19970120 Ver 1_Complete File_19970220

z. .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF EN
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 284. ?t
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
November 24, 1999
?E.
zv
I J, e,
Action ID No. 199901657 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions),
TIP B-3011.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning Development and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letter dated July 30, 1999 describing the North Carolina Department of
Transportation proposal to replace Bridge No. 11 on NC 11INC 53 over Moore's Creek, Pender
County, North Carolina. According to your letter, the existing 121' span will be replaced at the
same location with a new bridge span 159' in length. Based on right-of-way width, permanent
impacts to wetlands will be 0.33 acres. Traffic will be maintained with an on-site detour,
constructed south of the existing bridge, while the existing bridge is replaced. Wetland impacts
associated with the on-site detour consist of 1.48 acres of fill in wetlands and 0.31 acres of
mechanized land clearing. Work associated with the proposed on-site detour shall be
accomplished in accordance with the special conditions below:
Special Condition A. Compensatory mitigation for the 1.48 acres of wetland impacts
associated with the onsite detour shall be performed as described in the letter from NCDOT
dated July 30, 1999 and as detailed in the mitigation plan, submitted and approved by the
District Engineer prior to the commencement of construction on TIP project B-3011.
Special Condition B. No more than 30 days following completion of the TIP project B-
3011, the on-site detour and associated fill, including all rip-rap, shall be removed in their
entirety, and the disturbed area shall be re-graded to its original elevation. The on-site detour
area shall be replanted with vegetation at 320 stems per acre using native species in accordance
with the approved mitigation plan required under Special Condition A above.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the "December 13, 1996
Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits
(61 FR 65874)" listed nationwide permits. Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided by Nationwide
Permit 23 for activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole
or in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has
determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation for the
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part
1500 et seq.), that the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the Office of the Chief of
Engineers (ATTN: CECW-OR) has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and, in the coastal
area, a consistency determination from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM). You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water
quality certification, and Mr. Steve Benton, telephone [phone], regarding consistency
determination. This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other
required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued or revoked.
It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits, which will be
announced by public notice when they occur. If you commence, or are under contract to
commence, this activity before the date the nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will
have twelve months from the date of the modification or revocation to complete the activity
under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
We have evaluated potential impacts of your activity, and we have determined that your
proposal will not likely have an adverse affect on any endangered species.
When you have completed your work and any required mitigation, please sign and return
the enclosed certification form. Should you have any questions please contact Mr. David Timpy,
Wilmington Field Office, at [phone].
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Special Projects Manager
2
j w
Enclosures `
Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. John Dorney V
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Nat. Res.
Water Quality Division
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
M. Randall Turner, Division Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 3
124 Division Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Mrs. Cathy Brittingham
Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Mr. David Cox
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
11421-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
3

PATE
TO:

E?=? c aao
G REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG..

M
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE. AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?-NOTE AND RETURN TO me PER YOUR REQUEST -
' ? RETURN WITH MORE 'DETAILS ? F R YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME.A13OUT THIS OR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER
- /
.'IL?J FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE _Q SIGNATURE
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?. INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP

..
d„a STA1[v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
July 5, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR -Water Quality Lab
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
REc&VEp
jut 121995
FNV/RC/VooNrq 41C/FNCFS
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacment of Bridge
No. 11 on NC 11-53 over Moore's Creek, Pender County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-11(3), State Project No.
8.1270801, TIP No. B-3011
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for August 2, 1995 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Wayne Fedora, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
HFV/tp
Attachment
r Ad ?V*

??

Moves ? K
192
?? gym' S+? r1PA'+' ?'/
.?c eiy? ?L2U CW'?!Uf ?"
G
2011 r
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3011 DIVISION: THREE
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-11(3) COUNTY: PENDER
STATE PROJECT: 8.1270801 ROUTE: NC 11-53
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No.ll on NC 11-53 over Moore's
Creek in Pender County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Costin
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................. $ 425,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ............................. $ 40,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................. $
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 465,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ............... $ ,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)...... $ ,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE ....................... $ ,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) ,(°s)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 2700 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 4900 VPD
TTST 2% DV 5%
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: -METER (-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS METER ( . -FOOT) GRADED
SHOULDERS (,. -METER/ . -FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 36.9 Meters WIDTH 8.5 Meters
121.0 Feet 28.0 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: Steel Bridge: meters ( feet) long
meters ( feet) wide
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 06/21/95
's \ ,2
White 1209
Oak Creek >
1 zoo -?- \ 1209 - 8 - 3011
PENDER COUNTY J
1206 r i
q 11
Costin
1 LL
07
1207
1206 1128
C
1228 121207 Piney Wood
1216 4.1
i
2 qp of
a
1206 U
1219 o
n
2.5
1121 i 1 Words FPS
1221 ATKINSON Comer
d POP. 298 1128 b
.:? 1218 FAS 7.3 ?_. .2 ?t? FPS 7 ?
3 S
1220 1•
'1'129 2.0 53 1403
?O Murp.hYs J ?.
?'•?::` :;s? 1122
Crossroads v
1128 1134
h \\ a
1126
129-0 tvy ?7_
X 421
s m 1131
?O
1128 Yamacrow 1 1120
1126 Q t; 2• .0
1 123
12 5
o r\ r `? 1_? n
Roo-
CO ks 1124 1125 \k
1126 1125 1.0
C? 1100 v ?
C'' S o 1121 1118
s b
1128 s. `0 1136 1119`
1118
1120
C,P .3 1127 --
1119
cv 210
l
110 1 100 s, 1 1.2115 b 111.8 'A
1 \
Point 1119 `q
?RCaswell Denn b 7
` Ys ? Currie
BLA cK 41
j Q 210
1101 i
1102 MObRES CREE
NATIONAL Montague
' ---- ••r _ __ - ;?J'rl -_---- (BATTLEFIELD
em -\ Cem
%' -- ? - - Cem •? -- ,
a8 -
Cem
?' ? ? o ?- _ 1 / ?;? ? ?.? Cem - • ?' ?, '•?•" ? • ?/'''\??
tolL.
r ry ran
R>o
Substa,,
-J I l-"' ?? = 5 Wa
59
Cem•
--tYest Pender -- 55 -
_7 s'h
Cem
1tzz
i . _Sandplt- --
\\
i
-------------
Radio I `I J '? o A
"Tower-
/.Gems.
??: Cem j /•' ! ii _.. ?" _

,o w STATE o
a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1997 13 1 to
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office '
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington. NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief. Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Pender County. Replacement of Bridge No. 11 over Moores Creek on
NCI 1/NC53. TIP No. B-3011. State Project No. 8.1270801. Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-11(3).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
`'Categorical Exclusion' in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13. 1996.
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 27&-ate orical
Exclusion) will apply to this project. and are providing a copy of t ument to the
N orth Carolina Department of Environment. Health and Natural R Division of
Water Quality, for their review.
0
. 2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,
1 /u
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Philip Harris, P.E., Planning & Environmental

0

r

r
NC 11/ NC 53
Pender County
Bridge No. 11 over Moores Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-11(3)
State Project No. 8.1270801
T.I.P. No. B-3011
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
6
All 1/0
DA
'-i?
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
l r' z ??'
DATE
70

1
1
r

u

NC 11/ NC 53
Pender County
Bridge No. 11 over Moores Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-11(3)
State Project No. 8.1270801
T.I.P. No. B-3011
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996

1

Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
?In? .Ca??r?
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
o n
? Y 1? u lSJ
0 0
o ? ? o
o °
9N
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
( k? a,,,- "
L. e Jeering E., Unit Head
Cons tant En Unit
Philip S. arris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

NC 11/ NC 53
Pender County
Bridge No. 11 over Moores Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-11(3)
State Project No. 8.1270801
T.I.P. No. B-3011
Bridge No. 11 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
' classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
design stages.
3. The temporary, on-site detour bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction
contour and revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 11 will be replaced in its existing location with a bridge. During construction traffic will
be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located south of the existing bridge.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $1,152,000 . The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $465,000 including
$40,000 for right-of-way and $425,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
' NC 11 / NC 53 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System The proposed project is located in rural Pender County, approximately 17.7 kilometers (11
mi) west of Burgaw (Figure 1). Land use in this region is primarily forest land, rural residential and
silvicultural; pasture land and hog production are also in evidence. The immediate vicinity of the
bridge and its approaches are in the wooded floodplain of Moores Creek.

Near the bridge, NC 11/ NC 53 has a 6.6 meter (22 ft) pavement width with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders. The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent.
The roadway is situated approximately 3.3 meters (11 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 2700 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 4900 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include 2% truck-tractor semi trader (TTST) and 5% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The speed limit is posted at 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1955 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of six steel I-girder
spans. Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber
caps.
The overall length ofthe bridge is 36.9 meters (121 ft). Clear roadway width is 7.9 meters (25.8 ft).
The posted weight limit is 29,030.4 kilograms (32 tons) for single vehicles and 29,030.4 kilograms
(32 tons) for tractor trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 11 has a sufficiency rating of 24.3, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from June 1, 1992 to May
31, 1995.
Telephone and electric lines cross the stream north of the bridge. There are no utilities attached to
the bridge.
School buses cross the bridge a total of ten times daily. The Pender County School Transportation
Director indicated that an off-site detour would cause problems in rerouting of school bus traffic.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alignments were considered for replacing the bridge in its existing location. Utilizing the existing
roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment would result in
excessive cost and undesirable horizontal alignment. Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 4.26:1, an ofd
site detour is not reasonable (see Section VII). Temporary, on-site detours were considered north
(Temporary Detour 1) and south (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. Traffic would be
maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located south (Temporary Detour 2) of the existing
bridge because this detour would avoid additional relocation of utilities associated with Temporary
Detour 1.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 11/NC 53.
2

Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
I The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follow:

11
11

1

Alternate A
with on-site
detour
(Recommended) Alternate A
with off-site
detour
Structure Removal $20,697.60 $20,697.60
Structure $270,480.00 $270,480.00
Roadway Approaches $155,822.40 $155,822.40
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $140,000.00 $140,000.00
Engineering and Contingencies $88,000.00 $88,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $24,750.00 $24,750.00
SUBTOTAL $699,750.00 $699,750.00
Temporary On-Site Detour No. 2 $452,250.00 NA
TOTAL T$1,152,000.00 $699,750.00
VI. RECOMMENDED HVIPROVEMENTS

0

Bridge No.l l will be replaced on its existing location with a new structure approximately 42 meters
(138 ft) in length having a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary on each end of the bridge. During construction traffic will be maintained
with a temporary, on-site detour south of the existing bridge (Temporary Detour 2). An off -site
detour is not reasonable at this location due to its length of 10.7 kilometers (6.6 mi) of indirectional
travel and the volume of traffic using NC 11 /NC 53 (2700 vpd in 1995 and 4000 vpd projected for
2020). The Pender County School Transportation Director also indicated that an off-site detour
would cause problems in rerouting of ten daily school bus trips.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.

VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 2700 vpd and
an average of 10.7 kilometers (6.6 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing SR 1221, US 421/NC 11, SR
1216, and SR 1128 (See Figure 1). The cost of additional travel would be approximately $1,925,000
during the twelve month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is
$452,250 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 4.26:1. This ratio indicates justification to maintain
traffic on-site during the construction period.
Methods
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping (Costin
and Atkinson, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils mapping (USDA
1990), and 1994 aerial photography (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
issues.
The site was visited on April 16, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the existing
alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and temporary
construction easements. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected
species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Moores Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats
used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
4

undertaken to support existing data.
A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Pender County was
obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NB P records documenting presence
of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the lower Coastal Plain physiographic province. This portion of the
Coastal Plain is underlain by the Peedee Formation, which is Cretaceous in age. The Peedee
formation is composed of sand, clayey sand, and clay, and characterized as greenish gray to olive
black, massive, glauconitic, and locally fossiliferous and calcareous (DNRCD 1985). Topography
is characterized by nearly level relief with short slopes along drainages (USDA 1990). Elevations in
the study corridor range from approximately 6 meters (20 ft) above sea level along the creek to
approximately 8.5 meters (28 ft) along the roadbed (USGS Costin, NC quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by the Muckalee loam series (Typic Fluvaquents). This
hydric series is characterized by poorly drained, nearly level (0 to 2 percent slopes) soils found in
floodplains and is frequently flooded for brief periods (USDA 1990). The roadbed at the western
terminus of the study corridor is underlain by a minor finger of the nonhydric series Autryville fine
sand (Aquic Hapludults). This series is characterized by well drained soils, with 1 to 4 percent slopes
located near drainageways. Most of the rest of the roadbed in the study corridor is elevated above
the floodplain on fill material. The road shoulders consist of a well-drained sandy surface layer.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within the Black River Subbasin (USGS hydrologic unit 03030006) of
the Cape Fear River Basin. Bridge No.l 1 crosses Moores Creek approximately 14.5 kilometers (9
mi) above the confluence with the Black River. The Black River continues downstream from the
conf luence with Moores Creek in a southeastward direction for approximately 16 kilometers (10 mi)
before entering the Cape Fear River. Moores Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 18-68-
18 by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C Sw has been assigned to Moores Creek from the source to the confluence with the
Black River (DEM 1993). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. The Sw
5

designation is used for swamp waters characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen
levels, and high organic content.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I, or WS H waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 m) ofthe study corridor. Moores Creek is not designated as a North
Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild and Scenic River. There
are no permitted point source dischargers within or upstream from the study corridor (DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macromvertebrates (DEM 1989).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There are no
BMAN sampling stations in the Moores Creek drainage. A special study site (No.77) is located in
the headwaters of White Oak Branch, a tributary draining into Moores Creek approximately 8
kilometers (5 mi) upstream from the study corridor. Special study site No.77 was sampled in 1987,
however, no bioclassification rating was assigned to this site (DEM 1989).
Stream Characteristics
Moores Creek is a third order stream that originates in northwestern Pender County. At the existing
bridge, the creek flows around a small, vegetated island that is approximately 6.1 meters (20 ft) in
width and 24.4 meters (80 ft) in length. Evidence of extensive overbank flooding is prevalent within
this forested swamp system At the existing bridge, the main channel is approximately 18.3 meters
(60 ft) wide, and the side channel is approximately 3.0 meters (10 ft) wide. The existing bridge spans
both channels. Immediately upstream and downstream from the bridge, the creek narrows to
approximately 6.1 meters (20 ft). On the day of the site visit, stream depth was approximately 0.9
meters (3 ft) and flow was slight. The stream bed consists primarily of silt, and a large amount of
organic debris (i.e., stumps, trees, branches, leaves) was apparent within the stream.
Anticipated--Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during construction.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. Bridge replacement will maintain continued flow and protect stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. One community, identified
as coastal plain small stream swamp, appears little modified from its natural state (Schafale and
6

1

1

1

1
Weakley 1990). The other three communities, identified as wet successional, wet pine plantation, and
upland urban/disturbed, result from some level of disturbance. The plant communities are described
below.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
The blackwater subtype of this forested community is present within much of the floodplain of
Moores Creek within the study corridor. The canopy is dominated by bald-cypress (Taxodium
distichum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa bif fora), red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) is present as
an epiphyte of canopy trees. Snags are numerous throughout this community. A shrub layer is fairly
well developed and dominated by young swamp tupelo and red maple, with greenbriers (Smilax spp.)
present. The herb layer is patchy, with cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and netted chain-fern
(Woodvwrdia areolata) prevalent. Submerged aquatics, including pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.)
are present within the shallow open waters at the bridge.
Wet Successional Land
This community classification includes cleared and early successional areas located within the
floodplain. These wet areas include the utility line clearing adjacent to the existing alignment and the
low section of a shrubby field located northwest of the existing bridge. The utility line clearing is
dominated by shrub stages of species such as river birch (Betula nigra) and red maple, with dense
herbaceous growth including smartweed (Polygonum spp.), rushes (Juncos sp.), sedges (Carex spp.),
and netted chain fern. The shrubby field is located on the edge of the floodplain terrace and is
dominated by groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera). Rushes are abundant, with marsh seedbox (Ludwigia palustris) present within wet
pools and ruts.
Wet Pine Plantation
A portion of a silvicultural stand of loblolly pine extends into the floodplain southwest of the existing
bridge. Pines are approximately 4.6 to 7.6 meters (15 to 25 ft) in height, and 10 to 15 centimeters
(4 to 6 inches) diameter at breast height (dbh). A diverse shrub layer is developing within the stand
and includes wax myrtle, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida), sweet
pepper-bush (Clethra alnifolia), and red maple, with prominent greenbriers.
Upland Urban/Disturbed Land
This community classification incorporates the disturbed and maintained upland areas occurring along
the road and shoulder within the study corridor. Much of the road within the study corridor is
located on fill placed in the floodplain, but a portion along the western terminus appears to have been
located on a natural upland ridge consisting of well-drained Autryville fine sand soils. Weedy grasses
and forbs dominate the road shoulders. Routine mowing maintains the vegetation at a short
herbaceous stage.
7
I

Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. Construction of the
proposed alignment and temporary detour is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to
the plant communities in the study corridor. A summary of plant community impacts which could
result from construction activities is presented below.
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
Small Stream Swamp 0.17 (0.42) 0.14 (0.36) 0.20 (0.50) '
Wet Successional Land 0.17 (0.41) 0.08 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00)
Wet Pine Plantation 0.03 (0.08) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.10)
Upland Urban/Disturbed Land 0.25 (0.63) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 0.62(l.54) 0.22 (0.55) 0.24 (0.60)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of Alternative A will total 0.62 hectares (1.54 ac). These
impacts are restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
approach segments.
The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads: Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit a minor variation in
potential impacts to the natural community types identified within the study corridor. Temporary
Detour 1 will impact approximately 0.14 hectare (0.36 ac) of small stream swamp immediately north
of the existing road corridor. Temporary Detour 2 will impact approximately 0.20 hectare (0.50 ac)
of the small stream swamp community immediately south of the existing road. Upon completion of
the bridge replacement, fill associated with the temporary detour will be removed and the area will
be restored.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor is forested or in early successional stages. The contiguity of forest cover
within most of the Moores Creek floodplain provides suitable nesting, foraging, and travel
opportunities for many forms of wildlife, especially forest interior and area-sensitive bottomland
forest species.

Mammals expected within the study corridor include game and furbearer species such as white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), bobcat (Felis ruf is),
and marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris). Nongame species expected within this area include
' southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), cotton
mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli).
Several species of birds were observed within the study corridor during the site visit, including many
typical bottomland species. Species observed include wood duck (Aix sponsa), prothonotary warbler
(Protonotaria citrea), northern parula (Parula amerccana), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and American crow (Corvus
americans). Other species expected within the study corridor communities include species such as
barred owl (Strix varia) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Aquatic
' Moores Creek may contain limited recreational fisheries for redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), chain
pickerel (Esox niger), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) (Fish
1968). Additional nongame fish populations expected to inhabit the stream/swamp system include
species such as golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus),
eastern mud minnow (Umbra pygmaea), mud sunfish (Acantharchus pomotis) and swamp darter
(Etheostoma f isiforme). Stream bank surveys did not yield shell fragments which could indicate
freshwater mussel presence at the bridge site.
Semi permanently inundated back-water areas and ephemeral pools in the floodplain provide suitable
habitat for a wide array of semi aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), several frog species (Rana
spp.), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and redbelly watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife -
Duet the limit extent of infringement on natural communities, proposed to limited bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimize potential down stream impacts to
aquatic habitat by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts
to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimised by the
implementation of the NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
I SPECIAL TOPICS

Waters of the United States

Surface waters within the embankments of Moores Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Due to frequent and prolonged
overflow of the creek into the swamp system, this surface water area has been included within the
9

small stream swamp.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands occur within the floodplain associated
with Moores Creek. Three wetland types have been identified within the study corridor: small stream
swamp, wet successional areas, and wet pine plantation.
The small stream swamp exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, deciduous, semi-permanently
to seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO6F/C), grading up to palustrine forested, deciduous, temporarily
flooded wetlands (PF06A) along the floodplain terrace. Due to the interspersion of the narrow zones
occupied by these variations, these variations are treated together (PF06) in the impacts analysis.
The wet successional community found in the utility line clearing and low wet field exhibit
characteristics of both palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub persistent, seasonally flooded wetlands
(PEM/SS1C). The wet pine plantation exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, needle-leaved
evergreen, seasonally flooded and saturated wetlands (PFO4CB). The following table summarizes
wetland impacts which could result from the bridge replacement and temporary detours.
Table 2. Estimated wetland impacts.
WETLAND TYPE ESTIMATED IMPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
PFO6
PEM/SS 1 C
0.17 (0.42)
0.17 (0.41)
0.14 (0.36)
0.08 (0.19)
0.20 (0.50)
0.00 (0.00)
PF04CB 0.03 (0.08) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.10)
TOTAL: 0.37 (0.91) 0.22 (0.55) 0.24 (0.60)
Impacts to wetlands as a result of Alternative A will total 0.37 hectare (0.91 ac). These impacts are
restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments. Less than one-half of these potential impacts occur in relatively undisturbed wetlands
(PF06). Bridging Moores Creek will minimise impacts to surface waters.
Temporary on site detour alternatives would each impact nearly the same amount of wetlands, but
exhibit a minor variation in the distribution of impacts among the wetland types present. Temporary
Detour 1 will impact less of the relatively undisturbed wetland type PF06 than Temporary Detour
2. Impacts to wetland communities as a result of either detour alternative are temporary. Upon
completion of the bridge replacement, fill associated with the temporary detour will be removed and
the area will be restored.
10
Permits

1

t
1

Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:
(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny
water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into
waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of
a CAMA or Section 404 Permit. This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification
from the DEM prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit.
Encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters as a result of project construction is
inevitable. The proposed project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA), which is administered by the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM). The DCM is the lead permitting agency for projects located within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) in which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage
to property, public health, and the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if the project
meets all of the following conditions:
• it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
• it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC;
• it is considered "development" under the terms of the ACT, and;
• it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the ACT or by CRC.
11

No AEC's will be impacted by the proposed project; therefore, a CAMA major development permit
will not be required.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1.6
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Pender County (August
23, 1996 USFWS list):
Manatee (Trichechus manatus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) - T
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) -T(S/A)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - E
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) - T
Manatee - The manatee is a large aquatic mammal that may wander from Florida during summer
to as far north as coastal Virginia (USFWS 1993a). A vagrant manatee was recently sighted (July
1994) in the Cape Fear River at the south end of the Wilmington port facility (NHP records). NHP
files indicate that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study
corridor.
This project is not expected to affect manatee due to the small size of Moores Creek and the lack of
suitable aquatic vegetation for foraging. Vagrant manatees visiting the Cape Fear River system would
not be expected within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open
pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). The nearest NHP record
for this species is from approximately 9.2 kilometers (5.7 miles) west of the bridge.
12

This project is not expected to affect RCWs due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) and foraging habitat (stand-sized
1 pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 30 years) within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Piping plover - These small shorebirds occur along beaches above the high tide line, sand flats at the
ends of spits and barrier islands, gently sloping foredunes, blowout areas behind primary dunes, and
washover areas cut into or between dunes (Dyer et al. 1987). Nests are most often on open, wide
sandy stretches of beach associated with inlets and capes. NHP files indicate that this species has not
been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
This project will not affect pipmg plovers because the study corridor is not located on a barrier beach
or inlet. There is no potential habitat in the study corridor for this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Loggerhead sea turtle - This marine species utilizes barrier beaches for nesting, and occasionally
feed in estuarine waters. This species is not expected to occur in Moores Creek. NHP files indicate
that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
This project will not have an effect on sea turtles due to the lack of suitable nesting and foraging
habitat for these species. Because the study corridor is located on a freshwater creek, no sea turtles
would reasonably be expected to occur within the vicinity.
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance
to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North Carolina.
American alligators can be found in freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including swamp forests,
marshes, large streams and canals, and ponds and lakes. NHP files indicate that this species has not
been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the study corridor. Construction activities may
temporarily displace any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to
American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Shortnose sturgeon - The shortnose sturgeon is a bottom-feeding fish that occurs in Atlantic
seaboard rivers from the St. Johns River, Florida to eastern Canada. The sturgeon is anadromous,
spending most of the year in brackish estuarine environments and moving into freshwater only when
spawning (Gilbert 1989). NHP files indicate that this species has not been documented within 3.2
kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
Moores Creek is a shallow, third order stream in the Black River subbasm of the Cape Fear River
basin. The shortnose sturgeon has been documented to use the lower Cape Fear River basin, although
it has not been documented to utilize the Black River. Habitat for adult shortnose sturgeon is deep
13

areas of coastal rivers and estuaries with soft, vegetated substrates. Spawning sites are freshwater
swamps, or freshwater areas with fast flow and rough bottoms that are associated with main-stem
rivers, or major tributaries. The waters of Moores Creek do not provide suitable habitat for foraging
or spawning. The use of NCDOT's Best Man wnent Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will
eliminate the degradation of any potential habitat downstream of the bridge crossing. It can be
concluded that project construction will have no impact on the shortnose sturgeon.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American chaffseed - This is a perennial, root-parasitic herb (Kral 1983) that occurs in grass/sedge
assemblages with moist acidic sandy or sandy peat loans. These assemblages typically exist in moist
pine flatwoods, savannas, bog borders, and open oak forests. NHP files indicate that this species has
not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect American chaffseed because typical habitat is not present within
the study corridor. The road side margins within the study corridor are regularly maintained and
generally well-drained and do not provide habitat for American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Cooley's meadowrue - Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous, perennial herb that is endemic to the
Southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain, and is thought to survive only at 11 sites in North Carolina and one
site in Florida (USFWS 1994a). Cooley's meadowrue historically occurred in bogs and savannas
where frequent fires maintained the habitat at early secondary-successional stages. Cooley's
meadowrue occurs in circumneutral soils subject to saturation but not inundation (USFWS 1994a).
Cooley's meadowrue is now found along utility corridors, roadside margins, and other savanna-like
maintained habitats containing suitable hydrology and circumneutral soils. This species has not been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor (NHP records).
This project is not expected to affect Cooley's meadowrue because the inundated nature of much of
the utility corridor within the study corridor appears to limit the suitability of this potential habitat for
Cooley's meadowrue.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved loosestrife - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that typically
occurs along the ecotone between long-leaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where lack of
canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer (USFWS 1994b). NHP files indicate
that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect rough leaved loosestrife becausesuitable habitat is not present
within the study corridor. The roadside margins within the study corridor are regularly maintained
and generally well-drained and do not provide habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Seabeach amaranth - This species is an annual herb that grows on barrier island beaches. Primary
habitat for seabeach amaranth consists of bare sand, especially on overwash flats at accreting ends
14

of islands, and lower foredunes and upper strands of non eroding beaches (USFWS 1993b). NHP
files indicate that this species has not been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study
corridor.
' This project will not affect seabeach amaranth because there is no suitable habitat (barrier beaches
within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Pender County:
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus ( Plecotus) rafinesquii N
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius N
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis N
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Y
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus N
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito N
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Y
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Y
Croatan crayfish
Buchholz's dart moth Procambarus plumimanus
4grotis buchholzi Y
N
Carter's spartinophaga Spartinophaga carterae N
Venus flytrap cutworm moth
Carolina asphodel Hemipachnobia subporphyrea subporphyrea N
Tofieldia glabra N
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana Y
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra N
' Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana N
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var. pusillum N
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii N
Pineland plantain Plantago sparsiflora N
Sandhills milkvetch Atragalus michauxii N
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata N
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna N
Thorne's beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei N
' Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula N
White-wicky Kalmia cuneata N
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T)
rotection under the North Carolina Endan
ered S
ecies
or S
i
n
rn (SC) receive limited
l C
e
,
p
c
a
o
ce p g
p

15

Act (G. S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-202 et
seq.).
NHP records indicate that the state-endangered and FSC spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago
vema) has been documented approximately 1.0 kilometers (0.6 mile) east of the proposed project.
This species is typically found in savannas, pocosins, and pine flatwoods (Radford 1968). There is
no habitat for this species within the study corridor.
No other state-listed species have been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study
corridor.
IX. CULTURAL, RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No. 11, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion' due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
16

The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge in its existing location, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during demolition but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Pender County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program The bridge is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as well as the
100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated that
this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor on the
associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
17

REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS - 79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp.
Dyer, R.W., A. Hecht, C. Raithel, K. Terwilliger, and S. Melvin. 1987. Draft Atlantic Coast
Piping Plover Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5.
72 pp.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Threatened Status for the Dismal Swamp Southeastern Shrew. Federal Register
51(18): 34422-34425.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). In:
Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeastern Region, Atlanta, GA. 4 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994a. Cooley's Meadowrue Recovery Plan. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 29 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994b. Agency Draft Rough leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
18
C'

Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Kral, R 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants
ofthe South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305
PP.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia.. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
I

1

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 150 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
19

11

n

w
-<{. :,? ;.s 1 ".. "\R 'ri,:,.. y ,t- a' 4; s , .a 4A. ,+',• -'A ., F t. ? 91. 7 a., -1, ti ? 1. y `4? -?r tk , i _x eihr <T-. . - / ?. J?i'.' A ' S; y r h' «vt a ! . d
• 't t 'y Q: ry, y y- y" try -
;:t-
. At' . '.;?. } i'i ,a
..?#' r7 `l.- 't ,? ' .;:Y „'j, y„u . {. ° fa{.... ) "'
r.
,?- : a- r. .... ..,. < 4 . r. %A• A4 1.,< . .f. '4 - :?°, h'• `"M.
,
p ki g'd?„ '." C i...,A al , , .:F..: ,?. . ;:.:y 1. - .>„ .Y. - •A
Y. ke.
1.
i?m :?I ,
?'
' d. Re.,, f:?r , #, : - 1• <r) e. '$..f '•' _ * 4 _ 'Ys. S ::' 3. ;
y ., -k,. .,? ,y,X : : ' :. :,::; ,•: -; l°v. "I A?1' '4r L •t YiI , or, ?'S11 , t
S ;? ,.."
: '., "j.,.!,f '. F^r.? M'••, fl? l{a ,a wv, ? f. , ?.. l a x
:ti 3' ;k 'h ?,.
-?l • .i •yJ Y s: s '.-.. iv j k.:1 't '. r. , , - t ?
k- 4 ;Ya r.f'., : f',. . J
" C,
d ! ,.{, y' ! k.,G..''I.4'+. °FJ a `., T S,#? +•'tf""i Rr t'?'. ' 1,,E'?." ,'
..
4#1*
i. F?` t t Jet 4th
? , ' c ?':g..:
y.ak ,. ,"a• :.g"d '?'. ?., >t;`'!, + °9 }' a "t7' „Ia ,t' t •Yk: Y'!` -
A t:4Ji x. 'cy :,.",., 'w Y^r, ,"Y+., 1`4'' . - l 'w't:'. ?K'4, :i +t,.F.. k.: .-I'm i:4-•:. :+ Y " -. v:...r ?'+ . -_ , .; d':'!." "Pk .'A ..b' 4 ..1•_ ,. ''q, bS 3p{,
yy r
Q. ., .. ?SYi •;? :. ., .-. ,_^' ':"r. ,k ... .: ,: '- .i+,< '. " YS vy .'.% ,\N vl'$?. ! F 'b'_-
3?k[, 3 -ky 'f S.".,,1 il.>•?Ip ?(t " I ?" fl ,. p. ', }1"yyy
S4F16 WYI>N _ii.. :v.• '? R^ .,.:;..: *y., ,.,',y'5,., -7 Y,...:; ' .1 e - N4 -F?y+"'p, r` .,4..
. ,.)J,' •i .dl , y .!a?11 rl
M r,. [ -..M, .1, :f ,r.
f 7e, tl" ?-?
... !t - ,pS
a w Y? ,. ?y.. kY 'Q: M'} ' {'T .r ? , 41 -
W• w yiy Y ."a`p ,*l.: '?t, b •Tr. r ;"a# C ^ t' y,° J - -n .' '. M. N I, t !
,? - :
• .,
th - _ • .: _ :.:. ..",`e ; ;vt r F a-. .Sb.,:r-. -1it, !: '"yr k tt
yy ,.
..y,
:
e .?,. l+?. 1 ' e3 - : ' "f"„ • rr r' yb.. My .l ?. 'f' , . ,`.: ±I"1` 1 . 11
?.g :ti
}'. ' a'.. -<. .,. Y, 4.;. ,; r"4w «,, . , - :"4y 4 '. „? u ?? . JSf S . 'AI... , r a • q. I 4. ,k +'. -1 ..t 4, 'k€A'.. + :. ?:, ate" ,s'L..4' ,I."' vey f : F ':v ?,k.;, '? :de..; ;7. a lok
$' .n. -,, al :?T' Y ''? . ; x." Ie#? :`i f< :. * %r n I ?,,? sy l _e
+py
'•C:'..:Y t7,1Y s?ti 5+. „`4Yi !', "![ 7 .,.. 4, ,Yb 4 t :1 S Yy I `< F. -*.
• 'a•. •'M`? a 'i 7.i° ., a.:F .111 J A k 1•'. Y d !
k4" ,• L: ? '' ,_`+•F" < : '... ,,. 'i k.,. ,UY: .: 14+ ,gt?e ` ?rt ,i?' > `,Clr .•4` y,`. 10 k e - 4
•'. ?I
-
}
.
C
.. -,, ? is I' yV '•' ? . J , r :.,r d a Lr. ; R N . . •RF,. w,, .-A. h
1"y . i' a ' rd t, r. , , , I - 4 ? -. . M
b
.'R., +' , e v '
1_ I
y aj y x . at s .
? If w - ,4 . l' ,?- .
,4 4: 1, '+ C.. 3 I fry
.. .I.;_' ' ' `?",..' ' .9:. i7 ±$....:. v44 ! ? ?, 1 ? -, , " I . *?, . + ncr& .*„-b. t.' dy,.x r ,i a.. a?`?S,4?'•;Im?
_. 11
(' yl __ - ?:-" ? * " k'L' - t ?? . ?-?,! 1?' - , , t1n,%-*4 , ,'E5 . t,;' ... , l , ,?W Y ."`,;,J4 H # vY ?.y `-d? ,;;A? ,I , wr. +?, ,.4 . i ' , C, '++" It , ;. ,"! ?lyb - •a m
I ..
s in ""i y '':RC+r A,+ -: ' 1 tCM ` ' }r r it Y, t?i . ;6t }, * ! qi ' ".'[ 3 : r ,y .? '?e '?'..+`.. lil y ih 'sa
aa - ,,41x..}2e k - • .9-h .'r `. ?•. e..? 'w. ?.i.,Y"'..J r? ?' v - 7r ?iR.' 'VT,.,p,,(' a,Pa ; t„ `? tS 1'
J. `,', °`t?r ' Xx •#? .p, :! a,; c,t 4r ~ u ,n+} . : p. "Fx ?`o+,
a =L `rC+' 'f'S ,. k` . t .. s .TF'' a- . s a. , + Y i
Y I •P' . 'S Y- E.
11 , , y,,
4
q .a'
`r Y.y„ e ?A ! at; ,R a'. #! ° -. N, -{,"`!y`., ^',t",rky ,?; ..f
r ` r, # '.r`z` . `?, l 4? , t.. ,?Ir`t. .&.. J 4 , . !
'C ' ,L. ';.r f F'. ,s.. N` v - {.• i:.: ,"' 'r,•."..,.I i ; 114?
?a 1 ti,,;1 ?r e? : N a 7s n; + ?3?V
3 r, J'? c. J;" ' _ '. ti r -? k Y? :, i n,. t ? 111 _ ? ,K
x ?.
`'.+tP, ?1. <x ?y.. -zi .,r ;., ti•. ,,, _ • ? . { ."""' :t, . § -?k„rk) r,1, r '?'a i. ? " ,ym , 44-1
v'
a j a .,i ";,' [y a 1 h ??'f a * fin. q ?,i e .? ie`?4? ,qtr r
a:ir` a ,:.dl'S. !"Y;-' nf. tcft" f 3 r• 7 \ .;? 'y?F Y`. t?y`",'., » .,,, •:'?, I?.' S''.'x`'si.'a-,+tti# b44'. 4 ..,f (}*t.
- "I ;r f,t ,.. k 1i,°. "a°-A L: ;. _'"r !r. x 7 .fa.M. q 7 d,,,x a-' 'Y ?r : r
.'k h •' *. iY y7, "ti. , ."t„A• '4'?:' -t':At . .",'r al' ': 1 q`'' r..
1?1 w r y F ytk 9 T 5: 441 M u d f- i t-lk v ? ? 1, ?'"
I ; c7, ?,4--' ". ? - . 4 R' y n+ t? rY (: w ti d t S
: X , ?. S' ?' h+t' 'F.': v. ' ?^ •. f ,t, "p' { r '" , , ?`.! y 5r I" a , 1 ,,,,y ;?k- Fg r
a+?
.. a ._. ..... x.• a .: yr t,' f:-, . 3i ; '!x. , G,tL>a a qtr r •xr. i?,!?. ir
4
N . ;?,. , ,. __ 3. btu i , ,ra .i pq. h
, r
. r " , A. i • , , , . 11 - .: 1 x
,, 4 r
b
_ -
- -- -' I3R1DG aim,-
E 11„
f?? . , , ; !_ _, v A ?i
d a. 5 0 e? 14 Y 6 n
;:-?' .` 4' - '? {. ;' }..:... ,ti , .?i', £:, .'F ,:r,.. ''tfi , ,, wry + :' k' Ar ,
? _ .f,_" 4" 1 1 ? . , _ / 1, __ _
,J{'i,?,•..:.?,. t4.. d,.n4.<:,.r 'fit.,.. _ :a +e ti.:,Ry-.,,. aas,. ?? ... rAw- X,l :r A'e7.,.
'" .
M) W -'?, t
'r ,
?. _
C 11 / NC 53 ®I m?mmd?m®mommmm®mr 111 am ,. m?'mi;tmm?vImmmmm?mm>•mm'mm'm I saI
a
..
. ?? -
s
*$ '' +y 7.
a$
j irk , '} a , _ 1. , r ., a T L
y
?.
'it,
' Y
.r4 ,..4k sJ•,v.,:. Y ,?., .. ..>d .-. tr.1 Gz.,r r,'? S,` rh:`•"+
} ", x. e.. w- r a v: r,.;.. .:d s:t.{ .,° ,.i $q .- 4 1 - T h 4 ,'R
. , - ) ? , - " , t ` - ??i -
'R. *? ? - "'. ", . , - - - ., .. ,., ,. ,.;Lr A, a_ 7 ,.§.?„ !r'.T r?i '` ?,:•,Y, '.? .1'- ,f1,. :q
,- .!¢t .-e f.....
-111
?¢ y
, °. `r ._"
>; - :
' i D'di f AM 7 °: 'd.
e Y :
- T'a -
vl T f
4 >y?,?? e
.' M1" (R.OM.
i. a..' ,:•'l:.,. Ce' .l,."-t. :f. .v.., '.i $'} . Y '4! t { Y:, ..4,
1N ,?firr i. :.. F11T? ?
`??: ?? - i4?.yKr••'`r.P},r4 +Iq '4t: '?YY r.
n : " , ? I , , __ - " 4 -
. _:... t:. - .;;.>a7,, ....,...; r _tl .ti. , . r. q - '.:A ` `*+;, M *.,.: .s, rk ?.. a! ,Y ,{,.. k,
.e. =:,;, , :.• ,??' .. 1,. ? r".x>,^: .,W' . . 4. r t ,t r` , .. •`y. ca '.. ? FY:3 iO<',,,a Xi-
.11 1 .,. . ::, .. 'r: * s zfr ,: A, ,i , P ,:•r y.'' ..,+ "` Ia'._ aF 1 i , i , '. {• w - qnF
:-..,. A. !,. : at ?.. ,_ Y - e .., . ';;? : "?.' Y, *..r• i 3 . i:t ° .s
a ? ` ; f•• `n.ar. ,. r : .5R > t r :.i' •ae.,{ •, F'? ? - Cy„
F ,, iqs r : t t" r :f P "t` ?qqJJ lP ',` )u'^ t?r
-VI 1. - 4. ^?':6k:r r:JJ?"I .?, r . n,: I"' 1"1{
.t
' '
,, ic ?; . ? ,l
, t
? i . aA`
` *ilk
-',..;. J-r, r: r ,y .._., '.3y- h. T_ T s?'` e.. g*
:{.a, .' ,w ',< r1£ i.. ..,, -„6r. ., ., i;i-' P "f'lf« 11 'i ?. ?m j" Y -°4
a, . _ _ ' r
9s .-. : - ...r :e o r , ,. a , .`# ., ...„+,.. 'S ., }. n,,. '. IF. b?l'• , V R, w"1r
.
`.A. " ?r.ir , ...,, ,a;... : r .t.. ... A'f't..!. °,.. ....,,, ,- .. ,. _. „' .I, v x .. t'< I z'
a 4, q
{ k ?;[
''$[ d
•':. ` v
N '
?' 51. ..n d.U- v;1
l
I? k. " rir
r
t5. r a
P !` N f.` f
- 3i fug +i' i x --
?k
t ?p }
[f y? 3£..f k , # ., ..§.. { .. y 'r. ice=:'..r ...'::. j , y ' k ` .t:l..
y.- ,:A`.: A., ;i'r .yr +t+.: r t d ,t ' "r'
?y. A,
Y
il. , ?. rtJ k ., r. . . M 4. . . •A +y?l .r ^" '. .. d4! ,.,p ,Y . Y , '! ?'9' >S - - :'1.:", aF'11e, F
-,r .t .yt.- .. tt..:?.., ". ,: '. t - . Y"i ' ,'F' . ?r . ' d . x , S ' - ; y . k:.,1: 1'q
', ;7 3 { ". _:S ?., 3a r*
wcr T a. :r.,.v x t?; s a. T., k. e^ V ?i,, _ti 4, H
,gyp .' 14. ,.?, Y s. ,` ' yea????},?e >i. .:t?d'..> ;r ,} g ,•?r,{?q? 'y: ST+. Wr i r? ,S'. r ' --'1. FL 1 ^??"`'S'' t ,f? $ , 8 i
... ... ' n - y,? r. , ..::r "i".. ypN .' ...v I }. ` v. '.yn _ A - e' ?,r '.{ -.11I y ;rTt-. -'+. - .. e:, - p • ., i '.: t J1•. , s? NORTH CAROLINA
r.5;. :f. A.. .r.. $ i ,>r , ! ::4 , L{- "Yf 4, .' DEPARTMENT OIL
Ik `a n 2' A r' I d 1. r+lY Q :"l ?{ - A
v,, t.,pgy *l r -. a' ". TRANSPORTATION t, I d ?. - tk• ' Vii" ., 'F. { E` ^ d s r
v,
•: y y .bht" a,, t't' n ` -?+ !a ,9, ,
z - y:: DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
„h. :.+t 1. . 1 J"- t ,3 4.4i • . .?- t.. ?:-... .q :,R?? 7 a S ^4, .. - • _ ..? . `n: , , L - 1 " I „it... k? ten.
I : r ark' ...d '?-4.. : ' ;9: ir.2 °' T• 'f',i 7-' 2
„,. ' F $i i A ' ',? 9?' :•t, ?,
a - . ' ' jr :, h: t f': -r.. _ „• .,., r a , ',p• ir'" t 'lV + ,ar., " r . . 4 rF•"' ?..
,:+ ..t., ,, t :A 1...,, t tt. t., . .., : r:' ,?-4<
1 ,i_ . r t, a a -.! ` y ' ." A PLANNING o q,F{" .q O AND ENVIRONMENTAL
yv : w .-.: % ..,, .,IV ,fF_- X `A I.. ,,i f', S?. :CF,.' ., 41. .' ,.. .°Y .?•5r1 .: 1!:Y: A, ? 1' : t' !4 iY, y?,, `-, BRANCH
Y •y L.? °?
''S1. : i. x r 1.. F ?F ?.. . ,-.:.dt r t.. Rye, iZ. a +i? yji?. 46! •? S i, • +M?. A 7 <a?',.
} •yt •:1 S - .'i 3. i' "^ Y1,,'. :A ,?,A m>Tp. !'. '"; '
, b . • , ,
.,.r
., ?... :. yA ;. i '$ 'tf , "t, , ,r, '{"Y'.. ". W a `u , d, ,,? { ?t,Y '} , ^U ..i ^k•.'. „w ?,' d
C b :a " C, [ g? a a a y e
4 ': A°' ,:,1 . a. : d 'F `i N. 6Y Y S7rsbs ,:,.,? .ild yr 4 5' c `S )?};.- by, '.-,A C: ."k , In C ,Y"?l. fh e, 3' 7. ?.
I
, •° .,# w, r .? a p BRIDGE NO.II f,
>.
[b ' , a'1 " s ?:,yf? `e 'f,.. a(i}?a,, # .?1 r .J7 ' r nay i?r 4 f % q . : 3 rfi•y` 57' . -. .i Si R jh .:X : ?'+4 ?F C ?yS7 `' • -b 22..,? ,'r
n :.'?' t a. rr„)i'k? fro 1r ?, { ?v +?Y'v. i:.
' t tl „
II, - , i ? - I_ - K?_. 1, . .":;r'"4Y'. a. ; - ER MOORE CREEK
r I - -: ,?? r u 4 a y: NC II/NC 53 OV
r .' t A , ot. 4 ?t`. w ; AI az ';,, us a
a^ • r -? + Yh ,,y.' r : ...,..:., •`$ , d°' ( u I 1 ..Y4. i r + °.r,"' 7.5?' '.• j' P 't?, '? -
{ k 7 .
: r ,. ?_ >: t,: , . ;?` >, 4 » ?` PENDER COUNTY
,v ,' ;s' fix. 34 t.'1' z d, '% M, I? $F
? '$ R: a . ,r , t: . •. .. • w. :_' fd!'e.'+ ;.f' ___ R k j.,*r.y? F t is". .?I
:a .t ` r S `a , ! ?:!' -- ,'b , rirr;. • "'"' , i k+ 4. y', L +7YA4 ! - ' .rte,\`? ! %,'i y x• n ' 4 t .t?. 'y' vo.,,.'...r.. B'301 I I>;.. 11 a • ,
: d , > : 4;. G4g v y +. k -q a, d w -,Ml _ r,. , tar :?:.5' rY ti 4.P"'' 4; r :A' a', i.. i °?b 4 .c { 1 t
a
.1 I -w"' 7+d` ^,:#v 'r ''M.
„. q
--` '' 4 .'k9 i ...$. '. °;,,. "I??S R,,,. .t%., ,'FY`2 ,t-r •',i': 4f. t. -; 's,.y
I",
-R_ d. n..-,. Y<. `Rip V. -,}, , . s" ,,i ..:S y: ,.,rr- ,. i '•? if
;4 ;?- ' .. r > It,
s '9 'r?:1" --a " r ti..?'J' , JULY 1 996 s:
b flr1
,, t, : xy r t r # _ , e ' a . SCALE 1f
,. 9 A!Y 9 i, t. .r,(:4y' z ,k r t. ,r " ,4 , wd d
+! wy
:` 'E-t . _ ? )< 1" p _ '`?W.° ',Yrt'• : -,+. . i'S a?yV ,,f- 11. I: V; y, ?7 } , ,: , ' ., `r.k r' ? :12
? y. '- k%,} 't-iF? f A 6 d i• 1 r R .: Y i tc f 7 ::tJ. ul- - 1.
•Y. .. ,1r ^e ". - ? '4 ;#l- T'H:z r.A 'y. "t {? n}??d Y .I` -, i' ".. ...'* v> ?.• O f
Yu ]'' r ?} :: ' : r ,: .g"'' Hwt ;$,a,,t,,o.., '` { A., . !- :. .P, aq !Y .1 I , d"'; ?_..`: 20 40
- ., " x. » .tlt . t. . ': T A.r, : ' + „ • _ < : ;",_ Y {»A •.:;• r. ?! . . G 1 I" $ 9? Yt 'IP t wr_ ;'` J f,? p. •t ,..k
r .. ,
, , a...,,. r X._ " y.r .y,; , ;. ;, ft 4 r' ' 't'S k a.4 ' Imete,5)
w 1::,.} .,_; yb, yy a ?;:°,. .» ?„ t,tr. FIGURE 2
Y.•., ,.. - t• L ,:. - Y'F,' ,. .? _ ? _.?: -F.<<?11. c,^ .t: ', N 1 '7 ?i L- a^ 'Y5:
',* - o" , :. .? :,:? FiYF,? qt'r' ',3,?I e }: x 5;,, C'g S . ..;y. r?. r',r ` v IA +` -1„•'• t p" _'S'" „'?.f,.r""?> -
y
k. .
p: 'Y. y!.. y , S:r !!C? ?!• x.1 "4, .? ..,. ?j Y,•. ?, F. `,`i?Lp W .Ra,.. P- 3:. 14 '.:.,fg ;:. r3 t .,".'.. ,_, ,. .y,,, .? St d-q, •N ?' i. G:..,qi } ..,l a",e, ''d. a
,. fir, : { . , I - " ' ,.x i.. - 4". {,: .. ", - 7 .4 ' g' n,r f ,: r. a.'g. t{• o-r. rf,
tv r .4,,, . 't' V. ??h . u.K4,.. _e4 p:. - .a,, p!,dh"e 'e.
, v,-:_ ^{.' a Q,
??,, { d :.t-. .r ., :,: < , a A f*' .? ,: , f• :l ate.'. ?,, Y?' A... 4 .
r
F'
,l•. #,.; i °..,i u .._,''• s. ,,, L ?J4i r .n+'L 2• _ a rr, ,. t .
4" 1 '?ie C.t.s?L u.?.?=.:.j:,f 3' .. „<3NWt_c l'!? ;? , ,1S ,...1_d_-•.z _u$ r?y_. ... .• s _ - - >: ' ,: +

n

BRIDGE NO. II
PENDER
COUNTY
B-3011
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3

- J
v Q
ci

1 s a
II
00
cc
`

1
1

v ?
\
tc) \\\
dS

U
\
2
2
O
i

co

9bL 13NVd SNIOf

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation FROM: David Brook
Deputy State i t ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 11 on NC 11 /NC 53 over Moore Creek, Pender
County, B-301 1, ER 96-8568
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?3
'
Federal Aid # t?R+?iTP - 11. (3) TIP # tai- $011 County ?FAPM-IZ
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description geft M,6 9410(-e t?*- It OW tJG It - S? ivt e- WfOrm'g C;-EE-
bWD 4RouP Xt
' On t114, , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A seeping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
' Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
' Signed:
' Repts

1

CDOT
the Division Admi
ReprescntativeJSHPO
or other Federal Agency
S
State Historic Preservation Officer
`? . M°t(o
A,
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
ORIGINAL ON LETTERHEAD
VIA FACSIMILE
July 31, 1996
Mr. Phil Harris
NC DOT-DOH
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Harris:
This is a follow up to our telephone communication today concerning
two bridge replacement projects identified as Bridge No 11 in
Pender County over Moore' s Creek (TIP no B-3011) and Bridge No 1 in
Brunswick County over Sturgeon Creek (TIP No B-2514.
I visited both sites and determined that CAMA Major permits will be
required. In my opinion Bridge No 11 may be a candidate for the
new General Permit but I will need more design information before
a final decision can be reached. Please have someone contact me
and I will discuss the project with them. I will also check with
Doug Huggett who co-wrote the new General Permit.
If there are questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
r
C. Robert Stroud, Jr.
District Manager
CC: Ernie Jahnke,COE
Doug Huggett, DCM
Ed Brooks, DCMy

u
fl

fl

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
9ft
?EHNR
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galamb,14,
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
' structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
' mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
brldges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Eaual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199601562
April 11, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

'.> 1g00
P4? `I
Reference your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.
Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States pursuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with the 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.
Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to make a determination raaarriira the Federal.
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project. Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type. This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.
Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field Office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
r)
7a A
50' 11

J,

-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
"':-Ut4 kL
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
.y
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office E I
Post Office Box 33726 rM? Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 27, 1996
2 b 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick DIVISION C%
Planning and Environmental Branch HIGHWAYS
N.C. Division of Highways ¢
P.O. Box 25201 ONMe
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlinea in the clean water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;

' 2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
' 3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
' 4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
' wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
' 2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
' 3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;

C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
"yo Si ca
`-/A. Alsbn Lan%?7
Acing ie Supervisor \1
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP

L J'

r

I

i

n
1;
7
U
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Donna D. Moffitt, Director
Randy Griffin
Natural Systems Engineer
PD&EA,NCDOT
1598 Mail Serice Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Mr. Griffin:
012
A74?
NCDENR
March 27, 2003
WETLANDS1401 CROUP
APR 12003
WATERQNALtTV
SECTIa?
This letter serves as the majority of DCM's comments on the 2002 Annual Monitoring Reports for
NCDOT mitigation sites in the 20 coastal counties. Additional comments were discussed at the annual
monitoring report meeting earlier this month. I have included comments submitted to me by our district
office staff. DCM comments are arranged below by district. There are a few comments that apply to
many of the reports:
1. At the annual monitoring report meeting in March 2003, the DCM requested that final reports
include a summary of a site's success including a discussion of how many years hydrologic and
vegetation success have been met and/or showing a site's progression toward success. NCDOT
staff stated that they do not wish to change the format of the monitoring reports and will include
a site summary in letters requesting discontinuation of site monitoring.
2. If there were a way to display reference gauge data on the same hydrograph as the site data, it
would be a lot easier to review and compare the two.
3. For the Wilmington Bypass Sites, the hydrographs are difficult to evaluate because they are
continued onto several pages. It would be helpful if they could be displayed like the NCDOT's
graphs with a single growing season on one graph. If it is necessary to break up the graphs to
show more detail, these could be included along with the condensed version. Also in some cases
the scales differ from graph to graph making comparison problematic.
Wilmington District
B-3011: The site may need a field visit from a DCM representative to confirm the area has returned to
pre-project status.
Bridge Maintenance Site: Monitoring will continue.
Dale: Monitoring will continue.
Eagle/Brunswick: Monitoring will continue.
Haw's Run: Monitoring on this site will continue.
McIntyre Site: DCM staff visited the site on September 11, 2002 and noted the marsh vegetation has
survived and was beginning to spread. We commented to Rob Moul that the channels appeared stable
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX:[phone] \ Internet: http://dem2.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER

and that they needed to evaluate careful removal of the silt fence as it was becoming buried and was
blocking movement of crabs and possibly other wildlife.' There is some question as to whether the
"enhancement plantings" in the cattail marsh will actually serve to enhance the vegetative community, but
we encourage continued monitoring of the area to determine the success of the technique. Future reports
should discuss in detail the increase in tidal flushing that has occurred in the enhancement area and should
include any available pre-project data. Also, is there any explanation as to why marsh vegetation was less
successful this year when compared to last year? The report states that cypress gum trees will be planted
again this year since that area has not met success criteria. How well is the vegetation succeeding in the
western most cypress-gum restoration area? This area does not appear to contain a vegetation plot.
Rowell Branch: DCM staff visited the site during the 2002 growing season and it appeared to be doing
well. The cypress trees had grown quite tall already and the vegetation and stream seemed very well
established. We do not think it is necessary to modify the success criteria at this time. Providing
reference data and monitoring data from the site should provide us with all the necessary information to
evaluate the site's success. We have no concerns that the site will not be considered successful at this
time. It would be a lot more meaningful if reference gauge data could somehow be displayed with the
monitoring gauge data, even if the reference gauges do not directly correlate or are not specifically linked
to certain on site gauges.
Spring Branch: The NCDOT has requested to discontinue monitoring.
USMC: At the site visit in Summer 2002, there were large areas of bare ground as well as some dead
plants. If these areas do not improve over the next growing season it may be necessary to replant them.
There were noted improvements to the site's hydrology after regrading. Bill Arrington of the DCM's
Morehead City Office noted at a March 2003 site visit that Spartina alterniflora seems to be sprouting in
areas of the site that were bare last year. A comment was made at the annual report meeting that the
NCDOT should be tracking the stability of the shoreline at this site using GPS. Monitoring will continue.
Morehead City District
Cedar Point: This is the first year of monitoring for this site. DCM staff noted large bare areas and dead
plants on the site during a site visit in August 2002. The site will be replanted in 2003 once the area is
tilled and the soil is amended.
Croatan: This site has the potential to provide a lot of very useful data that can be used to develop
appropriate success criteria for future sites. Monitoring the % "inundation" of the growing season as well
as comparing the areas to reference gauges can help us determine success in areas that may be marginal
due to climatic conditions. The DCM appreciates the effort the NCDOT and ESI have made at this site to
provide this much needed information.
Deer Creek: Bill Arrington commented that the new weir elevation looks good and should prevent tidal
exchange between Deer Creek and the stormwater pond. He also noted that the channels appear much
wider than the mitigation plan indicated. The NCDOT will continue monitoring this site.
Lengyel: Monitoring will continue.
Elizabeth City District
Ballance: Monitoring will continue. Dennis Hawthorne of the DCM's Elizabeth City office commented
that the site vegetation and tidal connection seem to have improved from last year.
Casey: The NCDOT has requested to discontinue vegetation monitoring and to continue hydrologic
monitoring for a fifth year. Dennis Hawthorn noted that the plants seem to be doing well, the Juncus

roemerianus is spreading and that an organic layer has started to form on the soil surface in the marsh
areas.
Colington Cut: The NCDOT has proposed to discontinue monitoring this site. A field visit during 2002
indicated that the site does not contain 50% coverage of Juncus roemerianus and contains a large amount
of Phragmites. According to the publication, "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Existing NCDOT
Wetland Mitigation Sites- Phase 1 Report" (July 2000) researchers at ECU concluded that the site would
need remediation to fulfill permit conditions. An elevation survey of the site may show that the areas
dominated by Phragmites are not inundated frequently enough to allow the Juncus roemerianus to out-
compete the Phragmites. DCM staff suggest NCDOT perform a detailed elevation survey to determine if
there are any slight elevation changes between the small portions dominated by Juncus roemerianus and
the areas where Phragmites has taken over. While we understand that Phragmites is present in areas
adjacent to the site we feel it is important to provide mitigation that meets success criteria and that will
remain a self-sustaining coastal marsh once the project is no longer being treated or monitored. DCM
field and wetland staff have referred this site to DCM's Major Permit coordinator for review because we
do not agree that it has met success criteria.
Dismal Swamp: Monitoring will continue.
Manteo Bypass Bridge Site: Frank Jennings of the DCM's Elizabeth City office visited the site recently
and noted and the site's vegetation coverage has improved quite a bit since last year. Monitoring will
continue.
Mashoes Road: Monitoring will continue. Phragmites continues to pose a problem at this site. We
recognize the tremendous amount of this species in the immediate vicinity of the site; however, note also
that the vegetation plot comments in the report include Phragmites in a majority of plots at the site.
Compared to last year's report it appears the Phragmites problem is getting worse. Frank Jennings noted
that the site appears to be improving in terms of the planted vegetation's survival, but suggests some
transplanting of marsh plants may be needed for areas that have not vegetated very well.
Pembroke Creek: Frank Jennings commented that the site looks good. Monitoring will continue for a
fifth year.
Roanoke Island: This is the first year of monitoring for this site. Frank Jennings visited the site recently
and commented that the cypress trees appear to be surviving. Monitoring will continue.
Scranton Creek (B-3193): Monitoring will continue.
Tucker: Monitoring will continue. The NCDOT will plant some additional cypress in the vicinity of
plots 10 and 11. It is not clear if this site will support a forested wetland community as planned.
White's Store: Frank Jennings visited this site recently and suspects the soils at this site are compacted
and that the plants may not survive. He noted the poor growing season weather conditions, and agrees the
site should be replanted. The success criteria are not appropriate for sawgrass restoration. Is the site's
hydrology expected to be greater than the success criteria in order to support a sawgrass marsh?

Sincerely,
Kelly Williams
Wetland Specialist
NC Division of Coastal Management
Cc via email: Dave Timpy, USACE
Mike Bell, USACE
John' Hennesse}a (??D r I-SC .
Doug Huggett
Cathy Brittingham, DCM, Raleigh
Bill Arrington, DCM, Morehead City
Jim Gregson, DCM, Wilmington
Ted Tyndall, DCM, Morehead City
Ted Sampson, DCM, Elizabeth City
Terry Moore, DCM, Washington
a.wSWto P v V
-STATE.OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. ° P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 30, 1999
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
ATTN: Mr. Bob Stroud
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 11 OVER MOORE'S CREEK ON NC I I/NC 53, PENDER
COUNTY, TIP NO. B-3011.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
the referenced structure on existing location, along with associated approach
improvements. The new bridge will be approximately 159.0 ft in length with a 30.0 ft
wide travelway. Traffic will be detoured onto an on-site temporary detour for
approximately 6 months during construction. The scope of work for this project was
documented as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) approved by the Federal Highway
Administration [Federal Aid Project BRSTP-11(3), State Project 8.1270801] on
22 November, 1996. Copies of this document are available upon request.
On 31 January 1997, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a NWP 23,
Action I.D. # 199603340 for the subject project. However, NCDOT failed to apply for a
Division of Coastal Management Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit at that
time. While the project description has not changed since the distribution of the CE and
the Natural Resources Technical Report, the following items in the CE need to be
clarified.
The length of structure will be 159.0 ft, not 138 ft.
Permanent impacts to wetlands will be 0.33 ac not 0.89 ac.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
E ,
An off-site detour is not reasonable at this location due to the volume of traffic
using NC 11/ NC 53 and the 6.6 mi of indirectional travel that would be incurred,
including rerouting of ten daily school bus trips. Two different alternatives were
considered north and south of the existing bridge for on-site detours. The detour to the
south of the existing bridge was chosen to avoid additional relocation of utilities
associated with the northern detour.
The project will result in 0.33 ac of permanent fill in wetlands, 1.48 ac of
temporary fill and 0.31 ac of mechanized clearing to construct the temporary onsite
detour. No stream relocation or channel change will be involved. Two rows of driven
piles on 53.0 ft centers, will be used for support for the new bridge. In order to set the
piles, a temporary causeway will be required. The causeway will consist of clean and
washed Rip Rap with 1.5:1 slopes, approximately 15 ft thick at the surface and 30 ft thick
near the base with an estimated volume is 480 yds. After the project is completed the
causeway will be removed from the creek to the extent practicable without disturbing the
creek bottom. The area will then be graded to its original elevation and replanted with
vegetation at 320 stems per acre, similar to that of the adjacent area. Permit drawings
depicting this proposed work are attached.
Twenty-six deck drains will be installed on both sides of the bridge and will be
placed on 6.0 ft centers. A total of 18 deck drains will be placed directly over Moore's
Creek due to the grade of the bridge and the need for adequate drainage.
The navigational clearance of the bridge will basically remain the same since no
recognized demand for navigation exists. Moore's Creek is not susceptible for use as a
means to transport interstate or foreign commerce and there is no evidence that boats
greater than 21.0 ft long cross under Bridge No. 11. Therefore, the Federal Highway
Administration has determined that the project does not require a U. S. Coast Guard
Permit in accordance with 23 CFR 650.805(c)
Moore's Creek flows south into the Black River which is part of the Cape Fear
River Basin. It is classed as C Sw, indicating swamp waters, which are characterized by
low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic content.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Water, which
implements stringent erosion and sedimentation control, will be employed throughout
construction. During project planning, it was determined that no anadromous fish
spawning areas occur within 575.0 ft of the project, so no construction moratorium is
proposed.
It is anticipated these activities will be authorized by a CAMA Major Permit. A
permit application and a check in the amount of $250.00 (Warrant No. 421516) is
enclosed to cover the CAMA processing fee. The adjacent property owners have been
notified of this permit request. Copies of the letters sent to the property owners and the
certified mail receipts are attached. The signed return receipts from these property
owners will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. By copy of this letter, NCDOT

requests a renewal of the NWP 23, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
appropriate Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.
Chris Rivenbark at (919) 733-95 13.
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, . E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Doug Huggett, DCM
Mr. David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
FORM DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
1. APPLICANT 11 miles west of Burgaw
C. Street address or secondary road number
a. Landowner: NC 53/11
Name N. C. Dept, of Transportation d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
Address P. O. Box 25201
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
City Raleigh State NC river, creek sound, bay) Moores Creek
Zip 27611 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name
Address
3. DESCRIPTION & PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
and excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace existing bridge.
City State
Zip Day Phone b. Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both? Both
Fax
C. Project name (if any) B-3011. Re 11Le c. Will the project be for public, private or
Bridle Number 11 on NC 53/11 at commercial use? Public Highway
Moores Creek
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), methods of construction and daily operations
and/or project name. of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages. A detour
bridge will be constructed to detour traffic.
The existing bridge will be removed and the
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED new bridge constructed. The detour will be
PROJECT removed and the site restored to pre-project
Conditions. See attached drawings for
details,
a. County Pender
Revised 03/95
FORM DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f..
Size of entire tract N/A
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Approximate elevation of tract above MHW
or NWL NWS EL = 18.6; Top of road = 28.5
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Muckalee loam and Autrvville fine sand
Vegetation on tract bald cypress, swamp tupelo,
giant cane, netted chain fern (See CE).
Man-made features now on tract
Bridge and utility voles
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land
use plan)
_ Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
_X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
RA (Rural agriculture)
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable.)
Has a professional archaeological assessment
been done for the tract? Yes No
If yes, by whom?
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes _2?_ No
Are there wetlands on the site? ..X., Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) Other X_
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
(Attach documentation, if available)
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, "wash down", and residential
discharges.) Highway surface runoff
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
* A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
* An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 710203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95
FORM DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
number, landmarks, and the like.
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name _
Address
Phone _
Name _
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
* A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
USACE NWP 23 issued 1/16/98 (ID 199603340)
NCDWQ WQC# 3107 issued 1/31/97
* A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
* A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
A statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described
in the application. The project will be subject to
conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
This is the 'JO_ day of -,19'31
Print Name William D. Gilmore. P.E.
Signature W. -D. .?Qrv?o?tA 1 .
Landowner or thorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_ DCM MP-3 Upland Development
_ DCM MP-4 Structures Information
DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE. Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
. Form DCM-MP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major (4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all removed? (Explain)
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to
this proposed project.

BRIDGES
1 g. Length of proposed bridge 159 feet
. h. Width of proposed bridge 26 feet
a. Public _ X Private
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
d
l
h
b
' 10.5 feet (from tog of bridge)
s
3 apan concrete core
eac
s @ 53
a
20" square concrete battered piles j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes _X_ No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Moore's Creek If yes, explain
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL 3.5 feet
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? 8 feet
_X_ Yes No
If yes, 1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 120' reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 26' opening? _X_ Yes No
.(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing If yes, explain The new bridge will increase
bridge 6' the height of navigation oRenin?.
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) All of the existing
d
ill b
b
id
e remove
ge w
,
r
m.
Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? X_ Yes No
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)? If yes, explain
Yes X_ No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above n. Have you contacted the U. S. Coast Guard
the MHW or NWL concerning their approval?
Yes X No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
2 CULVERTS N/A potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
b. Number of culverts proposed
3
EXCAVATION AND FILL
C. .
Type of culvert (construction material, style)
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes No
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge? If yes,
Yes No (1) Length of area to be excavated
If yes, (2) Width of area to be excavated
(1) Length of existing bridge (3) Depth of area to be excavated
(2) Width of existing bridge (4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing yards
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
removed? (Explain) require any excavation within: NO
- Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs _ Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert? (2) Width of area to be excavated
Yes No (3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
If yes, yards
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above require any highground excavation?
the MHW or NWL _X- Yes No
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be If yes,
removed? (Explain) (1) Length of area to be excavated At bridge
(2) Width of area to be excavated See drawings
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 350 c. y.
f. Length of proposed culvert
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
g. Width of proposed culvert any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the New roadway embankment
MHW or NWL (2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
S
d
i

i.
Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow? ee
raw
ngs
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes No X Yes No
If yes, explain If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-S
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? -X Yes _ No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes X_ No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above. _
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below
MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs XOther Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled See drawings
(2) Width of area to be filled See drawings
(3) Purpose of fill Highway fill slopes. See
attached drawings for locations and
dimensions,
9. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? X_ Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 1900 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled 110 feet
(3) Purpose of fill Raise existing roadway: _
fill approximately 1.5 feet
4. GENERAL,
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes X_ No
If yes, explain in detail
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? -X- Yes _ No
If yes, explain in detail Temporary relocation
of one telephone pole for detour.
Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail A bridge approximately
125 feet in length will need to be constructed
,just downstream
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Through the use of
erosion control devices which follows NCDOT
erosion and sedimentation policy.
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Typical earth moving equipment for
roadway fill - crane with boom and pile driver
for setting piles.
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
Yes X_ No
If yes, explain in detail
NCDOT; TIP Number B-3011
Applicant or Project Name
Signature
Date
Revised 03/95
MATCH LINE A ° w MATCH LINE A
0.
' I '0
? 0
0 o .,
0
W 0 3 r
w
w j o J 0
°
?
W
a
SD ; ' ; I o
i F

0 0
x ?
~ I 0 Gz. U p w
I . ?0 ?zU ?I
I 1, °A W
0
W E- W W ?Ci.
? Z
A U
C7
C)
W t?- I
I LL
I a? w o ce o 0
a
'
o ?t W>
G q
?

I

1
?
LLJ
D A G
° I 0 U

w c
°`
0

0 w

z x
t I .
a 41 0 I I ' °cW
g0 00,.
o W
°
o0
--N
m
°

W 0

o. ( I '°C W
0
n
` I I
LU
3 g
I
I 0
0w
0
I I I 0 u
i I 'o°
0
0

?o ' I I 0
U
°
?I I I 0
°
a I I 1
0 °
o?
o
I og
0
0 I I °W
I
+ I I d
°
Q

N

I

I
17 {
0
b0 Lyj z

o? z H o
m
P I I 0. a
P I I ° W x z
to
?m o
to I I
cz)
o
j a
0 I I o? U ¢? z
0 I I .°oa w a d
°5 .??
m m
0

Z I I I ° v, v5 y
°

° I I oq W p O O

m
°
° I

I I

I °d z z z

09 L~LJ o 0 a G

o

I°
I
V
I
I

I °
0? XYU
°° W 41
.? I I ? m N °a°0°o
I
1 I
I I
I I
1 I °
,
MATCH LINE B o I 0 MATH, LINE g
?o I u. w F
?o
o I boy
° 3 M
O
,
w
P°; w x
? p
z z o 0 a?
? I I F o U ?!
o Q
w

? z o

C6 u
I
W
o w
o z Q
0 o
u I o
'o°f? w E4 z w 0
a' C z M
>
° F

°
° I v w

0
° I
`-3
z ?

{ o0
?
?
°
I
o
a
w
[)6r
)

w
..
6

w ?.
•
I •?. I I
W ?°? w

...
o ?•
ii
..-

03 LIJ
c,
0 .
..

w
,
_
I

In I

LLI Of

co

s
d? I

a

°
w ......
;
? •
0

a I .. .
o ........ w w

-?
. 0 jo
•

w
. I ;
}.
N
... o
w- a z
?H

wr 17
6
I
u-,
w z F o
°
I
;
I
e?
z
a

Q ?°
°

0
°o I

I

I w ?
.? .?
•e ?. z
?d Q ? ? ,,

I
I oa F F H

?°
o
6°

I
I

I

I zz zz zz
o° w w w
°? 41 o o c
o?w
o °°oooo
°
0
0
o
I 0 °o°o°o
° °o°°°o
W o
o?
MATCH LK 0 >od MAT A
MATC LINE C o TCH LINE C z
I I I bC w O
I 1
>4

?, I
°
I
I o w
j
41
x ?.
p W

°
I
02

02 z
x z
o w

ao
2
`? O
O .-i W
1°
U U
O ?I
o I I ° ?
o zW
o in FwW
U c? w
o

o
I

I
I

I
I

LL J

w

0

0? 0

0

y'
? N ca ,
. rx ca
o I I ? ? ° a ?" E~
? go I I ? ? v ? w
Q? ?o
I
„c,
cn
I ` I
m I ?? ?
O
w I
?,3
o?
Q
o
°°
W o?
3 w I o? w
I

I °
°c
r
o
°I
° o
.n
I 0
of w
11

I o
oo?
.-?
I o5 W
w I ooi w

fj
6
I 0
o
o
c
j
w
o
I

w
I? 0
01
o
I o' w
0
<

L 1 I(S)
('7 b°'
0
?
i3 z
<
I 0
o?
w z
H
a
°
r. ZZ) z
Ld
r- vO Dq l I
°y
0 a z
kr LU I o? w a < 3
o° ? LO
? J
?
I I o9 ? z

° 00, L LJ
S
F
F
o I I h
I I ? W z
41 °
o
0
I
I " w
oa
o
Q °
'
o
o ? o? ? 000000
O I °? Do0°0°
0 0°°
o

f `?

MATCH LINE 8 o 0
w
MATC
H LINE 0
i
I I o
Z -40
z
?) o
dx o?w
t I N0U 1zou? o
' o0 U0 O
Z 00
I w>a Cad ?,) I
I o a a
I 1. I LL' ?
t ?1 z ?
I \1
1,? w
1 1U
! 1'\ w co
II 1,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lli
I ;°, l w 0
Alt
I? ! w
0
I` z fl
I 1 f I ?, a i
I I I w N a ? ?
I j I ? I o ? ,, a
z
I ? ? w
o I I IN I I Li
I I ? ?
I` I It,? I • o ? ? ? ?
3 I I I t?? w W? zzz w z
I I I 1 ?'
LLJ 00 0.0
°°°
°°°
I I I °?
\ I I I I 0w
MATC LINE C 0 M ITCH
M1E C
- gm-
? I ?

.
t z
F Q

cn C7
O

Q Z
E-; -
w>

U
Z

M

F .?
O N
U
a (Fj
Z y
r?

Cl.
>
O
Z U

C
A 0
?

I
CL
O
?I

W
Lu
=
u
-? U

U

L
C
< r.
C z

C r; _ O

O
C:. L•, F
O
u W
a
CD C4
f? Q
U

tai
_ x u

R
>
O ?

O W
Q?
J

f
em.

N
CO O ''t N , O 00
N N N N Ni
0

L
G
C
C
C
G
C
C
0
c

N
Z
F a
z
- z H
,o Z
re ? .a
Y4 p O
Z Z
s: y
p C
- ? \ l XX
J
U ..a
_. U
E- .a
O U
O U
Z
0
_ I
I
o c
??I IIi
IIH' li' '?? Ali
1
L
Q
!
a
!
C
a
A
C
a
n

°
z

z

? z
?. z
"
c
a

e
°
°
z z
q' c o

T X
\\ MA
F .a
O U
N F.,
O O
i
i
z
- ca M?
CIL ? =
i
z?'z oo?
c. o
FOV°v o
z nl
z w w
I FC)
zoo O
° d
ra ca a F
I ci ca
I z
- cn
CIA
tn
a
z
I ?
? z
:.
O I ? z
O
O a F t
O I -
° I g a c"ll o 0
O i J ? c a
- \ >'
? I
CIA
a Q I ? ,?,
ca I u
O =
A-Ir
O I _ z 4-
_
0
N N
` O rr^i
O
? - I I I
c
c
0
c
`c
c
c
c
c
c
e

Q? -
z
e
a ?
Z
.] r
7.
m
c:
O O
z z
v
a u
a a
x r
G
I
G ? G ?_J

z
O
F ? o
O ? MNr
A ? a ? po
U
z s
0
v.
O
O F
O 3 ¢
O - z
o
O
F F
p C
77,
ca `
O \ F- '
C - ;G
n
C
j
WI ;Jij ii; ::i
I o
' N
° 3 M L?
? z?z ooze
l? Foy ?z? o
i? - °oa WQ? o
z o
Ca ? a ?
U W
z ?
0 z
0 4 z
a .?
0 - z F
z
F -
X11 F F
O O
z z
a _
L^: (?
ELI
o
r
_N N
A ? b W
l+J I I I I ' _ J

r 2
O
O
O
O
L:]
Q
Q
L:
Q
Q
a
o
a

T
v,
Z F
G
= z
0 ?
OMN

A?
b W
r.Vr i
7 C
O U
F
w
O c:
I

0
O
O
O
O
O
W
Q
G
U
@
Z
Q
@
O
O
W ? W
m
VD -
4`d

z
a N
F p
z
z
' z
F
0
? C
1 /
V I Y V
nW
..1
@ W
U ?7
cn @
...a U
F.a
7 @
O U
N ?
.? c
I ?
WETLAND SUMMARY SHEET
8.1270801 (B-3011)
FILL IN TEMP. FILL IN CLEARING IN FILL IN TEMP. FILL
STATION WETLANDS WETLANDS WETLANDS WETLANDS IN WETLANDS
(ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) (C.Y.) (C.YJ
18+40 0.33 1.48 0.31
TO
33+75
4200 28700
z
0
O 3 H a,
? O z v O ca
X z p co
? O U
J` F' O u; '-' z W o
CIS o Z o E-? ? p cz.
I p z U p p O
I ? cF. ? a o ? ? '9I
?? ? I I a U Q
? I I I ? z ?
CfI? ? ? I I ?
I I ? I I ? ?
I ? z I ?
\ ? I I I o ?
I I \ ? vU,
a
g
1 /
5Z _ I 5Z `n
/ I 14J I ?; z °a
/ I I I I? I ??
/? I II I ? ?o
/ ? I I i i I I tG? °z ?
/? / I I I I ® AF
I I I I ?
-/ I r k I I
I ' I ? ?
c
u
c
c

0

o
0
? o

c
c
c
I
? M

z
0
F? a
o z ?'
o w
z o 00
U -p p U

o
v
oO z
n
c.
O z D
z F•
U W
p
0
O
o
N O
C
V
)

2

r
C.
-
4 ' o
I o? a F

I
2 U W
f.el z
t
I
I
I ,
N
*10
N
LO
N
0
z w
® '

d
? U
N
U

w

k?

®
e

®
®

o o

m

U
a
U -
co h ` h
z
M aco,?
N ?? Fa
n
0
x
c< cz
's•
N8a
.w`
O I e

. z
0

0

- a? z o ra
? °
l ? ? o U
I
H O
a
o
?
z
v

wz
o
o
E-
0
o ry
w
o
N o z u 0 o
O
o ff H
,,,
z x

O O
lqqt M
?I M
f

o

o J

0

Nd1
0 1
0
?o
N
1
1
OI O
N r-
*1o
N o
n
w

F? U
b

LO
N ?

® ? w
a

a. a
a?

as
aw
H
N Fa

o
?
a
z
c
O?
O
?®e
ee e
ee •
eeee
e
..w

z
0
..
a? ?,Mx
b oa Hajw
V) z o w
e d U p u
p° ? W P o W w z U o f
(?.? cn a ? z cxr,
.a
:4 0
t0? wo ..aa w
Fz >° Q
q En
O
EE•
O
z
Q) LL-
:?
5:I I C
m c
H
a
I
o
rcloo I wo
?. I in z
m °••
? o
a.>
L

PROPERTY 01YNTER
NAME AND :ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME
A. WARD GRANT
JOHN H. MURPHY.SR
LANDMARK.
CHARLES MURPHY JR.
GEORGE MALCOLM KELLY
THOMAS KELLY.
ADDRESS
11795 N. HWY 53 W.
ATKINSON. NC 28421
P0. BOX 264
BURGAW. NC. 2842S
q10• ASq -44-73c1
PO. BOX 4127
WILMINGTON. NC 28406
P0. BOX 2091
JAMESTOWN, NC. 7.2Sa
RT,2 BOX 2442
BURGAW,NC. A S y 2 S
R10-;t83-5693
10545 N. HWY 53 W.
BURGAW.NC
%o t93-7ay3
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director
November 24, 2004
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, PE
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
PeAder
Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Q?c??oe?D
NOV 3 0 2004
OqE R - WATER QUALITY
UVETLA.Npg.A
ND "ORMWATER BRANCH
Re: Moore's Creek Bridge Mitigation Site, Pender County, State Project No. 8.1270801,
TIP No. B-3011, USACOE Action ID No. 199603340, DWQ Project No. 991042,
CAMA Permit No. 111-99
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated August 10, 2004 to the NC Division of
Coastal Management (DCM) regarding the regulatory release of the Moore's Creek Bridge
Mitigation Site in Pender County. Wetland mitigation was provided on-site for approximately
1.48 acres of 404-type wetlands impacted by NCDOT's bridge project B-3011, permitted by
DCM under CAMA permit # 111-99.
The success criteria for this site were to replant the impacted area where the on-site temporary
detour was removed such that jurisdictional status is re-attained. Based on visual observations
during the on-site examination conducted on August 4, 2004, DCM concurs with your
recommendation to discontinue vegetation monitoring. This does not eliminate the need to
obtain any other approvals or authorizations that may be required.
We apologize for the delayed response to your request. If you have any questions or concerns,
contact me at 919-733-2293 extension #230 or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Steven D. Sollod -
Transportation Project Coordinator
cc: Mr. Bill Arrington, DCM
Ms. Melissa Carle, DCM
Mr. Randy Griffin, NCDOT
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Mr. Doug Huggett, DCM
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
Mr. Dave Timpy, USACE
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC