MAY 25 '93 12s4EPM )
+:;+:;}.,t.;#?h:;+:;k;#?;#?h.;k;+:;f:h,h:;kh:h?h,;+.;kh:kh,h.h.;K%kh?;+.;kh.;kh„+:h"#?;?„+:;t:h.h;?kh;h:h?:+:;f,h;-kh.,t.k.;+.h,h?X.%kh"k;k;{?;{??h.{?;+:;}:;#?>k,h;+;;t:;?,h.h;;k%kh:'X•%k?k;{?h: %kh?h;h:%k-k:k
DATE START REHOTE TERHIHAL RODE TIRE RESULTS TOTAL DEPT. FILE +
TIRE IDEHTIFICATIOH PAGES CODE MO. h,
;+,
+, HAY 25 12:42PM 97339794 G3 ST 03109" O: 05
;+,
v. :+,
}, +,
4 t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
` WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINE RS
w? tr P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
?? r?a 2 6 `a
IN REPLY REFER TO August 11, 1998
? Va????9S?RE
Regulatory Division ,,ZED ..-
ACTION ID. 199603836, TIP U-92A, B Smith Creek Parkway, Wilmington, North Carolina
Mr. William D. Gillmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gillmore:
Reference the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and final Section
4(f) Statement signed March 30, 1998, for the above referenced project. By letters dated
September 4, 1997, and March 11, 1998, we concurred with your selection of the preferred
alternative (identified as the Preferred Design Alternative) and your efforts to further minimize
impacts to waters and wetlands. We are pleased that NCDOT has committed to the construction
of bridge spans over significant areas of tidal freshwater marsh. However, as construction related
impacts may also be significant, we encourage the use of temporary work bridges wherever
practicable during construction of the project.
With the exception of the mitigation proposal found in Section IV, we have no further
comments regarding the FEIS.
If successful, restoration of approximately six acres of swamp forest wetlands at the bridge
maintenance site, replacing McRae Street with an elevated roadway, and the preservation of
28 acres of swamp forest adjacent to Smith Creek should provide for the functional replacement
of adverse impacts to waters and wetlands associated with this project. We applaud your efforts
at identifying a specific mitigation strategy in the FEIS and strongly encourage corresponding
agencies to offer their comments regarding this proposal at this stage of the planning process.
I.. i
-2-
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during this phase of planning for this project. If
you have any questions regarding this correspondence, they should be addressed to me in the
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
1
PROJECT: 8,2250102
A T
° m
m = "?
O
p Z 22 .{ N H
r N O

v N
O

1
w
:c
<-?v
o
o
a°
II II II II
II
II x
v 00 w

O w w ,o J,

.o
N
o
b
a
° a

W c

O
ae '

n

b
a a

y

O
y
?
a

c?

0 a
N

N ,
00
1.4 +• a
o °b
oo00
N
? y
00
N
? N
C)
ti
a
}

J'
'a
csx
\ R ' -
Ul
NI)12
39?`
`
0
h7 cAS;,4,F
RD
LUd?n.?l
GI c

I(4
b
s? ?z
jlr a?
O?y y O
--Il y
?11„y"11
ox
r
??bb
Nt?ia?
? 00 M
ti
00
w '? N
0
.0?0 N
U-0092B
C-3
\?! 6+~ OF
f p
5
n
z_
'b O
R1 O
p
b ?' C o
cl y x
V? O
C0
nC
Izz
V
?h n
b ?
47 ? y
rn?
V? pi

i
mn
k
to
c?
Z ?
z
? x
p o
o ?
Eo
T Z N
N _
0 N ? Z

00
N
N
?
^
\ I 4
q
w

O
2 1

i

00

a
N ?
N
ul
O
i O
N
i

?F

PROJECToo 8o2250101
X
O
T mm
m. = S
m 22 Z n
CO)
N D O

l
v o 1 til
< -i v < o o

CO
0 10 b
c w 'o a
°
°
°
ae e° R
o
0 a
w

Z
O

O
?
0

00
00

N
N
0

o a? b

10
o
10
q
y
? t7

"MJJ
?
b C
c?
y
nn rr

M __
vJ

b b ?
O

n
y

? ?
?
te
'
a
F?
a y

t,211?
w cm Q?
N • (n
?24
c N ??
w
o n
N ?p
w o ?
Y
y
?a
?y
O O ttf
o n
a
oy
?b
za °b
y ?
Y

I I </ -
yy /
$
U-0092A
C
n
_z
? o u N r r • ?? Y??
I r I
7
?z
4 ? QO
?A
?? 16 0 ? 1
Q F 6?
P ? r
? _ £r.?N lJr 5-?
IzfSR ?
1 I
?^ I
-? Z
u r?
li
rli
r ~ 4l y /
rn?
h
? V
W
go
W v N it1
o?
at?j0
y?
e? Sn ? n
y
?z ar ;e, go
aY Ate ? N
av
9? 3 N O

-7, C ?L
,
"d4l

t-I
b O
It O
p ?
a
'y
CSC
CO)
?j
W
Vh y
b
ti
9

i
v .?
? n
cow
`a rol
C Y) 1-4
O N m
?yz
A N
m 0 .? i
zZ
N
m Z
0 _
m

00
ou
w n
N
N IJ
N N
N
Ul CA LA
0 0 0
w in o i
0 a
IV ?

z z

w
N w
N N i ?
i
N O ?

Re
Pe m N d?
S c
r r