20000145 Ver 1_Complete File_20000222

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
NCDENR
July 11, 2000
Brunswick County
DWQ Project No. 000145
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
material in 0.07 acres of wetlands, excavate an additional 0.06 acres of wetlands, and clear with mechanized
equipment 0.18 acres of wetlands. The Certification further authorizes fill in 65 linear feet of jurisdictional
streams, and the relocation of 70 linear feet of streams. The purpose of the proposed project is the
replacement of Bridge No. 6 over Hood Creek in Brunswick County. The project should be constructed in
accordance with your application dated February 18, 2000. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3112. This certification
corresponds to the Regional Permit Number 198000291 issued by the Corps of Engineers, and CAMA
Major Permit issued by the Division of Coastal Management. In addition, you should acquire any other
federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment
and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire
with the accompanying 404 permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified
below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for complying with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, or of total impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described .in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to
remain valid, you must adhere to the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a
hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447.
This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer . 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachments:
Permit Application
General Conditions
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Cathy Brittingham, DCM
Central Files
Ake- cd??
Sincerely,
1 ?-
Stevens
c:\ncdot\TIP B-2513\wqc\000145wgc.doc

GENERAL CERTIFICATION
FOR PROJECT ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GENERAL PERMIT NUMBER 198000291 (ISSUED TO
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with
requirement of Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United
States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15 NCAC 2B .0200 for the
discharge of fill material as described in General Permit 198000291.
This Certification replaces Water Quality Certification Number 3025
issued on September 6, 1995. This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of
Engineers reauthorizes Regional General Permit 0291 or when deemed
appropriate by the Director of DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category
of activity will not violate applicable portions of Sections 301, 302,
303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Activities authorized by CAMA major permits require written
concurrence from the Division of Water Quality as well as
compliance with all conditions of this General Certification;
2. Activities authorized by Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
minor permits do not require written authorization from the
i
y
Division of Water Quality as long as they comply with all
other conditions of this General Certification;
3. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices that equal `
or exceed those outlined in the most recent edition of the
"North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices) shall be utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard (50 NTUs in freshwater streams and rivers; 25 NTUs
in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs);
4. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands
or waters shall be removed and the natural grade restored
after the Division of Land Resources has released the
project;
5. If an environmental document is required, this Certification
is not valid until a FONSI or ROD is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
6. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete .
from coming into contact with waters of the state until the
concrete has hardened;
7. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects
which have applied for CAMA major permits which are proposed
under this Certification in order to ensure compliance with
all applicable water quality and effluent standards;
Violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific project
shall result in revocation of the Certification for that project and may
e
V
also result in criminal and/or civil penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may
require submission of a formal application for individual certification
for any project in this category that, in his judgement, poses a threat
of significant adverse impact on water quality or remove the existing
uses of the wetland or downstream waters.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or groups of
applications prior to a certification decision if such hearings are
deemed to be in the public's best interest by the Director of the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 11 February 1997.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.,
Director
gencert.291
WQC# 3112
.I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NCDENR
February 28, 2000
Brunswick County
DWQ Project No. 000145
APPROVAL of 40`1,Water Quality Certification
Mr. William D. Gilmor P
Planning and Environmen
North Carolina Departmen
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
.E., Manager
I Branch
t Transportation
You have our approval, in accordance'
material in 0.31 acres of wetlands, 0.02
70 linear feet of streams will be reloc?
Bridge No. 6 over Hood Creek in Bruns
your application dated February 18, 20(
is covered by General Water Quality
th the
V
P
(tached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
irface waters, and 65 linear feet of streams. In addition
purpose of the proposed project is the replacement of
y. The project should be constructed in accordance with
;viewing your application, we have decided that this fill
Number 3112. This certification corresponds to the
Regional Permit Number 198000291 'sued by the C s of Engineers, and CAMA Major Permit issued by
the Division of Coastal Managem t. In addition, y should acquire any other federal, state or local
permits before you proceed with our project including Nut not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Non-Discharge•and Water Sup y Watershed regulations. is approval will expire with the accompanying
404 permit unless otherwise s ecified in the Water Quality C tification.
This approval is valid sol y for the purpose and design describe 'n your application (unless modified
below). Should your pr ject change, you must notify the DWQ an submit a new application. If the
property is sold, the w owner must be given a copy of this Certific ion and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for co lying with all the conditions. If total wetland fills or this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, of total impacts to streams (now or in the future) exc ed 150 linear feet, compensatory
mitigation may e required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) a d (7). For this approval to
remain valid, ou must adhere to the conditions listed in the attached certifi ation.
If you do t accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for'*n adjudicatory
hearing. ou must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a
hearin , send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statu s to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447.
Th' certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachments:
Permit Application
General Conditions
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Wilmington DWQ Regional Office
Cathy Brittingham, DCM
Central Files
Sincerely,
1 ?f
v
rr . Stevens
L
c:\ncdot\TIP B-2513\wqc\000145wgc.doc
GENERAL CERTIFICATION
FOR PROJECT ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
GENERAL PERMIT NUMBER 198000291 (ISSUED TO
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with
requirement of Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United
States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15 NCAC 2B .0200 for the
discharge of fill material as described in General Permit 198000291.
This Certification replaces Water Quality Certification Number 3025
issued on September 6, 1995. This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of
Engineers reauthorizes Regional General Permit 0291 or when deemed
appropriate by the Director of DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category
of activity will not violate applicable portions of Sections 301, 302,
303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Activities authorized by CAMA major permits require written
concurrence from the Division of Water Quality as well as
compliance with all conditions of this General Certification;
2. Activities authorized by Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
minor permits do not require written authorization from the
Division of Water Quality as long as they comply with all
other conditions of this General Certification;
3. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices that equal
or exceed those outlined in the most recent edition of the
"North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices) shall be utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard (50 NTUs in freshwater streams and rivers; 25 NTUs
in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs);
4. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands
or waters shall be removed and the natural grade restored
after the Division of Land Resources has released the
protect;
5. If an environmental document is required, this Certification
is not valid until a FONSI or ROD is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
6. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete
from coming into contact with waters of the state until the
concrete has hardened;
7. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects
which have applied for CAMA major permits which are proposed
under this Certification in order to ensure compliance with
all applicable water quality and effluent standards;
Violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific project
shall result in revocation of the Certification for that project and may
also result in criminal and/or civil penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may
require submission of a formal application for individual certification
for any project in this category that, in his judgement, poses a threat
of significant adverse impact on water quality or remove the existing
uses of the wetland or downstream waters.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or groups of
applications prior to a certification decision if such hearings are
deemed to be in the public's best interest by the Director of the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 11 February 1997.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.,
Director
gencert.291
WQC# 3112

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
?n
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Department of Transportation Z <<-' -!
PROJECT NAME: Replacement of Bridge #6q,?ps croup
, UA ITV SECT I':
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Mt. Misery Road (SR 1426), Northwest, runs)
Photo Index - 1995: Not Available
State Plane Coordinates - X:2 265 700 Y: 205 200
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA Dredge & Fill
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - April 13, 2000
Was Applicant Present - Randy Turner I _-Z
r , °/
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - cc: /,- ' 7-4
Office - Wilmington s a© y
6. SITE DESCRIPTION: t fi P 2r ? Ir
(A) Local Land Use Plan - City of Northwest ?r ?`'??
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation
z
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Public Trust
(C) Water Dependent: Yes Fi
(D) Intended Use: Bridge Replacement
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - None
Planned - None
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Bridge
Planned - New Bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
DREDGED
7.

[AREA]
FILLED OTHER
Co.
(A) Vegetated Wetlands Approx. Approx.
(Federal Wetlands) 2800 sf 3300 sf
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands 2,000s f Shaded
Public Trust Waters 4200 sf
(C) Other Approx. Disturbed
High Ground 2000 sf +- 67,000 sf +-
(D) Total Area Disturbed: Approximately 75,000 square feet or 1.7 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: C Sw Open: No
8
PROJECT SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is applying to replace
bridge #6 over Hood Creek in Northwest, Brunswick County.
DOT Project B-2513
Bridge Replacement / #6
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace an existing bridge over Hood Creek
in the Town of Northwest, Brunswick County. The bridge is located on State Route 1426, Mt. Misery
Road. A vicinity map has been submitted with the application package.
The existing timber and concrete structure is a two lane bridge built in 1952 with dimensions of 120.5
feet long by 23.9 feet wide. It has a navigational clearance of 11 feet. The proposed concrete bridge
will be 140 feet long by 30 feet wide with a navigational clearance of 12 feet. The Department of
Transportation has indicated that there is approximately 6' of water depth in this area. The project
requires that a small portion of Hood Creek, upstream of the bridge, be realigned or moved away from
a proposed fill slope associated with shoulder construction.. The shoulder will be widened from 6' to 11'
where guardrail is required. The shoulder fill will result in approximately 3300 squre feet of impacts to
federal wetlands. The creek realignment will require excavation of a mid-stream cypress wetland and the
adjacent creek bottom resulting in about 2800 square feet of disturbance. Approximately 2000 square feet
of open waters will be filled as part of the realignment process.
Mechanized clearing of a wetland area adjacent to the creek and roadway is proposed to facilitate access
of construction equipment to Hood Creek. See the Plan View for the location. Several drains are
proposed to carry water away from the road. The locations are indicated on the plans as well.
In addition to the proposed bridge replacement a telephone line will be relocated above ground on power
poles and a new 12" water line will be bored under the streambed using a directional bore method.
Hood Creek is a tributary of the Cape Fear River. The waters of Hood Creek are a public trust area of
environmental concern. These waters have been classified as C Sw by the Division of Water Quality.
Class Cis a fresh water classification. The best use for the Class "C" waters is described as aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The "Sw" refers to low
velocity swamp waters. There is no know shell fish resource in this area and the waters are not open to
shell fishing, nor have they been designated as primary nursery area by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
10. ANTICIPATED EUPACTS
This project will result in the fill and or excavation of approximately 8100 square feet of federal wetlands.
The proposed channel realignment, fill of open waters and bridge replacement will likely result in short-
term turbidity in the waters of Hood Creek. Temporary sediment control measures will be necessary to
retain as much soil as possible on the site. The total amount of land disturbance associated with this bridge
replacement should be less than 75,000 square feet.
Wetland areas adjacent to the creek that will be cleared to provide equipment access to the bridge slopes
and to the creek will be temporarily impacted. These negative impacts can be reduced by the use of mats
to support heavy equipment. See the Categorical Exclusion document for more impact information.
There are no known shell fish resources this far up the river.
Janet M. Russell / May 8, 2000 / Wilmington

V
Pw.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOvERNOR SECRETARY
March 27, 2000
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3848
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Stroud
SUBJECT: CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 6 OVER HOOD CREEK ON SR 1426, BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, TIP NO. B-2513.
Dear Mr. Stroud:
This is an addendum to the previously submitted CAMA Major Permit Application cover
letter dated February 18, 2000. The wetland impacts that were reported in that
application reflected an increase from the impacts reported in the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) document, approved on 5 June 1997. This letter serves to clarify the discrepancy
between those impacts, as well as to document the standard NCDOT procedures
regarding bridge demolition.
The existing bridge will be replaced by the construction of a new bridge, 140 feet long in
length and 30 feet in width. To facilitate the construction of the new bridge, roadway fill
and excavation for channel realignment will be required. Impacts associated with the
channel realignment are a part of the final design plans and were not available for
evaluation at the time the CE was completed. The CE reported 0.02 acres of wetland
impacts. The channel realignment and it's associated work contribute to an additional
0.29 acres of wetland impacts, bringing the total estimated wetland impacts to 0.31 acres.
Mr. John Wadsworth with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was consulted
about this increase and he concluded that we would not need an addendum to the CE for
f s ,
this change, but that this information should be included in the next construction
consultation to the FHWA.
The existing bridge has seven spans totaling 120 feet in length. The deck and bridge
railings for the superstructure are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed
of timber. Both the bridge rail and the substructure will be removed without dropping
-them into Waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped
into-Waters of the U.S. during construction.. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck is approximately 29.3 yd3.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be followed during the
removal of the existing structure.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Heather W.
Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
1?•f
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
j? Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
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., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. John Alford, Roadway Design

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3848
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Stroud
E C J6
"IVE
FEB 2 3 2000
COASTAL DIVISIONMANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 6 OVER HOOD CREEK ON SR 1426, BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2), State Project 8.2231501,
TIP No. B-2513.
Dear Mr. Stroud:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 6 over Hood Creek on SR 1426 in Brunswick County. The proposed project will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic will be detoured on surrounding
roads during construction. This project was approved as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) on
5 June 1997.
The existing bridge will be replaced by the construction of a new bridge, 140 feet in
length and 30 feet in width. To facilitate the construction of the new bridge, roadway fill
and excavation for channel realignment will be required. There will be 0.31 acres of
wetland impacts, 0.02 acres of surface water fill, 65 feet of channel fill, and 70 feet of
channel relocation associated with this project. The location of spoil disposal area will be
the roadway fill slopes, with variable area. High quality water erosion control methods
will be used to assure that excavated or fill material will be kept on the site. Streambank
reforestation measures shall be used to aid in the restoration of areas disturbed during the
channel relocation. Attached is a "Streambank Reforestation Detail Sheet", listing the
vegetation to be planted. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), which is not on the list,
will also be included in the reforestation. A telephone line will be relocated above
ground on power poles and a new 12" water line will be bored under the streambed using
a directional bore method. No additional impacts to wetlands or surface water will be
incurred with the movement of these utilities.
NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Major Development Permit. Enclosed are a permit
application, the CE document, permit drawings, and a check for $400.00 for the
processing of the CAMA and Section 401 applications. 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, we
are also requesting issuance of a United States Army Corps of Engineers NWP 23 and a
401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, contact Heather W. Montague
at [phone].
Sincerely,

??William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
cc: Mr. Doug Huggett, DCM
Mr. David Timpy, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Domey, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. John Alford, Roadway Design
D ECEIVE
FEB 2 3 2000
COASTAL l' E
MANAGEMENT
FORM DCM-MP-1
D E(CEHVE 0 PLICATION
be completed by all applicants)
FEB Z 3 2000
b. City, town, community or landmark
DIVIS10N OF 1. APPLICAYbASTAL MANAGEMENT Northwest (2.5 miles east of )
a. Landowner:
Name N.C. DQt of Transportation
Address P O Box 25201
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name
Address
City State _
Zip Day Phone _
Fax
C. Project name (if any) B-2513
State Project No. 8.2231501
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Brunswick
C. Street address or secondary road number
Mt. Misery Road (SR 1426)
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
e. , Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
river, creek sound, bay) Hood Creek
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 with new bridge.
Requires roadway fill and excavation for
Channel realignment.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
new work
c. Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Public transportation
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
methods of construction and daily operations
of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional. pages. To provide public
transportation. Standard roadway construction
equipment will be used. Piles for new bridge will
be installed by crane working on high around.
Channel excavation will be done by crane but will
Require mechanized clearing in wetlands to
Access channel. Old bridge will be removed in a
manner that will prevent debris from falling into
stream.
Revised 03/95
PJ?JLAVn .
FORM DCM-MP-1 FEB 2 3 2000
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
4. LAND AND WATER DIVISION OF N/A
CHARACTERISTICS COASTAL MANAGEMENT
a. Size of entire tract N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW effluent, "wash down", and residential
or NWL 12 feet discharges.) surface runoff
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Blanton fine sand,
_Muckalee loan (,mk). maymeade & Mary3m complex
1B0Cl. o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
e. Vegetation on tract swamp forest and N/A
upland forest
f.. Man-made features now on tract
existing bridge. roadway and utilities
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land hi addition to the completed application form, the
use plan) following items must be submitted:
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
_SBR-6000, stick built residential
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 X No
If yes, by whom?
* 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.)
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes -No
Coastal (marsh) Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
(Attach documentation, if available)
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 L1 ECEHVE
FEB 2 3 2000
D
site. Include highway or secondary road (S
number, landmarks, and the like. D I V I S I O Its O F TIFICATION AND
COASTAL MA ION TO ENTER ON LAND
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
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.
Name See Attached List on
Address permit drawings
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.
* A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
A statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
I 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 -Z day of f l'aQ'` , 20 00
Print Name William D. Gilmore. P.E.
Signature ' " C' ` /?Z )oo?-
Landowner or Author ed 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
X 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-S ECEUVE
BRIDGES AND 1112 3 2000
DIVISION OF
CULVERTS COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major (4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
Permit, Form DCM-MP4. Be sure to complete all removed? (Explain)
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to
this proposed project.
g. Length of proposed bridge _ 140 feet
1. BRIDGES
h. Width of proposed bridge 30 feet
a. Public X Private
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material) 12 feet
21" Cored slab. Spans: 1 @ 45', 1 @a. 50' and
1 Q 45' j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge If yes, explain
Hood Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 6 feet
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? 12 feet
X Yes No
If yes, 1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 120.5 feet reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 23.9 feet opening? Yes X No
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing If yes, explain difference is negligible
bridge 11 feet
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) The entire bridge will
be replaced by a new bridge.
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes X 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_ No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95
R SCENE
Form DCM-MP-5
F ' 2 kil'tPie p ed culvert affect existing navigation
2 CULVERTS N/A D I V I S I OolgtectFal? Yes No
COASTAL MAM, CM1t4T
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 X 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:
- Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 70 feet
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert? (2) Width of area to be excavated 36 feet
Yes No (3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
If yes, yards 290 cubic 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 40 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 30 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 247 cubic yards
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 Roadway fill slopes
MHW or NWL (2) Dimensions of spoil. disposal area
Variable
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow? (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
2J %J J CA A V 22 DU
Form DCM-MP-S FEB 2 3 2000
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future D KY proposed project require the relocation of
/ISIOI
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? Yes X No
MHW or NWL? Yes X No If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled and erosion controlled? _ High quality waters
(3) Purpose of fill erosion control measures
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert (for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
result in any fill (other than excavated material dredge)? Standard equipment to build bridge
described in Item d. above) to be placed within: ?i.e.. crane, pile drivers, etc;)
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 321 feet g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(2) Width of area to be filled 8.5 feet to project site? Yes X No
(3) Purpose of fill Roadway fill If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
highground? Yes X No require any shoreline stabilization?
If yes, Yes X No
(1) Length of area to be filled If yes, explain in detail
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
NCDOT: TIP Number B-2513
4. GENERAL Applicant or Project Name
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation? / ?( 6/1, Yes X No I'
If yes, explain in detail Signature
Jtt 1 F 2fl
Date
maintenance? X Yes _No COASTAL IVIA' Nyitylines? X Yes No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal yes, explain in detail Telephone line relocated
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands? Above ground on power poles New 12"water
Yes _? No line will be bored under streambed No im acts cts
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2) to wetlands or surface water.
above. C. Will the proposed project require the construction of
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below any temporary detour structures?
the MHW or NWL? Yes ?_No Yes _? No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2 If yes, explain in detail
above.
Revised 03/95
i motn w m BE ?v

.9

t iWOY CI®C \'>
\ ror.m ?

V
EB 2 3 2000
01VISION OF
(-,OAST AL MANAGEMENT
71,

.2 ./
4e -
Mrw1
I ?J z z e..,,ed
are \
OFF-SITE DETOUR
XWECT
1426
9
IaEcr? 14
\.? E°
,90
VICINH Y AMP

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2231501, B-2513
BRIDGE NO.6 OVER HOOD CREEK
SHEET I OF 7
LEGEND
Y°°wLB ? ?° WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WLB ?
;:
WETLAND
s
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
i--°W L B=
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
w MR IN WETLAND LL DRAINAGE INLET

DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
ROOTWAD
WATER
• _
¦
' DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
_
* _ ¦ CLEARING
--. FLOW DIRECTION
TB
--_ TOP OF BANK
_ WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 1- - - - WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
-m--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
ECEIVE
FEB 2 3 2000
DIVISION OF
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
PROJECT: 6.2231501 (B-2513)
2
ECEEVE $
FEB 2 3 2000
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENt
a Jr ,
J za
a¢
a g O ??
N
<
n
J
'a 5

<N?? w
m
¢PO ? ?
l O¢
a
b 7
¢
> 8H
f OI-
.4 C j
Nt=?
r
z/ssz'?
woos
e?,,. ,. ?
E8 OYN C1'9 Sy
4 j
?a
Q??O
J
"
t
m
? -
a

a ?W I
sQo? y. y
a l

`V
V1J?V1 a
JOFW ¢ _
Ur"N W ¢
a
=
¢ W o
m V'
H °
I
¢ j
W
0, 2 "
(A I
"O ? •
? LL U 4 4

h r? 1
?E q? \
p'I I Q I
?I I
I I I
I I ?? I

CD

I ? ?S

f ¢
- W

I o?
$ NV
2
r MI J
a

1 f
a mW
- ¢
0Z
4 N'"' u F- O
° ?n 1
X3
U lima
m ¢O
>Z
~
0!
•
•
\
/ "
NW
x
rW
•
1 JO
/
1?""
i u_j
• W / / / J x ?-
wW
'?D• /
1?
5? W Z
w

- - - - -
- - z U
r O ?
?
OE
'( \ 2 I

?0?,
\ Q a ',
?I
U
\
C -
W
m '? W
CL < <w

it
-in
f
<? a d
_ °F \N a Ui

o \ U

\
w
° z?.
C I
? ?
-a I
\ ? a z w I,
\ z z ? a
\ O a '?a U z
, c
a

\ J to z
\ 0 0 0
0 z d
lam \ A A A U
¢¢J
2 Q < \ ?
JW
2" \
UQW •
O(JJN \
S O \ N 4
0
0
{? W
O
? 11
Z?,y I
W m ECEIVE
,I
FEB 2 3 2000
N ?I
N ; ; DIVISION OF
?? COASTAL MANAGEMENT
o
1 ?
1
1 I <
' I z
1
3rn? 3NVa8 N
, t
LL
1 t rp
1 t r7
N 1-
1
? ip
I 1 Jm
v 1 ? t W N
LL ~ V m
? 1 N LL ? < Or T
d ? N ! 1 N N
< W
V J W
N 1 ; s I Z W
ar I o'^„ low:
J
Q 1 ? _ ;
1-
hN LL ,
< .m N ar/
uJi?a rn 1
W OQ ? ? 1 1
f
t0.1 IL 1 `
I!2A- N. 1 J - - - ' -11
w l l C )
1 I---T-
• Il 1
1a
J / CO
? u l
1 1
1 1
1 ?
1 ?
j?
r
z
ON O 9
W
U
F-F
F?
W
C? C
CV
11
F
..a
J
o U
0 L
W`
I?
rUr?
vJ
J
d°
z
N
Fy
1?1
O
O
11
x
w
U
o w
H?
ECEHVE axe x
FEB 2 3 2000 / <
x rx, W
DIVISION OF 3 r
COASTAL. MANAGEM T ° o z u o
/ o > m O w
ZO
WD
QZ I
w
----------------- -- -------------
L Q
z? I
L?j
OZ I z
\ \ v a
\ z
\ J
11111 ?
O
?I
U?ll
v ?
a?
a
m
-
LL
V
=
c
U
W
a
U 0 c E- O O
Q o ca w
CL

W
'a...
c a
(D
Q N
ca w
w v m co
W U
W
U '
LL. c U
c
0
U) LL
>
> fII

C .?. Q N

O
N
O
m
= Z O O
U- ?-
v
N tm
C
a 'a o U
c
0
U m a) ¢ O O O O
a U ?

a)
tm °
c
? U
-
U O a) Q
5
ca
U ? m
d °_ c
Cl) 2 m ¢

v o
z w o

ui i_
1 U
C
m
E
(D Q
c
W
C
_ m U o 0 0
Q o 0 0

.n
U) v
atv

V ?
``
N V
N
?U) j

05 (
cU-)
?- a
N y ?
O J 0
C J J
c
~ ^
U J J
o
f1A L i
t
O O n
)
aO 00 i
O O

+ CID
+ _
CY)
+ +
+
tf> CO
r r co O N
- H r 00 O
r N

? O J
Q
F/5 Z ~
O
F-
Z
W

o Ul
LL W
N
0 (D
<
z
cn
W C-4 oz
? >Q

o
U
RIPARIAN LANDOWNERS
Q DONALD R. LENNON
201 CHERRYWOOD DR.
GREENVILLE, NC 27834
O JOSEPH R. POWELL
4260 MT. MISERY RD.
LELAND, NC 29451
O LINWOOD PETERSON
456 CROWN CRESCENT
CHESAPEAKE,VA 25325
t
O BETTY B. HOFFMAN
2894 ELM ST.
CAYCE, SC 21 D33
Q NANCY L. CLARK
4299 MT. MISERY RD. ECEIVE
LELAND, NC 28451
FEB 2 3 2000
COASTAL 'MANAGEMENT
ECEHVE I
FEB 2 3 2000
RAti Rwli ?IIMR IIf1flIOlQ N4 TOTwL
Ho.
.C. RF-2.
Rwn .?eLrro.
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
? TYPE 1 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 0.9m TO 1.52m ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 1.22m ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 6726 PLANTS PER HECTARE.
? TYPE 2 STRFAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 1.8m TO 3.Om ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 2.4m ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 1680 PLANTS PER HECTARE.
? NOTE: TYPE I AND TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE
PAID FOR AS "STREAMBANK REFORESTATION"
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION TYPICAL
TYPE II
TYPE I
2.4 MET.
MET.
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
MATURE, TYPE, SIZE, AND FURNISH SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING:
TYPE 1
50% SALIX NIGRA BLACK WILLOW 300mm - 460mm BR
50% CORNUS AMOMUM SILKY DOGWOOD 300mm - 460mm BR
TYPE 2
25% LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA SWEETGUM 300mm - 460mm BR
25% PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS SYCAMORE 300mm - 460mm BR
25% PRUNUS SEROTINA BLACK CHERRY 300mm - 460mm BR
25% BETUTA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 300mm - 460mm BR
? SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AREAS TO BE PLANTED
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
DETAIL SHEET
N.C.D.O.T.- ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
£££££££f£4i4££4fCGllffff fff?£4?£££?£

i
' M
mss?
Brunswick County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1426
Over Hood Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2)
State Project 8.2231501
TIP # B-2513
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FEB 2
3.2000
APPROVED: COASTAL M®AGE'?
MEt? ,
5-b'-19 Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
t
• i
Brunswick County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1426
Over Hood Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2)
State Project 8.2231501
TIP # B-2513
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
A?'f lzdl--? 5 - i/7
JeffI
Proje t Planning Engi eer
A ;q e- 0l -G ? S-4- 5 7
Way Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
r s _? `17
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
.•` % C A ROB
4*1
SEAL
6916
`G?•.ri1NE??••'
J
??.
V. F
"88;1nu11140
Brunswick County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1426
Over Hood Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2)
State Project 8.2231501
TIP # B-2513
Bridge No. 6 is located in Brunswick County on SR 1426 crossing over Hood
Creek. It is programmed in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 6 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length at the existing location and roadway
elevation. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction (see
Figure 1).
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 feet),
which will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. The
approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders.
The shoulder will widen to 3.4 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. The
elevation of the new bridge and approaches will be approximately the same as the current
roadway. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to either side of
the new bridge (see Figure 2). Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 650,000 including $ 625,000 in construction
costs and $ 25,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1997-2003 TIP
is $ 717,000.
II SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina DEHNR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
In order to minimize effects of runoff on the stream water quality, construction will be
accomplished such that wet concrete does not come into contact with surface waters.
A CAMA permit may be necessary for this project. Representatives from CAMA
will determine the type, if any, of CAMA permit that is required after further
investigations and/or field visits. If a permit is required, it will be obtained prior to
construction.
III ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be required.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1426 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is 1500 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at
3300 VPD for the year 2020. SR 1426 is posted at 45 mph in the vicinity of the bridge
and serves mostly residential traffic.
The existing bridge was built in 1952. It is 36.6 meters (120 feet) long. The
bridge deck is approximately 6.4 meters (21 feet) above the streambed. The deck is
7.7 meters (25.3 feet) wide with 7.3 meters (24 feet) of clear roadway width. There are
two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 6 out of a possible 100. The bridge has weight restriction postings of 23 tons for
single vehicles and 33 tons for truck-tractor semi trailers (TTST).
The horizontal alignment is good on both the east and the west approaches. The
vertical alignment is also good. The pavement width on the approaches to the bridge is
6.1 meters (20 feet). Shoulders on the approaches are approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet)
wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported in
the vicinity of the bridge in the past three years.
There are sixteen daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge.
There are several utilities in the area, some of which may be impacted by this
project. Power lines and a fiber optic cable run along the south side of SR 1426. A water
line runs on the north side of SR 1426 from the west, ending approximately 75 meters
(250 feet) west of the bridge at a fire hydrant.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are three "build" options considered in this document. Each alternate
would provide a permanent alignment with a design speed of approximately 100 km/h
(60 mph). They are as follows:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) would replace the existing bridge with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length at the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. Traffic would be detoured along SR 1426, SR 1419, and US 74/76
during construction.
Alternate 2 would replace the existing bridge with a bridge approximately
43 meters (140 feet) in length at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic would be maintained during construction using an on-site detour located
to the north of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). This detour would require a bridge
approximately 33 meters (110 feet) in length with a roadway elevation approximately
1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existing bridge.
Alternate 3 would replace the existing bridge on new location to the north with a
bridge approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length (see Figure 2). Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATE I ALTERNATE 2 ALTERNATE 3
(Recommended)
New Bridge Structure $ 294,000 $ 294,000 $ 294,000
Bridge Removal 22,500 22,500 22,500
Roadway & Approaches 92,500 92,500 279,500
Temporary Detour 0 207,000 0
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 126,000 184,000 179,000
Engineering & Contingencies 90,000 125,000 125,000

Total Construction $ 625,000 $ 925,000 $ 900,000
Right of Way $ 25,000 $ 40,000 $ 59,000
Total Cost $ 650,000 $ 965,000 $ 959,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 6 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length at the existing location and roadway
elevation. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 feet),
which will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. The
approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders.
The shoulder will widen to 3.4 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. The
elevation of the new bridge and approaches will be approximately the same as the current
roadway. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to either side of
the new bridge. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Traffic will be detoured offsite along SR 1426, SR 1419, and US 74/76 as shown
in Figure 1. The roadways along the detour are well maintained with alignment equal to
or better than this section of SR 1426. Representatives from the Dupont plant near
Phoenix, N.C., have indicated that road closure at this location will not be a problem.
The school bus director for Brunswick County prefers that traffic be maintained.
Considerable, but not intolerable; inconvenience will result from road closure. The
division office recommends road closure during construction.
Road user analysis indicates that vehicles routinely using SR 1426 would
experience a travel cost increase of approximately $ 550,000. This cost is based on 1500
vehicles per day traveling as much as 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) out of their way for the
nine month construction period. Comparing this user cost to the $ 309,000 cost of
maintaining traffic on-site results in a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 1.8.
Alternates 1, 2, and 3 all propose replacing the existing structure with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length. All three alternates maintain a design
speed of approximately 100 km/hr (60 mph). Alternates 2 and 3 would impact
0.1 hectares (0.26 acres) and 0.13 hectares (0.33 acres) of wetlands, respectively.
Alternate 1 would have the least affect with likely impacts of less than 0.01 hectares
(0.02 acres). Maintenance of traffic (either Alternate 2 or 3) would increase the cost of
the project by nearly 50 percent.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 because it economically replaces the bridge, at
-a location where road closure is acceptable, in the least environmentally harmful way.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
4
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees as a result of the project. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
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.
The project is located in Brunswick County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the
project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. According to the
NRCS, the proposed bridge replacement will not impact prime farmland. The project
will result in the conversion of a small amount of land, but the area to be converted is
wooded and void of agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that they "are
aware of no historic structures within the area of potential effect." They therefore
recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted.
The State Office of Archaeology (SOA) knows of no archaeological sites within
the proposed project 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. Therefore, the SOA recommends that no archaeological
investigations be conducted in connection with this project.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
Soils in the project area consist of three main types. Muckalee loam (Mk) is a
nearly level poorly drained soil which occurs along the floodplains of freshwater creeks.
The soil is flooded frequently for brief periods. Surface runoff is typically slow and
permeability is moderate. In the project area this soil occurs along Hood Creek.
Maymeade and Marvyn complex (BDC) consists of well drained soils on short side
slopes typically at 6 to 12 percent grades. Surface runoff is slow to medium and
permeability is moderate. This soil complex is found on the steep slopes leading from the
upland areas to the floodplain of Hood Creek. Blanton fine sand (BnB) is a moderately
well drained soil found in slightly convex interstream areas. Surface runoff is slow and
permeability is rapid. This soil can be found in the higher upland areas along the project
area.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average
height, in feet, that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified
number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged,
unmanaged stands. The soils in the project area have a site index that ranges from 80 to
90 for loblolly pine.
Water Resources
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin. One surface water resource,
Hood Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Hood Creek originates about
10 kilometers (6 miles) south of the project area and flows to the north about 5 kilometers
(3 miles) to its confluence with the Cape Fear River. Hood Creek is approximately 15 to
18 meters (50 to 60 feet) wide within the project area, and constitutes a perennial
blackwater river system with very slow streamflow. Stream substrate was mainly sand,
with a high amount of dissolved and some particulate organic matter. The river has a
partly open canopy and riparian vegetation consisted mostly of deciduous trees.
At the time of the field survey, the creek averaged 1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) in
depth. In the project area, the stream contains mainly a straight run with a bend typically
every 30 meters (100 feet). The floodplain appears to be seasonally flooded along some
areas of the bank. Bald cypress root growths, or "knees", and fallen tree limbs act to
6
retain organic debris. Bryophytes (mosses) and filamentous algae were evident along the
cypress knees, above the water surface as well as along the stream banks. The water
color was dark yellow to brown color, as is typical for blackwater stream systems.
Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) that is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance
water quality within the State. Hood Creek (Index # 18-66) is classified as a Class C, Sw
waterbody. Class C water resources are used for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Swamp waters (Sw) are waters
which have slow velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HWQ), Water Supplies (WS-I of
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of
the project study area.
Water Quality
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural land is likely to be the primary source of
water quality degradation to the water resources located within the project vicinity. The
surrounding vicinity appears to be primarily forested land with some small areas of
cropland. Nutrient loading and increased sedimentation from agricultural runoff and
forestry affects water quality. Inputs of nonpoint source pollution from private residences
within the project area may also contribute to water quality degradation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DEHNR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and established in 1982, is part of an on-
going ambient long-term water quality monitoring program. The program has
established fixed water quality monitoring stations for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. No stations have been established by DEHNR along Hood Creek.
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ.
All discharges are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no known
permitted point source dischargers to Hood Creek within the project vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
.Any action which affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms.
Temporary impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the
aquatic community. Replacing an existing structure in the same location, with a
temporary road closure, is often the preferred environmental approach. Bridge
replacement with an on-site detour or replacement on a new location with a detour on
existing location generally results in more severe impacts. Therefore, based on
environmental impacts, Alternative 1 is the preferred alignment. Physical impacts will be
the most severe at the point of bridge replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion/and or construction.
Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills.
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Increased scouring of the existing channel due to increased water flows from the
stormwater runoff associated with curb and gutter systems.
It is important to understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the
communities in which the construction activity occurs. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be followed during the construction
phase of the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a
disturbed community, a swamp forest, and an upland forest. Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community
description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the
project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
Disturbed Community
The disturbed community includes the road shoulder and embankment. Many
plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly
maintained areas are dominated by various grasses. In areas not regularly mowed,
bracken, asters, and goldenrod predominate. Rush is present growing in the roadside
ditches.
Greenbriar, Japanese honeysuckle, privet, and pine saplings are. present along the
edge between this disturbed area and the adjacent forested communities.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves,
fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. American robins and
starlings are two of the more common birds that use these habitats.
Swamp Forest
The swamp forest community at the project site is the dominant community
within the low-lying area along Hood Creek. It is more extensive to the south of SR 1426
than on the north side, and on the north side it is more extensive on the east side of Hood
Creek than on the west. In the wetter areas cypress, red maple, and tupelo are the
dominant trees. At slightly higher elevations, laurel oak, water oak, swamp chestnut oak,
and sweetgum are dominant. Although the shrub layer was absent in the wet depressions,
American holly, ironwood, and blueberry were present in the shrub layer at higher
elevations. Groundcover was sparse during December at the time of the field evaluation.
Sphagnum moss and sensitive fern was observed in the depressions and partridge berry
and poison ivy in the dryer areas. Vines included greenbriar and grape. This community
corresponds most closely to the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community of the
NHP classification system.
8
No mammals were directly observed during the field activities. However, grey
squirrels, white-tailed deer, raccoon, and opossum likely utilize this habitat. Due to
frequent flooding it is likely that small mammals are uncommon, although the cotton
mouse may be present.
The only reptile observed was a green anole; however, this habitat type is also
utilized by the eastern king snake, and the rough green snake. Due to the wetness of the
swamp forest a variety of amphibians are often present. Maybee's salamander, marbled
salamander, southern dusky salamander, and river frog are all species that can be found in
this habitat.
A wide variety of birds use the forest for foraging and nesting. Species observed
during the field survey included American robin, slate-sided junco, Carolina chickadee,
and tufted titmouse.
Upland Forest
A distinct, steep slope separates this community from the swamp forest found in
the floodplain along Hood Creek. The upland forest community is dominated by loblolly
pine and laurel oak. American holly was the predominant shrub although immature
laurel oaks, strawberry bush, black highbush blueberry, and several other blueberry
species were also present, Herbaceous vegetation observed included partridge berry,
resurrection fern, ebony spleenwort, and pipsisiwa. Due to the suppression of natural
fires, introduction of loblolly pines, and man-induced disturbance over the years, it is
difficult to determine which community type within the NHP system this forested
community would most likely correspond to.
Large mammals utilizing the upland forest are likely similar to those found in the
swamp forest. A wide variety of birds also use the forest for foraging and nesting.
Species observed during the field survey included common flicker, red-bellied
woodpecker, slate-sided junco, Carolina chickadee, cardinals, and tufted titmouse. These
birds likely utilize the adjacent swamp forest as well.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community composition, including total species number, species
richness, taxa richness and density, and species tolerance data, is reflective of the
physical, chemical, and biological condition of the water resource.
Within the project.area Hood Creek is a low gradient, low to mid order, partly
open blackwater stream containing sandy substrates and having low water clarity. The
riparian community, especially on the eastern bank, contains mostly trees and is described
in the Swamp Forest Section.
Several minnows were observed during field activities, however, no species were
captured and identified. Hood Creek appears to provide habitat for a variety of species of
fish. According to the District Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), game fish species known to exist in Hood Creek within the project
area include largemouth bass, bluegill, chain pickerel, and warmouth. Nongame fish
species include spotted sucker, channel catfish, bowfin, and creek chubsucker. The
District Biologist also noted that the anadromous fish species, blueback herring, alewife,
hickory shad, and striped bass are known to exist in the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of
9
Hood Creek and can therefore be expected to migrate along Hood Creek for spawning.
Hood Creek has not been stocked for gamefish species.
Based on the above survey results, this stream segment generally contains a
moderate diversity and abundance of organisms typical of lotic depositional
environments in blackwater stream systems. Lotic depositional environments generally
contain fine sediments and occur in stream pools and along margins of higher velocity
streams. Many of the organisms are burrowers or are shredders of coarse particulate
organic matter. Generally, the most abundant organisms found in the survey were from
the Amphipod family, Gammaridae, and of the Gastropoda gill breathing genus,
Campeloma.
Much moss and filamentous algae were observed during the field survey along the
sides of cypress "knees" and along stream margins. Both types of aquatic plants probably
provide shelter and may act as a food source for some of the macroinvertebrate
organisms.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted by project
construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area along
SR 1426. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths for Alternatives 2
and 3 of 244 meters (800 feet) and 335 meters (1,100 feet), respectively, and the entire
proposed right-of-way width of 24 meters (80 feet). Table 1 details the potential impacts
to terrestrial communities by habitat type. It should be noted that impacts are based on
the entire right-of-way width and actual loss of habitat will likely be less.
Table 1
Estimated Area Impacts to
Terrestrial Communities
Community Impacted Area in hectares (acres)
Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Disturbed Community 0.004(0.01) 0.03 (0.08) 0.05 (0.13)
Swamp forest 0.00 (0.0) 0.14 (0.35) 0.19 (0.46)
Upland Forest 0.00 (0.0) 0.16 (0.40) 0.36 (0.89)
Total Impacts 0.004 (0.01) 0.33 (0.83) 0.60(l.48)
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the
loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species which utilize the
10
area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds,
mammals, and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction.
Young animals and less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss
during construction. Plants and animals found in these communities are generally
common throughout North Carolina. Alternative 1 calls for no changes to the roadway
alignment, thereby minimizing terrestrial impacts.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to
moderate slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a
consequence of erosion. It is important to understand that construction impacts may not
be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may affect
downstream communities. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures due to
the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and
terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial
fauna which rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts may result to aquatic organisms from
increased sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during
construction and recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments
have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the
clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces; affecting the habitat by
scouring and filling of pools and riffles; altering water chemistry; and smothering
different life stages. Increased sedimentation may caused decreased light penetration
through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete will not come into contact with surface water during bridge
construction in order to minimize effects of runoff on the stream water quality. Potential
adverse effects can be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. ,
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface
waters or wetlands falls under these provisions.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands occur on both sides of SR 1426. On the south side of the
road, the wetlands are present on both the east and west side of Hood Creek. North of the
road, the wetlands are present primarily to the east of Hood Creek, with only a small strip
on the west. Not all areas classified as Swamp Forest as described in this document meet
the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands are confined to the
11
wetter areas and are not present on the slightly higher terrace. Within the wetter areas
Muckalee soils, which are identified as a hydric soil by the NRCS, are present. However,
on the terrace the soils did not exhibit typical hydric characteristics, such as lower
chromas and oxidized rhizospheres. Other wetland characteristics in the wetter areas
included standing water, surface drainage patterns, and the presence of wetland
vegetation such as cypress. The primary functions of this wetland area include flood
storage, wildlife habitat, shore stabilization, and nutrient retention.
The DWQ has instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to gauge wetland
quality. The fourth version of this rating system assesses wetlands on the basis of water
storage, pollutant removal, bank/shoreline stabilization, wildlife habitat, aquatic live
value, and recreational/educational potential. The DWQ rating for this wetland is 61.
Hood Creek meets the definition of surface waters. Hood Creek is therefore
classified as Waters of the United States.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Highway construction impacts can affect the functions that wetlands perform in
an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and
storing storm runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and
downstream area. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and inorganic
nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows across them. The presence of
wetlands adjacent to the roadways can act as filters for pollutants in runoff.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
wetlands and surface waters. Alternative 1 would have the least affect with likely
impacts of less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres). Alternative 2 would impact about 0.1
hectares (0.26 acres) of wetlands. These impacts would be severe but temporary and the
wetlands could be restored when bridge construction was completed and the temporary
detour removed. Alternative 3 would impact about 0.13 hectares (0.33 acres) of
wetlands. These anticipated impacts are based upon a right-of-way width of 24 meters
(80 feet). Project construction typically does not require the entire right-of-way,
therefore, actual wetland impacts may be less. These impact estimates are only for
wetland areas directly disturbed by construction. Additional wetland areas may be
indirectly affected due to changes in water levels and siltation from construction
activities.
Anticipated wetland and surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated from the
proposed project. Permits and certifications from various state and federal agencies will
be required prior to construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of CFR 330.5 (a) Nationwide
Permit (NWP) No. 23, which authorizes 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 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act that:
12
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 Engineer has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver thereof,
from DEHNR prior to issuance of the NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S.
A CAMA permit may be necessary for this project. Representatives from CAMA
will determine the type, if any, of CAMA permit that is required after further
investigations and/or field visits. If a permit is required, it will be obtained prior to
.construction.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include, avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, and compensation for impacts (40 CFR
1408.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensation) must
be documented as part of the sequencing process.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable alternatives to avert impacts
to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
-right of way widths, and fill slopes.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the area where
wetlands are affected.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation
for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
13
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either due to natural forces
or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
Brunswick County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists sixteen federally protected species for
Brunswick County as of August23, 1996. These species are listed in Table 2.
Table 2
Federally-protected Species For
Brunswick County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E.
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S/A)
Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T
Charadrius melodus Piping plover T
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon E
Felis concolor concolor Eastern cougar E
Halieetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T
Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle E
Mycteria americana Wood stork E .
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Trichechus manatus Manatee E
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach amaranth T
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loostrife E
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's meadowrue E
14
Notes: "E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"S/A" Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for
its protection. These species are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species,
along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact, follows.
Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose sturgeon) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Acipenseridae
Federally Listed: 1967
The shortnose sturgeon is a medium-sized [45 to 90 centimeters (17 to 35 inches)]
fish, with a relatively short snout and a wide mouth. Its body is somewhat elongate and
pentagonal in cross section and armored with five bony plates (scutes) and dorsal and
anal fins far back on the body.
Shortnose sturgeon extend from large freshwater rivers to the sea, their
distribution related to the migration of adults between spawning, feeding, and wintering
areas. Typically upriver migrations to spawning grounds occur in spring or fall. During
the fall and winter, an unknown portion of the population appears to leave the estuaries
and move short distances into the Atlantic Ocean, but different patterns of movement
have been found for different populations. Adults are found in deep water [10 to 30
meters (33 to 66 feet)] in the winter and shallow water [2 to 10 meters (6 to 33 feet)] in
summer. Juveniles are nonmigratory and typically inhabit deep channels of swiftly
flowing rivers above the salt wedge. This species is anadromous, spawning in freshwater
at a temperature of 9 to 12 C (48 to 54 F) from February to mid-May. Spawning sites are
either in swift water with gravel and rubble substrate or freshwater swamps.
Shortnose sturgeon are benthic foragers and prefer areas with soft substrate and
vegetated bottoms. Juveniles feed on small crustaceans and insect larvae. Adults in
freshwater feed mostly on crustaceans, insect larvae, and mollusks; in estuaries they
mainly eat polychaete worms, crustaceans, and mollusks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the shortnose sturgeon. Hood Creek, a
low velocity blackwater creek, does not meet the habitat requirements for the sturgeon. A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the shortnose sturgeon in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance
This listing is defined as a species which is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect the rare species. The
American alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
15
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead sea turtle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1978
The loggerhead sea turtle is a large [25 to 123 centimeters, (10 to 49 inches)],
brown to reddish brown turtle, with large, paddle like flippers. Male loggerheads
typically differ from females by having narrow and posteriorly tapering shells and longer,
thicker tails. The loggerhead turtle is thought to be the largest living, hard-shelled turtle
and is the most common marine turtle occurring along the North Carolina coast. The
loggerhead is the only member of the Cheloniidae family that commonly nests on the
North Carolina coast.
The loggerhead inhabits the ocean and other saltwater environments along the
coast. Individuals may also rarely inhabit freshwater for extended periods. Loggerheads
tend to range close to shore and also occur in sounds and estuarine areas during the
warmer months. Based on aerial surveys conducted in 1980 and 1981, the beaches of
Smith Island, at the mouth of the Cape Fear River, may support the largest concentrated
rookery of loggerheads in North Carolina. They tend to nest along the coast, especially
on beaches. Typically the females come ashore at night and lay a clutch (average no.
115) of eggs, above the highwater mark on the seaward side of the dunes. Incubation
periods range form 56 to 65 days.
Although omnivorous, its diet is composed primarily of marine invertebrates.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the loggerhead sea turtle. Hood Creek
does not meet the habitat requirement of estuarine or saltwater environments. A search of
the NHP database found no occurrence of the loggerhead sea turtle in the project vicinity.
It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Charadrius melodus (Piping plover) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Charadriidae
Federally Listed: 1985
The piping plover is a medium sized shore bird, found of flat, sandy beaches of
the barrier islands. Adult males are pale grayish brown above with a blackish breast
band, -black collar, and black frontal bar extending from eye to eye across the front of the
crown. The stubby bill is dull orange and tipped with black. The feet and legs are also
orange.
The piping plover is endemic to North America and breeds in three geographically
disjunct populations, the northern Great Plains, the Great Lakes region, and the Atlantic
Coast. The nesting season in North Carolina is from late March to July, and only one
brood is raised annually. The nest, a shallow depression in the sand, is typically lined
with bits of broken shells or fine pebbles. Clutch size is typically four eggs. Incubation
lasts 26 to 30 days and is shared equally by both adults.
Piping plovers use a variety of foraging sites including intertidal surf zones, mud
flats, tidal pool edges, barrier flats, and sand flats. They glean these areas for a variety of
small invertebrates including marine worms, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, and a variety
of larvae and eggs of small marine animals and insects.
16
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the piping plover. The project site is
entirely wooded and contains no sandy beaches or tidal pools, or mud flats. A search of
the NHP database found no occurrence of the piping plover in the project vicinity. It can
be concluded that the project will not impact this Threatened species.
Chelonia mydas (Green sea turtle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1973
The green sea turtle is a medium to large turtle growing to about 1 meter (3 feet)
in length. The back of the shell and appendages is dark green to brown, often with lines
radiating from the posterior margin of each carapacial scute. The bottom of the shell and
appendages are cream white.
The green sea turtle ranges throughout the tropical oceans and estuaries and
occurs from New England south to Argentina. They nest primarily on tropical beaches of
the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea, as well as the Atlantic Coast of Florida. However,
they occasionally nest as far north as North Carolina. Hatchling green sea turtles take up
a pelagic existence in Sargassum mats in major ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream.
These turtles are powerful swimmers and are known to travel long distances. Juvenile
green sea turtles can be found in temperate areas, while adult turtles do not travel beyond
the tropics, but do migrate over long distances and deep water to reach nesting sites.
Adults are primarily herbivores eating various kinds of saltwater plants, although
they are known to eat jellyfish. The young are mostly carnivores.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the green sea turtle. The project site is
wooded and Hood Creek is a freshwater stream. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of the green sea turtle in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
project will not impact this Threatened species.
Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Dermochelyidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The leatherback sea turtle is the world's largest sea turtle. Typical adults reach
155 centimeters (62 inches) in length and weigh 360 kilograms (795 pounds). The
"shell" is not horny but covered with a smooth skin that feels and looks rubbery or
leathery. The back is black and the belly is white, yellow, or pink.
Leatherbacks are the most pelagic of the sea turtles, spending most of their time in
coastal and offshore waters, but are known to occasionally wander close to shore and into
estuaries. They are capable of traveling long distances and range throughout tropical and
temperate oceans of the world. Nesting areas are tropical, primarily on Caribbean shores,
with some nesting occurring on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast of
southeastern United States. There has only been one reported nest site in North Carolina.
17
Although omnivorous, they feed primarily on jellyfish and Portuguese men-of-
war. Other food items include sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, fish, blue-green algae, and
floating seaweeds.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the leatherback sea turtle. The project site
is wooded and Hood Creek is a freshwater stream. A search of the NHP database found
no occurrence of the leatherback sea turtle in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Falconidae
Federally Listed: 1984
The peregrine falcon is a "hawk-like" bird with long pointed wings, dark blue or
slate underparts, with black on the top of the head and cheeks. The tail is long, narrow,
blue-grey, and rounded with narrow black bands and a broad subterminal bar tipped with
white. It has a pale bluish bill and yellow legs and feet. However, much subspecific
variation exists.
The peregrine falcon forages in a wide variety of habitats including coastal waters,
open valleys, tundra, and intensely congested cities. It nests on cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes,
pinnacles, and on the ground. Historically, nesting in the southern United States has
occurred in the hollows of old trees or in old nests of eagles, hawks, and ravens. They
also use artificial landscape features such as bridges, towers, and multi-story buildings.
Peregrine falcons feed primarily on birds, which they capture by hitting in the air
following high speed dives. Males and females often hunt iri pairs. Prey may be
consumed on the spot or taken elsewhere. Birds hunted include small- to medium-sized
birds such as rock dove, pelagic birds, songbirds, and water fowl. They occasionally feed
on small mammals and insects such as butterflies, beetles, and dragonflies.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the peregrine falcon. The project site is
used by a variety of bird species, which potentially are suitable prey for the peregrine
falcon, however, no suitable nesting areas are present. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of the peregrine falcon in the project vicinity. It can be concluded
that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Felis concolor concolor (Eastern cougar) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Felidae
Federally Listed: 1973
The Eastern cougar or panther (also referred to as a mountain lion), is a very large,
long-tailed, cat, attaining total lengths of 1.8 to 2.3 meters (6 to 7.5 feet) and weights of
45 to 67.5 kilograms (100 to 150 pounds). In adults the fur is short brownish on the back
and sides, with whitish underparts. The tip of the tail is dark. Tracks of the adults are
large [9 centimeters (3.5 inches)], and the retractive claws do not show.
18
The Eastern cougar prefers large tracts of wilderness area and is found in remote,
rugged habitats such as mountains, gorges, and swamps. The home range of the cougar
averages 25 to 50 square kilometers (9.6 to 19.3 square miles). Males are solitary most of
the year, but a female may be accompanied by her young for up to two years after their
birth. There have been no confirmed sightings of the Eastern cougar in the Coastal Plain
of North Carolina for a number of years.
They feed mostly on large prey such as deer, but also are known to eat rabbits,
squirrels, voles, beaver, birds, and fish. The Eastern cougar typically stalks its prey and
leaps upon it from the ground rather than from ambush in trees or rocks. It will often
hide uneaten portions of its kill for future meals, but it will not eat spoiled meat.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Eastern cougar. Although there are
some large undeveloped tracts in the project vicinity, there is sufficient development in
the project area that would preclude the site as potential Eastern cougar habitat. A search
of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Eastern cougar in the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Halieetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 1978
The bald eagle is a large raptor, with a wingspread of about 2.1 meters (7 feet).
Adult plumage is mainly dark brown with a pure white head and tail. First year juveniles
are often chocolate brown to blackish. The head and tail become increasingly white with
age until full adult plumage is reached in the 5th or 6th year.
The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually
nesting near large bodies of water where it feeds. Selection of nesting sites varies
depending on the species of trees growing in the particular area. In the Southeast, nests
are constructed areas where pines or bald cypress are an important component of the
canopy. Nests are usually constructed in live trees, but dead trees are occasionally used.
Nest trees are typically the largest tree around with an open view of the surrounding area.
The nests are constructed of large sticks with a softer material added as a nest lining. The
nests are very large, up to 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide and weighing hundreds of pounds.
Many nests are used year after year. Nesting eagles are particularly sensitive to human
activity.
Bald eagle wintering areas possess many of the same characteristics as nest sites.
However, the birds are not as closely limited to shores at this time, with both adults and
immatures gathering food where it is most easily available. Roost sites are an important
component of wintering areas. Eagles may roost singly or in groups exceeding a hundred
birds.
An opportunistic predator, the bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also eats a
variety of birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not readily available. Both live prey
and carrion is eaten.
19
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the bald eagle. There are no large bodies
of water or suitable nest trees in the project area. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of the bald eagle in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project
will not impact this Threatened species.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1970
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is small, with a heart shaped or nearly circular gray or
olive brown shell, and has paddle like flippers. They are white or cream colored beneath.
:.. Male ridleys typically differ from females by having longer tails and more concave
plastrons. The ridley is likely the smallest of the sea turtles and is probably the most
endangered marine turtle in the world.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles nest in the daytime during the spring and summer along
a short strand of beach on the coast of Tamaulipas near Rancho Nuevo, in Mexico. Eggs
are lain just above the dune line where they incubate for 50 to 70 days. Hatchlings
probably inhabit weedlines of offshore currents and shift to a nearshore benthic habitat
with increasing age. Only one nesting is known to have occurred along the North
Carolina coast. This nesting event was recorded along Long Beach, Brunswick County.
Very little is known about the ridley turtle in North Carolina. Most individuals have been
found in high saline areas of sounds near the Atlantic Ocean. Ridley's feed on clams,
crabs, and snails.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The project
site is wooded and Hood Creek is a freshwater stream. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Mycteria americana (Wood stork) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Ciconiidae
Federally Listed: 1984
The wood stork is a large, long-legged wading bird, with a head to tail length of
85 to 115 centimeters (33-45 inches) and a wingspread of 150 to 165 centimeters (59 to
65 inches). The plumage is white, except for iridescent black primary and secondary
feathers and a short black tail. Storks fly with their necks and legs extended. On adults
the rough scaly skin of the neck is unfeathered and blackish in color. The legs are dark
and the feet are dull pink.
Wood storks use a variety of freshwater and estuarine wetlands as nesting,
feeding, and roosting sites. Typically, storks select patches of medium tall trees which
are located in either standing water or on islands surrounded by open water, as nesting
sites. At freshwater nesting sites, nests are often constructed in bald cypress, swamp
tupelo, and southern willow. Colony sites must remain inundated throughout the nesting
cycle to protect against predation and abandonment. Storks tend to use the same colony
20
sites over many years, as long as the sites remain undisturbed, and sufficient feeding
habitat remains in the surrounding area.
Storks forage in a wide variety of shallow wetlands. Feeding conditions usually
occur is relatively calm water, where depths are between 5 to 40 centimeters
(2 to 16 inches), and where the water column is uncluttered by dense patches of aquatic
vegetation. Typical foraging sites include freshwater marshes, stock ponds, shallow
seasonally flooded roadside ditches, narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, managed
impoundments and depressions in cypress heads, and swamp sloughs. Almost any
shallow wetland depression where fish become concentrated may be used as feeding
habitat.
Wood storks feed almost entirely on fish between 2 and 25 centimeters
(1 to 10 inches) in length. The specialized feeding behavior of wood storks involves
tactolocation, or grope feeding. A feeding stork wades through the water with the beak
immersed and partially open. Upon contact with a prey item the mandibles are forcibly
snapped shut, the head is raised and the food swallowed. Tactolocation allows the storks
to feed at night or in water that is turbid. For this type of feeding to be effective prey
must be concentrated in relatively high densities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the wood stork. The._project site is
wooded, Hood Creek contains a closed canopy and is too deep to provide forage habitat
for the wood stork. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the wood stork
in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
Endangered species.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Picidae
Federally. Listed: 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 18 to
20 centimeters (7.4 to 8.2 inches) long with a wing span of 35 to 38 centimeters
(14 to 15 inches). The back and top of the head are black. The cheek is white.
Numerous small white spots arranged in horizontal rows give a ladder-back appearance.
The chest is dull white with small black spots on the side. Males and females look alike
except males have a small red streak above the cheek.
Among woodpeckers, the red-cockaded has an advanced social system. They live
in a group termed a clan. The clan may have from two to nine birds, but never more than
one breeding pair. The other adults are usually males and are called helpers. The helpers
are usually the sons of the breeding male and can be from 1 to 3 years old. The helpers
assist in incubating eggs, feeding young, making new cavities, and defending the clan's
area from other red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those which are
infected with a fungus producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of
cavity trees called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than
12, but it is used only by one clan. In most colonies, all the cavity trees are within a
circle about 450 meters (1,500 feet) wide. Open stands of pines with a minimum age of
80 to 120 years provide suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most commonly
used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines, or
21
stands that have a dense hardwood understory are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided
in pine and pine hardwood, stands 30 years or older with foraging preference for pine
trees 25 centimeters (10 inches) or larger in diameter.
The woodpeckers diet consists mainly of insects which includes ants, beetles,
wood-boring insects, and caterpillars.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project area was evaluated for suitable nesting and foraging habitat by
walking two transects parallel to the road at 15 meter (50 feet) intervals. Potential
foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is present in the project area. The
upland wood areas are a mix of loblolly pines and hardwoods. No suitable nesting
habitat was observed in the project area or adjacent areas. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the project vicinity and no
individual birds were observed during field activities. It can be concluded that the project
will not impact this Endangered species.
Trichechus manatus (Manatee) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Trichechidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The manatee is a massive, barrel-shaped aquatic mammal averaging 3 to 4 meters
(10 to 13 feet) in length and weighing about 500 kilograms (1100 pounds). The tough,
thick skin is gray to gray-brown, wrinkled, and almost hairless. The neck is short,
merging with the body, and the head is rounded with a squared muzzle. Forelimbs are
short and paddle-like, hind limbs are absent. The tail is horizontally flattened and
rounded.
In North America the manatee ranges from North Carolina to the Florida Keys
and the Gulf of Mexico. They are limited to waters above 21 degrees C (70 degrees F),
and can be found in shallow, nearshore marine and estuarine habitats, sluggish rivers, and
warm water springs. Manatees are migratory, responding to changes in temperature, and
seem to follow established routes. When water temperatures drop below 20 degrees C
(68 degrees F), they begin to move into warmer water, often forming large aggregations.
They are difficult to observe as they generally swim 1 to 3 meters (3 to 6 feet) below the
surface of the water.
The manatee is a herbivore eating submerged vascular plants, emergent and
floating vegetation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the manatee. Hood Creek, which averages
1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) in depth, is too shallow to provide adequate habitat for a
manatee. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the manatee in the
project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered
species.
22
Amaranthus pumilus (Seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed: 1992
The seabeach amaranth is an annual plant, that grows in clumps in disturbed
sandy areas. Germination occurs over a relatively long period of time from April to July.
Upon germination the plant initially forms a small unbranched sprig, but soon begins to
branch profusely into a clump, often reaching 0.3 meters (1 feet) in diameter and
consisting of 5 to 20 branches. The stems are fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small
rounded leaves that are 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters (0.5 to 1 inches) in diameter with a small
notch at the rounded tip. The leaves are clustered toward the tip of the stem and are a
dark green color. Flowers are inconspicuous and are borne in clusters along the stem.
Flowering begins as soon as plants have reached sufficient size, sometimes as early as
June, but more typically in July or August and reaches a peak in September.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to Atlantic coastal plain beaches. It occurs on
barrier island beaches, where its primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting
ends of islands and lower foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches. It
occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other habitats including sound-
side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell material placed as beach
replenishment or dredge spoil. Seabeach amaranth is intolerant of competition and does
not occur on well-vegetated sites. It appears to need extensive areas of barrier island
beaches and inlets, that allow it to move around in the landscape as a fugitive species, to
occupy suitable habitat as it becomes available.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the seabeach amaranth. The project site is
wooded with no beaches or dunes. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of
the seabeach amaranth in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not
impact this Threatened species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (Rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulacae
Federally Listed: 1987
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems
30. to 60 centimeters (12 to 24 inches) in height. Leaves are unusually sessile, occurring_
in whorls of 3 or 4. They are broadest at the base [0.8 to 2 centimeters (0.3 to 0.8 inches)
wide], entire, and have three prominent veins. The yellow, bisexual flowers are borne on
a loose, terminal raceme. The inflorescence usually has five petals with ragged margins
near the apex and with dots or steaks. Flowering occurs from late May to early June, and
seeds are formed by August. Despite winter dormancy, the plant is easy to recognize in
the fall because of the reddish color and distinctive leaf patterns.
The habitat for the rough-leaved loosestrife is generally the ecotone between
longleaf pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty
soils occur and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Fire is
the main factor for the suppression of taller vegetation. The rough-leaved loosestrife is
associated with six natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine
flatwoods, pine savannah, streamwood pocosin, and sandhill seep.
23
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project site is wooded with no longleaf pine or oak savannas habitat present.
Although a search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the rough-leaved
loosestnfe in the project vicinity, NCDOT personnel have documented the presence of
the rough-leaved loosestnfe in atypical habitats. The project area was searched for
rough-leaved loosestrife by NCDOT personnel in June, 1996. First, a known population
of rough-leaved loosestrife was visited to observe its vegetative characteristics, habitat,
and flowering stage, and then the project area was searched. No rough-leaved loosestrive
were observed. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered
species.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
Cooley's meadowrue is a tall (1 meters (3 feet) or more in flower), herb, with
slender erect or sprawling stems. The leaves are ternately divided with the lower leaves
usually subdivided. Leaflets are about 2 centimeters (1 inch) long, mostly narrow, with
entire margins or rarely with two or three lobes near the top of the plant. Loose, few
flowered clusters appear at the top of the plant in late June to early July. The flowers lack
petals, and the sepals are small and fall early. Male and female flowers occur on separate
plants. The male flowers are conspicuous with their numerous pale lavender stamens,
while the female flowers have separate spindle-shaped carpels which develop into
narrowly ellipsoid, ribbed, one seeded fruits.
Cooley's meadowrue is found on fine sandy loams which are minimally
seasonally moist or saturated and are only slightly acidic or circumneutral. Cooley's
meadowrue occupies a narrow hydrologic regime, where the soil is moist or saturated, but
water does not frequently stand on the surface. Cooley's meadowrue occurs in wet pine
savannas, grass-sedge bogs, and savanna-like areas, often at the edge of intermittent
drainages or swamp forests. Cooley's meadowrue is usually associated with some type of
disturbance, including clearings, edges of frequently burned savannas, power line right-
of-ways which are maintained by fire or mowing, and roadside edges.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project site is primarily wooded, and although roadside habitat does occur,
there are no areas that meet the typical moisture regime along the road.. _ Although a _
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Cooley's meadowrue in the
project vicinity, NCDOT personnel have documented the presence of the Cooley's
meadowrue in atypical habitats. The project area was searched for Cooley's meadowrue
by NCDOT personnel in June, 1996. First, a known population of Cooley's meadowrue
was visited to observe its vegetative characteristics, habitat, and flowering stage, and then
the project area was searched. No Cooley's meadowrue were observed. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
24

VIA

r

of

Ash

30 10
or
.4 1
Seasid

Sunset 34?,
Beach
rAek
he
Of 3
of k-1 11 ?' 14
shop , I
Town cie-ek-i?,r
Winnab
14
Supply 17B Boiling
?Spring Lakes
Smith
130

Beach h
i ..
1422 1427

ti North o 1423
West
9
.2 1426 .3

5
1 1426 1428
. , d60

1 lg 1453
1419 Qq/?R
? 1b26 458
i d25 q? - .

j 1425 `
•???

?
BRIDGE N0
6 \
z co .
1459 \
1419
/•6 ti o

'-:•;? 1 b 18 Phoenix
-? 4 y
Moco 3 A
EK
1418

?Q 1452
Eastbrook

s?
1417 cs?
Malmo
87
t?
'cqe
.? O
2.2 I
dl7 1?T
l?
YN ?
Shilo
Ch/ s O ,d,
Studied Detour Route
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.6 ON SR 1426
OVER HOOD CREEK
B-2513
0 Idlometers 1.6 Idlometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles I miles 2

Leland
CSX pp5

Z sapm I salim 0
I aln?t3
Z g sia;amoln1 9•I sra;amolPl 0
£TSZ-g
xamo aoOH HaAO
9zvT us No 9.ON 39mg 33VIia3I
A.INaO3 XXtASNfIUE[
gaueag le;aamuoaleug 2F $IDtuueld ;9-44't
uoueuodsuea•I, z
Jo ;uamuedaa eugojej quoN
7, T
Sd?
puoIal
i
'WSJ
1ooJ91so3

x!uaoyd
zrdip?<
a;nog Ino;aQ paipn;S
l9l Os
i O!!4SXS7 1? LIVL
9L pb
dy ZT-VL
y
OWID /
'WSJ
110.
\ZSv l
c
0
rl
6sv tL 9.ON aOQI2ig
_AV
8SV 9Zvt
?• 09vt
8ZV1 9ZVL n
£ 6 Ti
r?
LZVI
\ y ' goseg
Is, U2020
? yassg 'by?tssunS?
\ f tlarsq 4sng aes °b yaeeg ys, [ gs.
\ Qnoy odnsA 4 ual usplo 9 apisro
\OO It tE 411 H7 w+,o3wewsA t -uMO3lassug
ii\i t t S 3asun - 6 9A
9- f
•a3T; . 8 4lwS Oct S olg
6 pooMeuo
y 3 llo1Rgs-
.ira c sa491 auuas? '.(loons 01 OE t
Dw to
I g 8LI : ?.,
I_s, r? uo 1 1 g9 ?_ qsv
't'y ? eul o
+ in
i M s N n a s
i k t._ mgeuwM ti 1 /
?looyslg 1
1
L?' Ji 9t} 6 1 /
1
fill!A uj= /
if
.ate ! f\
4C ur
/ /
/
Ll9l --
En
etvt n x3
y b ?::•::
Bill[
9•/
6tvt
z
szvt r
sivt
6lvl
9ZVL Z?
1saM ..
sZV tL 0. UPON R
? S -
FIGURE 4
THE NORTH FACE OF BRIDGE NO. 6

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 24, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 6 on SR 1426 over Hood Creek,
Brunswick County, B-2513, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-1426(2), ER 96-8852
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
EtYF
JUN 2 6 1996
On June 20, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.. __ _ . ..
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present 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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?471
Sincerely,
`ct0 zvv-jl4j
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
CENTER OF BRIDGE LOOKING WEST
CENTER OF BRIDGE LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3

O p
OWN. °7_.77
[?'1 p 7 = o .
C7 "' ;? i rTa
-3 0
I
Cl ID
C=-1 O Z ?
O O z1 '>
7C N ? ?
N

a
R :`7
bra' v , ? ?.A
(D
O y
rD _?
W QQ

? ?
X
?
;N Tr
'?
?
• '?
` f?
? ?'
ti + I
f
?
1 E' ?
it?
'
i
-.. e r
? ?
J
_
a xs >f , 'i A. ? l ? die y a4- t . p-?
? '
?
Ls .r - ? ? e.j '?'' ?
. .
t
? v"'F
-r 2•
?xc "Tj
Y
_
a

fx• ':I ? - Kt <.€ 1#? ' • ????` t ?e" "?° x„t a ?-' ? r ?? .1 ? - a j {{ ti-
? y
? d :
a .1?7
??
7NR
•"
y'
a
? ?•d ?C
i
tr
?
?
?
t? y ?
;
1?7
r
-..
e
?
;?' f
''!•?
t
x

•
• ` 51
'
?`
,
k
? ?
? - 1
T 1
.
tjty
i Y ,, ` f ' i
:7U1
?A'tP
?3 t w
y

I
I a?
95
h
V 4 s
) } 1
ir
" t
?
v
'
'?'
?,JY' ,?„?F ;: !" F}.4 x
4?'"'', ' ?? +4R'R $`3?f ?t•. -; .:? s; q
..;.
'?'_ 1' '3 ? ? •.\ `}- y?' t t .Fyt°S
? zRZ P ?
` ? ?, f!? ?YF? ? P lr'1lc
. 1 ?a: ?S •}y P ;
t
?
?; a m .
• r:.
"$ ?
:
t
-•?
`
? ?
-
? ti
r
?
? ?
.
.?
y
s
?
!}
?
r ?
+
,? ,max ? ?,? ? „'?3
t? ?
,j?t? ?' , r bai
y 1y? ?. ?1=.T '4 t ;; • ?Y?+r'A.'
i ?_
.
`
"
x d ..+?i ? Y 4
J

ti
Y k¢I'3N ? t? ?? t*' ?:l ~p I?SA x?? k F.? ` , Z ??

v t• P J?

tr

Brunswick County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1426
Over Hood Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2)
State Project 8.2231501
TIP # B-2513
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
f
f 9 2
WETLANDS GROUP a
WATER QUALITY SECTION( }
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
5-b/-19 Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
D L? p -/ BJV
FEB 2 3 2000
IISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT

Brunswick County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1426
Over Hood Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2)
State Project 8.2231501
TIP # B-2513
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
A -'? I - ? 5 - i,7
Jeff I
Proje t Plannmg Engi eer
A ;j e- &71, ? s-tl , q ?
Way Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
•?o % 6 A R0?'''•
r SEAL
i 6916
SII ? .ti 1N••
7
`?.?.
V. PRli?
Brunswick County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1426
Over Hood Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2)
State Project 8.2231501
TIP # B-2513
Bridge No. 6 is located in Brunswick County on SR 1426 crossing over Hood
Creek. It is programmed in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 6 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length at the existing location and roadway
elevation. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction (see
Figure 1).
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 feet),
which will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. The
approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders.
The shoulder will widen to 3.4 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. The
elevation of the new bridge and approaches will be approximately the same as the current
roadway. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to either side of
the new bridge (see Figure 2). Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 650,000 including $ 625,000 in construction
costs and- $--25,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1997-2003 TIP
is $ 717,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
- All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina DEHNR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
In order to minimize effects of runoff on the stream water quality, construction will be
accomplished such that wet concrete does not come into contact with surface waters.
A CAMA permit may be necessary for this project. Representatives from CAMA
will determine the type, if any, of CAMA permit that is required after further
investigations and/or field visits. If a permit is required, it will be obtained prior to
construction.
III ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be required.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1426 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is 1500 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at
3300 VPD for the year 2020. SR 1426 is posted at 45 mph in the vicinity of the bridge
and serves mostly residential traffic..
The existing bridge was built in 1952. It is 36.6 meters (120 feet) long. The
bridge deck is approximately 6.4 meters (21 feet) above the streambed. The deck is
7.7 meters (25.3 feet) wide with 7.3 meters (24 feet) of clear roadway width. There are
two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 6 out of a possible 100. The bridge has weight restriction postings of 23 tons for
single vehicles and 33 tons for truck-tractor semi trailers (TTST).
The horizontal alignment is good on both the east and the west approaches. The
vertical alignment is also good. The pavement width on the approaches to the bridge is
6.1 meters (20 feet). Shoulders on the approaches are approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet)
wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported in
the vicinity of the bridge in the past three years.
There are sixteen daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge.
There are several utilities in the area, some of which may be impacted by this -
project. Power lines and a fiber optic cable run along the south side of SR 1426. A water
line runs on the north side of SR 1426 from the west, ending approximately 75 meters
(250 feet) west of the bridge at a fire hydrant.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are three "build" options considered in this document. Each alternate
would provide a permanent alignment with a design speed of approximately 100 km/h
(60 mph). They are as follows:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) would replace the existing bridge with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length at the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. Traffic would be detoured along SR 1426, SR 1419, and US 74/76
during construction.
Alternate 2 would replace the existing bridge with a bridge approximately
43 meters (140 feet) in length at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic would be maintained during construction using an on-site detour located
to the north of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). This detour would require a bridge
approximately 33 meters (110 feet) in length with a roadway elevation approximately
1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existing bridge.
Alternate 3 would replace the existing bridge on new location to the north with a
bridge approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length (see Figure 2). Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATE I ALTERNATE 2 ALTERNATE 3
(Recommended)
New Bridge Structure $ 294,000 $ 294,000 $ 294,000
Bridge Removal 22,500 22,500 22,500
Roadway & Approaches 92,500 92,500 279,500
Temporary Detour 0 .207,000 0
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 126,000 184,000 179,000
Engineering & Contingencies 90,000 125,000 125,000

Total Construction $ 625,000 $ 925,000 $ 900,000
Right of Way $ 25,000 $ 40,000 $ 59,000
Total Cost $ 650,000 $ 965,000 $ 959,000
VIL . RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 6 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length at the existing location and roadway
elevation. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 feet),
which will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. The
approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders.
The shoulder will widen to 3.4 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. The
elevation of the new bridge and approaches will be approximately the same as the current
roadway. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to either side of
the new bridge. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Traffic will be detoured offsite along SR 1426, SR 1419, and US 74/76 as shown
in Figure 1. The roadways along the detour are well maintained with alignment equal to
or better than this section of SR 1426. Representatives from the Dupont plant near
Phoenix, N.C., have indicated that road closure at this location will not be a problem.
The school bus director for Brunswick County prefers that traffic be maintained.
Considerable, but not intolerable, inconvenience will result from road closure. The
division office recommends road closure during construction.
Road user analysis indicates that vehicles routinely using SR 1426 would
experience a travel cost increase of approximately $ 550,000. This cost is based on 1500
vehicles per day traveling as much as 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) out of their way for the
nine month construction period. Comparing this user cost to the $ 309,000 cost of
maintaining traffic on-site results in a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 1.8.
Alternates 1, 2, and 3 all propose replacing the existing structure with a bridge
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) in length. All three alternates maintain a design
speed of approximately 100 km/hr (60 mph). Alternates 2 and 3 would impact
0.1 hectares (0.26 acres) and 0.13 hectares (0.33 acres) of wetlands, respectively.
Alternate 1 would have the least affect with likely impacts of less than 0.01 hectares
(0.02 acres). Maintenance of traffic (either Alternate 2 or 3) would increase the cost of
the project by nearly 50 percent.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 because it economically replaces the bridge, at
a location where road closure is acceptable, in the least environmentally harmful way.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
4
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees as a result of the project. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
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.
The project is located in Brunswick County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the
project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. According to the
NRCS, the proposed bridge replacement will not impact prime farmland. The project
will result in the conversion of a small amount of land, but the area to be converted is
wooded and void of agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that they "are
aware of no historic structures within the area of potential effect." They therefore
recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted.
The State Office of Archaeology (SOA) knows of no archaeological sites within
the proposed project 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. Therefore, the SOA recommends that no archaeological
investigations be conducted in connection with this project.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
Soils in the project area consist of three main types. Muckalee loam (Mk) is a
nearly level poorly drained soil which occurs along the floodplains of freshwater creeks.
The soil is flooded frequently for brief periods. Surface runoff is typically slow and
permeability is moderate. In the project area this soil occurs along Hood Creek.
Maymeade and Marvyn complex (BDC) consists of well drained soils on short side
slopes typically at 6 to 12 percent grades. Surface runoff is slow to medium and
permeability is moderate. This soil complex is found on the steep slopes leading from the
upland areas to the floodplain of Hood Creek. Blanton fine sand (BnB) is a moderately
well drained soil found in slightly convex interstream areas. Surface runoff is slow and
permeability is rapid. This soil can be found in the higher upland areas along the project
area.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average
height, in feet, that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified
number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged,
unmanaged stands. The soils in the project area have a site index that ranges from 80 to
90 for loblolly pine.
Water Resources
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin. One surface water resource,
Hood Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Hood Creek originates about
10 kilometers (6 miles) south of the project area and flows to the north about 5 kilometers
(3 miles) to its confluence with the Cape Fear River. Hood Creek is approximately 15 to
18 meters (50 to 60 feet) wide within the project area, and constitutes a perennial
blackwater river system with very slow streamflow. Stream substrate was mainly sand,
with a high amount of dissolved and some particulate organic matter. The river has a
partly open canopy and riparian vegetation consisted mostly of deciduous trees.
At the time of the field survey, the creek averaged 1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) in
depth. In the project area, the stream contains mainly a straight run with a bend typically
every 30 meters (100 feet). The floodplain appears to be seasonally flooded along some
areas of the bank. Bald cypress root growths, or "knees", and fallen tree limbs act to
6
retain organic debris. Bryophytes (mosses) and filamentous algae were evident along the
cypress knees, above the water surface as well as along the stream banks. The water
color was dark yellow to brown color, as is typical for blackwater stream systems.
Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) that is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance
water quality within the State. Hood Creek (Index # 18-66) is classified as a Class C, Sw
waterbody. Class C water resources are used for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Swamp waters (Sw) are waters
which have slow velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HWQ), Water Supplies (WS-I of
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of
the project study area.
Water Quality
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural land is likely to be the primary source of
water quality degradation to the water resources located within the project vicinity. The
surrounding vicinity appears to be primarily forested land with some small areas of
cropland. Nutrient loading and increased sedimentation from agricultural runoff and
forestry affects water quality. Inputs of nonpoint source pollution from private residences
within the project area may also contribute to water quality degradation.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DEHNR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and established in 1982, is part of an on-
going ambient long-term water quality monitoring program. The program has
established fixed water quality monitoring stations for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. No stations have been established by DEHNR along Hood Creek.
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ.
All discharges are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no known
permitted point source dischargers to Hood Creek within the project vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Any action which affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms.
Temporary impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the
aquatic community. Replacing an existing structure in the same location, with a
temporary road closure, is often the preferred environmental approach. Bridge
replacement with an on-site detour or replacement on a new location with a detour on
existing location generally results in more severe impacts. Therefore, based on
environmental impacts, Alternative 1 is the preferred alignment. Physical impacts will be
the most severe at the point of bridge replacement.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion/and or construction.
Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills.
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Increased scouring of the existing channel due to increased water flows from the
stormwater runoff associated with curb and gutter systems.
It is important to understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the
communities in which the construction activity occurs. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be followed during the construction
phase of the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a
disturbed community, a swamp forest, and an upland forest. Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community
description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the
project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
Disturbed Community
The disturbed community includes the road shoulder and embankment. Many
plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly
maintained areas are dominated by various grasses. In areas not regularly mowed,
bracken, asters, and goldenrod predominate. Rush is present growing in the roadside
ditches.
Greenbriar, Japanese honeysuckle, privet, and pine saplings are present along the
edge between this disturbed area and the adjacent forested communities.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves,
fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. American robins and
starlings are two of the more common birds that use these habitats.
Swamp Forest
The swamp forest community at the project site is the dominant community
within the low-lying area along Hood Creek. It is more extensive to the south of SR 1426
than on the north side, and on the north side it is more extensive on the east side of Hood
Creek than on the west. In the wetter areas cypress, red maple, and tupelo are the
dominant trees. At slightly higher elevations, laurel oak, water oak, swamp chestnut oak,
and sweetgum are dominant. Although the shrub layer was absent in the wet depressions,
American holly, ironwood, and blueberry were present in the shrub layer at higher
elevations. Groundcover was sparse during December at the time of the field evaluation.
Sphagnum moss and sensitive fern was observed in the depressions and partridge berry
and poison ivy in the dryer areas. Vines included greenbriar and grape. This community
corresponds most closely to the Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community of the
NHP classification system.
No mammals were directly observed during the field activities. However, grey
squirrels, white-tailed deer, raccoon, and opossum likely utilize this habitat. Due to
frequent flooding it is likely that small mammals are uncommon, although the cotton
mouse may be present.
The only reptile observed was a green anole; however, this habitat type is also
utilized by the eastern king snake, and the rough green snake. Due to the wetness of the
swamp forest a variety of amphibians are often present. Maybee's salamander, marbled
salamander, southern dusky salamander, and river frog are all species that can be found in
this habitat.
A wide variety of birds use the forest for foraging and nesting. Species observed
during the field survey included American robin, slate-sided junco, Carolina chickadee,
and tufted titmouse.
Upland Forest
A distinct, steep slope separates this community from the swamp forest found in
the floodplain along Hood Creek. The upland forest community is dominated by loblolly
pine and laurel oak. American holly was the predominant shrub although immature
laurel oaks, strawberry bush, black highbush blueberry, and several other blueberry
species were also present. Herbaceous vegetation observed included partridge berry,
resurrection fern, ebony spleenwort, and pipsisiwa. Due to the suppression of natural
fires, introduction of loblolly pines, and man-induced disturbance over the years, it is
difficult to determine which community type within the NHP system this forested
community would most likely correspond to.
Large mammals utilizing the upland forest are likely similar to those found in the
swamp forest. A wide variety of birds also use the forest for foraging and nesting.
Species observed during the field survey included common flicker, red-bellied
woodpecker, slate-sided junco, Carolina chickadee, cardinals, and tufted titmouse. These
birds likely utilize the adjacent swamp forest as well.--- -
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community composition, including total species number, species
richness, taxa richness and density, and species tolerance data, is reflective of the
physical, chemical, and biological condition of the water resource.
Within the project area Hood Creek is a low gradient, low to mid order, partly
open blackwater stream containing sandy substrates and having low water clarity. The
riparian community, especially on the eastern bank, contains mostly trees and is described
in the Swamp Forest Section.
Several minnows were observed during field activities, however, no species were
captured and identified. Hood Creek appears to provide habitat for a variety of species of
fish. According to the District Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), game fish species known to exist in Hood Creek within the project
area include largemouth bass, bluegill, chain pickerel, and warmouth. Nongame fish
species include spotted sucker, channel catfish, bowfin, and creek chubsucker. The
District Biologist also noted that the anadromous fish species, blueback herring, alewife,
hickory shad, and striped bass are known to exist in the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of
9
Hood Creek and can therefore be expected to migrate along Hood Creek for spawning.
Hood Creek has not been stocked for gamefish species.
Based on the above survey results, this stream segment generally contains a
moderate diversity and abundance of organisms typical of lotic depositional
environments in blackwater stream systems. Lotic depositional environments generally
contain fine sediments and occur in stream pools and along margins of higher velocity
streams. Many of the organisms are burrowers or are shredders of coarse particulate
organic matter. Generally, the most abundant organisms found in the survey were from
the Amphipod family, Gammaridae, and of the Gastropoda gill breathing genus,
Campeloma.
Much moss and filamentous algae were observed during the field survey along the
sides of cypress "knees" and along stream margins. Both types of aquatic plants probably
provide shelter and may act as a food source for some of the macroinvertebrate
organisms.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted by project
construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area along
SR 1426. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths for Alternatives 2
and 3 of 244 meters (800 feet) and 335 meters (1,100 feet), respectively, and the entire
proposed right-of-way width of 24 meters (80 feet). Table 1 details the potential impacts
to terrestrial communities by habitat type. It should be noted that impacts are based on
the entire right-of-way width and actual loss of habitat will likely be less.
Table 1
Estimated Area Impacts to
Terrestrial Communities
Community Impacted Area in hectares (acres)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Disturbed Community 0.004(0.01) 0.03 (0.08) 0.05 (0.13).
Swamp forest 0.00 (0.0) 0.14 (0.35) 0.19 (0.46)
Upland Forest 0.00 (0.0) 0.16 (0.40) 0.36 (0.89)
Total Impacts 0.004 (0.01) 0.33 (0.83) 0.60(l.48)
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the
loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species which utilize the
10
area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds,
mammals, and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction.
Young animals and less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss
during construction. Plants and animals found in these communities are generally
common throughout North Carolina. Alternative 1 calls for no changes to the roadway
alignment, thereby minimizing terrestrial impacts.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to
moderate slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a
consequence of erosion. It is important to understand that construction impacts may not
be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may affect
downstream communities. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures due to
the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and
terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial
fauna which rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts may result to aquatic organisms from
increased sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during
construction and recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments
have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the
clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces; affecting the habitat by
scouring and filling of pools and riffles; altering water chemistry; and smothering
different life stages. Increased sedimentation may caused decreased light penetration
through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete will not come into contact with surface water during bridge
construction in order to minimize effects of runoff on the stream water quality. Potential
adverse effects can be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface
waters or wetlands falls under these provisions.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands occur on both sides of SR 1426. On the south side of the
road, the wetlands are present on both the east and west side of Hood Creek. North of the
road, the wetlands are present primarily to the east of Hood Creek, with only a small strip
on the west. Not all areas classified as Swamp Forest as described in this document meet
the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands are confined to the
Il
wetter areas and are not present on the slightly higher terrace. Within the wetter areas
Muckalee soils, which are identified as a hydric soil by the NRCS, are present. However,
on the terrace the soils did not exhibit typical hydric characteristics, such as lower
chromas and oxidized rhizospheres. Other wetland characteristics in the wetter areas
included standing water, surface drainage patterns, and the presence of wetland
vegetation such as cypress. The primary functions of this wetland area include flood
storage, wildlife habitat, shore stabilization, and nutrient retention.
The DWQ has instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to gauge wetland
quality. The fourth version of this rating system assesses wetlands on the basis of water
storage, pollutant removal, bank/shoreline stabilization, wildlife habitat, aquatic live
value, and recreational/educational potential. The DWQ rating for this wetland is 61
Hood Creek meets the definition of surface waters. Hood Creek is therefore
classified as Waters of the United States.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Highway construction impacts can affect the functions that wetlands perform in
an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and
storing storm runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and
downstream area. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and inorganic
nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows across them. The presence of
wetlands adjacent to the roadways can act as filters for pollutants in runoff.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
wetlands and surface waters. Alternative 1 would have the least affect with likely
impacts of less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 acres). Alternative 2 would impact about 0.1
hectares (0.26 acres) of wetlands. These impacts would be severe but temporary and the
wetlands could be restored when bridge construction was completed and the temporary
detour removed. Alternative 3 would impact about 0.13 hectares (0.33 acres) of
wetlands. These anticipated impacts are based upon a right-of-way width of 24 meters
(80 feet). Project construction typically does not require the entire right-of-way,
therefore, actual wetland impacts may be less. These impact estimates are only for
wetland areas directly disturbed by construction. Additional wetland areas may be
indirectly affected due to changes in water levels and siltation from construction
activities.
Anticipated wetland and surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated from the
proposed project. Permits and certifications from various state and federal agencies will
be required prior to construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of CFR 330.5 (a) Nationwide
Permit (NWP) No. 23, which authorizes 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 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act that:
12
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 Engineer has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver thereof,
from DEHNR prior to issuance of the NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S.
A CAMA permit may be necessary for this project. Representatives from CAMA
will determine the type, if any, of CAMA permit that is required after further
investigations and/or field visits. If a permit is required, it will be obtained prior to
construction.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality. (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include, avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, and compensation for impacts (40 CFR
1408.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensation) must
be documented as part of the sequencing process.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable alternatives to avert impacts
to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. Implementation of these steps will be required
through. projeczmodifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
right of way widths, and fill slopes.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the area where
wetlands are affected.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation
for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
13
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either due to natural forces
or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
Brunswick County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists sixteen federally protected species for
Brunswick County as of August 23, 1996. These species are listed in Table 2.
Table 2
Federally-protected Species For
Brunswick County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Acipenser brevirostnun Shortnose sturgeon E.
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T (S/A)
Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T
Charadrius melodus Piping plover T
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon E
Felis concolor concolor Eastern cougar E
Halieetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T
Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle E
Mycteria americana Wood stork E .
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Trichechus manatus Manatee E
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach amaranth T
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loostrife E
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's meadowrue E
14
Notes: "E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"S/A" Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for
its protection. These species are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species,
along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact, follows.
Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose sturgeon) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Acipenseridae
Federally Listed: 1967
The shortnose sturgeon is a medium-sized [45 to 90 centimeters (17 to 35 inches)]
fish, with a relatively short snout and a wide mouth. Its body is somewhat elongate and
pentagonal in cross section and armored with five bony plates (scutes) and dorsal and
anal fins far back on the body.
Shortnose sturgeon extend from large freshwater rivers to the sea, their
distribution related to the migration of adults between spawning, feeding, and wintering
areas. Typically upriver migrations to spawning grounds occur in spring or fall. During
the fall and winter, an unknown portion of the population appears to leave the estuaries
and move short distances into the Atlantic Ocean, but different patterns of movement
have been found for different populations. Adults are found in deep water [10 to 30
meters (33 to 66 feet)] in the winter and shallow water [2 to 10 meters (6 to 33 feet)] in
summer. Juveniles are nonmigratory and typically inhabit deep channels of swiftly
flowing rivers above the salt wedge. This species is anadromous, spawning in freshwater
at a temperature of 9 to 12 C (48 to 54 F) from February to mid-May. Spawning sites are
either in swift water with gravel and rubble substrate or freshwater swamps.
Shortnose sturgeon are benthic foragers and prefer areas with soft substrate and
vegetated bottoms. Juveniles feed on small crustaceans and insect larvae. Adults in
freshwater feed mostly on crustaceans, insect larvae, and mollusks; in estuaries they
mainly eat polychaete worms, crustaceans, and mollusks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the shortnose sturgeon. Hood Creek, a
low velocity blackwater creek, does not meet the habitat requirements for the sturgeon. A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the shortnose sturgeon in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance
This listing is defined as a species which is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect the rare species. The
American alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
15
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead sea turtle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1978
The loggerhead sea turtle is a large [25 to 123 centimeters, (10 to 49 inches)],
brown to reddish brown turtle, with large, paddle like flippers. Male loggerheads
typically differ from females by having narrow and posteriorly tapering shells and longer,
thicker tails. The loggerhead turtle is thought to be the largest living, hard-shelled turtle
and is the most common marine turtle occurring along the North Carolina coast. The
loggerhead is the only member of the Cheloniidae family that commonly nests on the
North Carolina coast.
The loggerhead inhabits the ocean and other saltwater environments along the
coast. Individuals may also rarely inhabit freshwater for extended periods. Loggerheads
tend to range close to shore and also occur in sounds and estuarine areas during the
warmer months. Based on aerial surveys conducted in 1980 and 1981, the beaches of
Smith Island, at the mouth of the Cape Fear River, may support the largest concentrated
rookery of loggerheads in North Carolina. They tend to nest along the coast, especially
on beaches. Typically the females come ashore at night and lay a clutch (average no.
115) of eggs, above the highwater mark on the seaward side of the dunes. Incubation
periods range form 56 to 65 days.
Although omnivorous, its diet is composed primarily of marine invertebrates.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the loggerhead sea turtle. Hood Creek
does not meet the habitat requirement of estuarine or saltwater environments., A search of
the NHP database found no occurrence of the loggerhead sea turtle in the project vicinity.
It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Charadrius melodus (Piping plover) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Charadriidae
Federally Listed: 1985
The piping plover is a medium sized shore bird, found of flat, sandy beaches of
the barrier islands. Adult males are pale grayish brown above with a blackish breast
band, black collar, and black frontal bar extending from eye to eye across the front of the
crown. The stubby bill is dull orange and tipped with black. The feet and legs are also
orange.
The piping plover is endemic to North America and breeds in three geographically
disjunct populations, the northern Great Plains, the Great Lakes region, and the Atlantic
Coast. The nesting season in North Carolina is from late March to July, and only one
brood is raised annually. The nest, a shallow depression in the sand, is typically lined
with bits of broken shells or fine pebbles. Clutch size is typically four eggs. Incubation
lasts 26 to 30 days and is shared equally by both adults.
Piping plovers use a variety of foraging sites including intertidal surf zones, mud
flats, tidal pool edges, barrier flats, and sand flats. They glean these areas for a variety of
small invertebrates including marine worms, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, and a variety
of larvae and eggs of small marine animals and insects.
16
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the piping plover. The project site is
entirely wooded and contains no sandy beaches or tidal pools, or mud flats. A search of
the NHP database found no occurrence of the piping plover in the project vicinity. It can
be concluded that the project will not impact this Threatened species.
Chelonia mydas (Green sea turtle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1973
The green sea turtle is a medium to large turtle growing to about 1 meter (3 feet)
in length. The back of the shell and appendages is dark green to brown, often with lines
radiating from the posterior margin of each carapacial scute. The bottom of the shell and
appendages are cream white.
The green sea turtle ranges throughout the tropical oceans and estuaries and
occurs from New England south to Argentina. They nest primarily on tropical beaches of
the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea, as well as the Atlantic Coast of Florida. However,
they occasionally nest as far north as North Carolina. Hatchling green sea turtles take up
a pelagic existence in Sargassum mats in major ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream.
These turtles are powerful swimmers and are known to travel long distances. Juvenile
green sea turtles can be found in temperate areas, while adult turtles do not travel beyond
the tropics, but do migrate over long distances and deep water to reach nesting sites.
Adults are primarily herbivores eating various kinds of saltwater plants, although
they are known to eat jellyfish. The young are mostly carnivores.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the green sea turtle. The project site is
wooded and Hood Creek is a freshwater stream. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of the green sea turtle in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
project will not impact this Threatened species.
Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback sea turtle) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Dermochelyidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The leatherback sea turtle is the world's largest sea turtle. Typical adults reach
155 centimeters (62 inches) in length and weigh 360 kilograms (795 pounds). The
"shell" is not horny but covered with a smooth skin that feels and looks rubbery or
leathery. The back is black and the belly is white, yellow, or pink.
Leatherbacks are the most pelagic of the sea turtles, spending most of their time in
coastal and offshore waters, but are known to occasionally wander close to shore and into
estuaries. They are capable of traveling long distances and range throughout tropical and
temperate oceans of the world. Nesting areas are tropical, primarily on Caribbean shores,
with some nesting occurring on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Coast of
southeastern United States. There has only been one reported nest site in North Carolina.
17
Although omnivorous, they feed primarily on jellyfish and Portuguese men-of-
war. Other food items include sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, fish, blue-green algae, and
floating seaweeds.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the leatherback sea turtle. The project site
is wooded and Hood Creek is a freshwater stream. A search of the NHP database found
no occurrence of the leatherback sea turtle in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Falconidae
Federally Listed: 1984
The peregrine falcon is a "hawk-like bird with long pointed wings, dark blue or
slate underparts, with black on the top of the head and cheeks. The tail is long, narrow,
blue-grey, and rounded with narrow black bands and a broad subterminal bar tipped with
white. It has a pale bluish bill and yellow legs and feet. However, much subspecific
variation exists.
The peregrine falcon forages in a wide variety of habitats including coastal waters,
open valleys, tundra, and intensely congested cities. It nests on cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes,
pinnacles, and on the ground. Historically, nesting in the southern United States has
occurred in the hollows of old trees or in old nests of eagles, hawks, and ravens. They
also use artificial landscape features such as bridges, towers, and multi-story buildings.
Peregrine falcons feed primarily on birds, which they capture by hitting in the air
following high speed dives. Males and females often hunt in pairs. Prey may be
consumed on the spot or taken elsewhere. Birds hunted include small- to medium-sized
birds such as rock dove, pelagic birds, songbirds, and water fowl. They occasionally feed
on small mammals and insects such as butterflies, beetles, and dragonflies.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the peregrine falcon. The project site is
used by a variety of bird species, which potentially are suitable prey for the peregrine
falcon, however, no suitable nesting areas are present. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of the peregrine falcon in the project vicinity. It can be concluded__
that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Felis concolor concolor (Eastern cougar) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Felidae
Federally Listed: 1973
The Eastern cougar or panther (also referred to as a mountain lion), is a very large,
long-tailed, cat, attaining total lengths of 1.8 to 2.3 meters (6 to 7.5 feet) and weights of
45 to 67.5 kilograms (100 to 150 pounds). In adults the fur is short brownish on the back
and sides, with whitish underparts. The tip of the tail is dark. Tracks of the adults are
large [9 centimeters (3.5 inches)], and the retractive claws do not show.
18
The Eastern cougar prefers large tracts of wilderness area and is found in remote,
rugged habitats such as mountains, gorges, and swamps. The home range of the cougar
averages 25 to 50 square kilometers (9.6 to 193 square miles). Males are solitary most of
the year, but a female may be accompanied by her young for up to two years after their
birth. There have been no confirmed sightings of the Eastern cougar in the Coastal Plain
of North Carolina for a number of years.
They feed mostly on large prey such as deer, but also are known to eat rabbits,
squirrels, voles, beaver, birds, and fish. The Eastern cougar typically stalks its prey and
leaps upon it from the ground rather than from ambush in trees or rocks. It will often
hide uneaten portions of its kill for future meals, but it will not eat spoiled meat.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Eastern cougar. Although there are
some large undeveloped tracts in the project vicinity, there is sufficient development in y,.
the project area that would preclude the site as potential Eastern cougar habitat. A search
of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Eastern cougar in the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Halieetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 1978
The bald eagle is a large raptor, with a wingspread of about 2.1 meters (7 feet).
Adult plumage is mainly dark brown with a pure white head and tail. First year juveniles
are often chocolate brown to blackish. The head and tail become increasingly white with
age until full adult plumage is reached in the 5th or 6th year.
The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually
nesting near large bodies of water where it feeds. Selection of nesting sites varies
depending on the species of trees growing in the particular area. In the Southeast, nests
are constructed areas where pines or bald cypress are an important component of the
canopy. Nests are usually constructed in live trees, but dead trees are occasionally used.
Nest trees are typically the largest tree around with an open view of the surrounding area.
The nests are constructed of large sticks with a softer material added as a nest lining. The
nests are very large, up to 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide and weighing hundreds of pounds.
Many nests are used year after year. Nesting eagles are particularly sensitive to human
activity.
Bald eagle wintering areas possess many of the same characteristics as nest sites.
However, the birds are not as closely limited to shores at this time, with both adults and
immatures gathering food where it is most easily available. Roost sites are an important
component of wintering areas. Eagles may roost singly or in groups exceeding a hundred
birds.
An opportunistic predator, the bald eagle feeds primarily on fish but also eats a
variety of birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not readily available. Both live prey
and carrion is eaten.
19
Biological Conclusion: . No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the bald eagle. There are no large bodies
of water or suitable nest trees in the project area. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of the bald eagle in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project
will not impact this Threatened species.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1970
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is small, with a heart shaped or nearly circular gray or
olive brown shell, and has paddle like flippers. They are white or cream colored beneath.
:.Male ridleys typically differ from females by having longer tails and more concave
plastrons. The ridley is likely the smallest of the sea turtles and is probably the most
endangered marine turtle in the world.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles nest in the daytime during the spring and summer along
a short strand of beach on the coast of Tamaulipas near Rancho Nuevo, in Mexico. Eggs
are lain just above the dune line where they incubate for 50 to 70 days. Hatchlings
probably inhabit weedlines of offshore currents and shift to a nearshore benthic habitat
with increasing age. Only one nesting is known to have occurred along the North
Carolina coast. This nesting event was recorded along Long Beach, Brunswick County.
Very little is known about the ridley turtle in North Carolina. Most individuals have been
found in high saline areas of sounds near the Atlantic Ocean. R.idley's feed on clams,
crabs, and snails.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The project
site is wooded and Hood Creek is a freshwater stream. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
Mycteria americana (Wood stork) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Ciconiidae
Federally Listed: 1984
The wood stork is a large, long-legged wading bird, with a head to tail length of
85 to 115 centimeters (33-45 inches) and a wingspread of 150 to 165 centimeters (59 to
65 inches). The plumage is white, except for iridescent black primary and secondary
feathers and a short black tail. Storks fly with their necks and legs extended. On adults
the rough scaly skin of the neck is unfeathered and blackish in color. The legs are dark
and the feet are dull pink.
Wood storks use a variety of freshwater and estuarine wetlands as nesting,
feeding, and roosting sites. Typically, storks select patches of medium tall trees which
are located in either standing water or on islands surrounded by open water, as nesting
sites. At freshwater nesting sites, nests are often constructed in bald cypress, swamp
tupelo, and southern willow. Colony sites must remain inundated throughout the nesting
cycle to protect against predation and abandonment. Storks tend to use the same colony
20
sites over many years, as long as the sites remain undisturbed, and sufficient feeding
habitat remains in the surrounding area.
Storks forage in a wide variety of shallow wetlands. Feeding conditions usually
occur is relatively calm water, where depths are between 5 to 40 centimeters
(2 to 16 inches), and where the water column is uncluttered by dense patches of aquatic
vegetation. Typical foraging sites include freshwater marshes, stock ponds, shallow
seasonally flooded roadside ditches, narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, managed
impoundments and depressions in cypress heads, and swamp sloughs. Almost any
shallow wetland depression where fish become concentrated may be used as feeding
habitat.
Wood storks feed almost entirely on fish between 2 and 25 centimeters
(1 to 10 inches) in length. The specialized feeding behavior of wood storks involves
tactolocation, or grope feeding. A feeding stork wades through the water with the beak
immersed and partially open. Upon contact with a prey item the mandibles are forcibly
snapped shut, the head is raised and the food swallowed. Tactolocation allows the storks
to feed at night or in water that is turbid. For this type of feeding to be effective prey
must be concentrated in relatively high densities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the wood stork. The,,project site is
wooded, Hood Creek contains a closed canopy and is too deep to provide forage habitat
for the wood stork. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the wood stork
in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
Endangered species.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 18 to
20 centimeters (7.4 to 8.2 inches) long with a wing span of 35 to 38 centimeters
(14 to 15 inches). The back and top of the head are black. The cheek is white.
Numerous small white spots arranged in horizontal rows give a ladder-back appearance.
The chest is dull white with small black spots on the side. Males and females look alike
except males have a small red streak above the cheek.
Among woodpeckers, the red-cockaded has an advanced social system. They live
in a group termed a clan. The clan may have from two to nine birds, but never more than
one breeding pair. The other adults are usually males and are called helpers. The helpers
are usually the sons of the breeding male and can be from 1 to 3 years old. The helpers
assist in incubating eggs, feeding young, making new cavities, and defending the clan's
area from other red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in those which are
infected with a fungus producing red-heart disease. A clan nests and roosts in a group of
cavity trees called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to more than
12, but it is used only by one clan. In most colonies, all the cavity trees are within a
circle about 450 meters (1,500 feet) wide. Open stands of pines with a minimum age of
80 to 120 years provide suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines are the most commonly
used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines, or
21
stands that have a dense hardwood understory are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided
in pine and pine hardwood, stands 30 years or older with foraging preference for pine
trees 25 centimeters (10 inches) or larger in diameter.
The woodpeckers diet consists mainly of insects which includes ants, beetles,
wood-boring insects, and caterpillars.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project area was evaluated for suitable nesting and foraging habitat by
walking two transects parallel to the road at 15 meter (50 feet) intervals. Potential
foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is present in the project area. The
upland wood areas are a mix of loblolly pines and hardwoods. No suitable nesting
habitat was observed in the project area or adjacent areas. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the project vicinity and no
individual birds were observed during field activities. It can be concluded that the project
will not impact this Endangered species.
Trichechus manatus (Manatee) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Trichechidae
Federally Listed: 1970
The manatee is a massive, barrel-shaped aquatic mammal averaging 3 to 4 meters
(10 to 13 feet) in length and weighing about 500 kilograms (1100 pounds). The tough,
thick skin is gray to gray-brown, wrinkled, and almost hairless. The neck is short,
merging with the body, and the head is rounded with a squared muzzle. Forelimbs are
short and paddle-like, hind limbs are absent. The tail is horizontally flattened and
rounded.
In North America the manatee ranges from North Carolina to the Florida Keys
and the Gulf of Mexico. They are limited to waters above 21 degrees C (70 degrees F),
and can be found in shallow, nearshore marine and estuarine habitats, sluggish rivers, and
warm water springs. Manatees are migratory, responding to changes in temperature, and
seem to follow established routes. When water temperatures drop below 20 degrees C
(68 degrees F), they begin to move into warmer water, often forming large aggregations.
They are difficult to observe as they generally swim 1 to 3 meters (3 to 6 feet) below the
surface of the water.
The manatee is a herbivore eating submerged vascular_plants, emergent and
floating vegetation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the manatee. Hood Creek, which averages
1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) in depth, is too shallow to provide adequate habitat for a
manatee. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the manatee in the
project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered
species.
22
Amaranthus pumilus (Seabeach amaranth) Threatened
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed: 1992
The seabeach amaranth is an annual plant, that grows in clumps in disturbed
sandy areas. Germination occurs over a relatively long period of time from April to July
Upon germination the plant initially forms a small unbranched sprig, but soon begins to
branch profusely into a clump, often reaching 0.3 meters (1 feet) in diameter and
consisting of 5 to 20 branches. The stems are fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small
rounded leaves that are 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters (0.5 to 1 inches) in diameter with a small
notch at the rounded tip. The leaves are clustered toward the tip of the stem and are a
dark green color. Flowers are inconspicuous and are borne in clusters along the stem.
Flowering begins as soon as plants have reached sufficient size, sometimes as early as
June, but more typically in July or August and reaches a peak in September.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to Atlantic coastal plain beaches. It occurs on
barrier island beaches, where its primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting
ends of islands and lower foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches. It
occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other habitats including sound-
side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell material placed as beach
replenishment or dredge spoil. Seabeach amaranth is intolerant of competition and does
not occur on well-vegetated sites. It appears to need extensive areas of barrier island
beaches and inlets, that allow it to move around in the landscape as a fugitive species, to
occupy suitable habitat as it becomes available.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the seabeach amaranth. The project site is
wooded with no beaches or dunes. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of
the seabeach amaranth in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not
impact this Threatened species.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (Rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulacae
Federally Listed: 1987
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems
30.to_60-centimeters_(12 to 24 inches) in height. Leaves are unusually sessile, occurring
in whorls of 3 or 4. They are broadest at the base [0.8 to 2 centimeters (0.3 to 0.8 inches)
wide], entire, and have three prominent veins. The yellow, bisexual flowers are borne on
a loose, terminal raceme. The inflorescence usually has five petals with ragged margins
near the apex and with dots or steaks. Flowering occurs from late May to early June, and
seeds are formed by August. Despite winter dormancy, the plant is easy to recognize in
the fall because of the reddish color and distinctive leaf patterns.
The habitat for the rough-leaved loosestrife is generally the ecotone between
longleaf pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moist, sandy, or peaty
soils occur and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer. Fire is
the main factor for the suppression of taller vegetation. The rough-leaved loosestrife is
associated with six natural community types: low pocosin, high pocosin, wet pine
flatwoods, pine savannah, streamwood pocosin, and sandhill seep.
23
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project site is wooded with no longleaf pine or oak savannas habitat present.
Although a search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the rough-leaved
loosestrife in the project vicinity, NCDOT personnel have documented the presence of
the rough-leaved loosestrife in atypical habitats. The project area was searched for
rough-leaved loosestrife by NCDOT personnel in June, 1996. First, a known population
of rough-leaved loosestrife was visited to observe its vegetative characteristics, habitat,
and flowering stage, and then the project area was searched. No rough-leaved loosestrive
were observed. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered
species.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
Cooley's meadowrue is a tall (1 meters (3 feet) or more in flower), herb, with
slender erect or sprawling stems. The leaves are ternately divided with the lower leaves
usually subdivided. Leaflets are about 2 centimeters (1 inch) long, mostly narrow, with
entire margins or rarely with two or three lobes near the top of the plant. Loose, few
flowered clusters appear at the top of the plant in late June to early July. The flowers lack
petals, and the sepals are small and fall early. Male and female flowers occur on separate
plants. The male flowers are conspicuous with their numerous pale lavender stamens,
while the female flowers have separate spindle-shaped carpels which develop into
narrowly ellipsoid, ribbed, one seeded fruits.
Cooley's meadowrue is found on fine sandy loams which are minimally
seasonally moist or saturated and are only slightly acidic or circumneutral. Cooley's
meadowrue occupies a narrow hydrologic regime, where the soil is moist or saturated, but
water does not frequently stand on the surface. Cooley's meadowrue occurs in wet pine
savannas, grass-sedge bogs, and savanna-like areas, often at the edge of intermittent
drainages or swamp forests. Cooley's meadowrue is usually associated with some type of
disturbance, including clearings, edges of frequently burned savannas, power line right-
of-ways which are maintained by fire or mowing, and roadside edges.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project site is primarily wooded, and although roadside habitat does occur,
----- -- - - -- ---- ----there are no areas that meet the typical moisture regime along the road. Although a
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Cooley's meadowrue in the
project vicinity, NCDOT personnel have documented the presence of the Cooley's
meadowrue in atypical habitats. The project area was searched for Cooley's meadowrue
by NCDOT personnel in June, 1996. First, a known population of Cooley's meadowrue
was visited to observe its vegetative characteristics, habitat, and flowering stage, and then
the project area was searched. No Cooley's meadowrue were observed. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
24
1427
33
SU-N
87
GUV

North o 1423
West
9
?
.2 1426 .
.3

l
5 Q 1426 1428

--I . 1460
co
l8

1419
Qgi?R
1426
458 1453
1425
a 1425
z BRIDGE NO
6
. 1459 j
i nfYt
14 19 p Qn
?•6 ti o

1418
.4
q
Phoenix
3
'j% Maco A
EK
a 1418

1452

• o Eastbrook
?sr
1417 cs
= Ma Imo
87
1? r
I
lPq/
.1 r
? ?P
74
76 Lei and
2.2
1417 N csx FAS• ?

North Carolina Department Of
emu,
.
?. Transportation
p z Planning & Environmental Branch
-Shilo ! I BRUNSWICK COUNTY
Ch. , .0 1416 REPLACE BRIDGE NO.6 ON SR 1426
OVER HOOD CREEK
B-2513
Studied Detour Route I 0 kilometers 1.6 lulometers . 3.2
Fi re 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
FIGS 4
THE NORTH FACE OF BRIDGE NO. 6
ATTACHMENTS
11 1V

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 24, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge6 on SR 1426 over Hood Creek,
Brunswick County, B-2513, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-1426(2), ER 96-8852
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
0
JUN 2 6 1996
hlGHV'!
?4?RONMtii
On June 20, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present 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.
Having provided this information, we book forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Sincerely,
letl 4J
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
CENTER OF BRIDGE LOOKING WEST
CENTER OF BRIDGE LOOKING EAST
FIGURE .31
z

bD
N
Q C?
ti
v
r
CS ?
O
F

v
G
bD M
.= y
Q ?
z_w
C Q
C a0.
W
L

,t r;? l jl.
L
W
a?i ^C
C
bD .-r
v?
Q ?
..+ CC
C y
E Q
GJ
a

,?' .
, s

v N
C!
?' N OL

L ? r L
? Z O W

_ su za v ?°'
o ? v U? C N -
U o cD Q x
L
CC
L r C.
p U C
Q
•yy u w
?
?l ?

_ _ o 0
rH ? ??
r ?
e "` STNf o
? F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 27, 2000
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3848
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Stroud
SUBJECT: CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 6 OVER HOOD CREEK ON SR 1426, BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, TIP NO. B-2513.
Dear Mr. Stroud:
This is an addendum to the previously submitted CAMA Major Permit;Application cover
letter dated February 18, 2000. The wetland impacts that were. reported in that
application reflected an increase from the impacts reported in the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) document, approved on 5 June 1997. This letter serves to clarify the discrepancy
between those impacts, as well as to document the standard NCDOT procedures
regarding bridge demolition.
The existing bridge will be replaced by the construction of a new bridge, 140 feet long in
length and 30 feet in width. To facilitate the construction of the new bridge, roadway fill
and excavation for channel realignment will be required. Impacts associated with the
channel realignment are a part of the final design plans and were not available for
evaluation at the time the CE was completed. The CE reported 0.02 acres of wetland
impacts. The channel realignment and it's associated work contribute to an additional
0.29 acres of wetland impacts, bringing the total estimated wetland impacts to 0.31 acres.
Mr. John Wadsworth with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was consulted
about this increase and he concluded that we would not need an addendum to the CE for
this change, but that this information should be included in the next construction
consultation to the FHWA.
The existing bridge has seven spans totaling 120 feet in length. The deck and bridge
railings for the superstructure are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed
of timber. Both the bridge rail and the substructure will be removed without dropping
them into Waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped
into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck is approximately 29.3 yd3.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be followed during the
removal of the existing structure.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Heather W.
Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
V. C--. >/"?'
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
V CB/hwm
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., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. John Alford, Roadway Design

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3848
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Stroud
ECEIVEL
FEB 2 3 2000
COASTAL DIVISM O AGEME
fVT
SUBJECT: CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 6 OVER HOOD CREEK ON SR 1426, BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2), State Project 8.2231501,
TIP No. B-2513.
Dear Mr. Stroud:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 6 over Hood Creek on SR 1426 in Brunswick County. The proposed project will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic will be' detoured on surrounding
roads during construction. This project was approved as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) on
5 June 1997.
The existing bridge will be replaced by the construction of a new bridge, 140 feet in
length and 30 feet in width. To facilitate the construction of the new bridge, roadway fill
and excavation for channel realignment will be required. There will be 0.31 acres of
wetland impacts, 0.02 acres of surface water fill, 65 feet of channel fill, and 70 feet of
channel relocation associated with this project. The location of spoil disposal area will be
the roadway fill slopes, with variable area. High quality water erosion control methods
will be used to assure that excavated or fill material will be kept on the site. Streambank
reforestation measures shall be used to aid in the restoration of areas disturbed during the
channel relocation. Attached is a "Streambank Reforestation Detail Sheet", listing the
vegetation to be planted. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), which is not on the list,
will also be included in the reforestation. A telephone line will be relocated above
ground on power poles and a new 12" water line will be bored under the streambed using
a directional bore method. No additional impacts to wetlands or surface water will be
incurred with the movement of these utilities.
NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA) Major Development Permit. Enclosed are a permit
application, the CE document, permit drawings, and a check for $400.00 for the
processing of the CAMA and Section 401 applications. 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, we
are also requesting issuance of a United States Army Corps of Engineers NWP 23 and a
401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, contact Heather W. Montague
at [phone].
Sincerely,
// C- lwutt?
??William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
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., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. John Alford, Roadway Design
D ECEIVE
FcB ? 3 2000
D
DIVISION
MANAGEMENT
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: Department of Transportation
PROJECT NAME: Replacement of Bridge #6
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Mt. Misery Road (SR 1426), Northwest, Brunswick Co.
Photo Index - 1995: Not Available
State Plane Coordinates - X:2 265 700 Y: 205 200
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA Dredge & Fill
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - April 13, 2000
Was Applicant Present - Randy Turner Was Present
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - cc: May 5, 2000
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - City of Northwest
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Public Trust
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Bridge Replacement
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - None
Planned - None
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Bridge
Planned - New Bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
7
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
T)RF.T)rTlPn T;TT T PT*) n'rT-Mn
(A) Vegetated Wetlands Approx. Approx.
(Federal Wetlands) 2800 sf 3300 sf
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands 2,000s f Shaded
Public Trust Waters 4200 sf
(C) Other Approx. -' Disturbed
High Ground 2000 sf +- 67,000 sf +-
(D) Total Area Disturbed: Approximately 75,000 square feet or 1.7 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: C Sw Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is applying to replace
bridge #6 over Hood Creek in Northwest, Brunswick County.
DOT Project B-2513
Bridge Replacement / #6
Page 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace an existing bridge over Hood Creek
in the Town of Northwest, Brunswick County. The bridge is located on State Route 1426, Mt. Misery
Road. A vicinity map has been submitted with the application package.
The existing timber and concrete structure is a two lane bridge built in 1952 with dimensions of 120.5
feet long by 23.9 feet wide. It has a navigational clearance of 11 feet. The proposed concrete bridge
will be 140 feet long by 30 feet wide with a navigational clearance of 12 feet. The Department of
Transportation has indicated that there is approximately 6' of water depth in this area. The project
requires that a small portion of Hood Creek, upstream of the bridge, be realigned or moved away from
a proposed fill slope associated with shoulder construction. The shoulder will be widened from 6' to 11'
where guardrail is required. The shoulder fill will result in approximately 3300 squre feet of impacts to
federal wetlands. The creek realignment will require excavation of a mid-stream cypress wetland and the
adjacent creek bottom resulting in about 2800 square feet of disturbance. Approximately 2000 square feet
of open waters will be filled as part of the realignment process.
Mechanized clearing of a wetland area adjacent to the creek and roadway is proposed to facilitate access
of construction equipment to Hood Creek. See the Plan View for the location. Several drains are
proposed to carry water away from the road. The locations are indicated on the plans as well.
In addition to the proposed bridge replacement a telephone line will be relocated above ground on power
poles and a new 12" water line will be bored under the streambed using a directional bore method.
Hood Creek is a tributary of the Cape Fear River. The waters of Hood Creek are a public trust area of
environmental concern. These waters have been classified as C Sw by the Division of Water Quality.
Class C is a fresh water classification. The best use for the Class "C" waters is described as aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The "Sw" refers to low
velocity swamp waters. There is no know shell fish resource in this area and the waters are not open to
shell fishing, nor have they been designated as primary nursery area by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
This project will result in the fill and or excavation of approximately 8100 square feet of federal wetlands.
The proposed channel realignment, fill of open waters and bridge replacement will likely result in short-
term turbidity in the waters of Hood Creek. Temporary sediment control measures will be necessary to
retain as much soil as possible on the site. The total amount of land disturbance associated with this bridge
replacement should be less than 75,000 square feet.
Wetland areas adjacent to the creek that will be cleared to provide equipment access to the bridge slopes
and to the creek will be temporarily impacted. These negative impacts can be reduced by the use of mats
to support heavy equipment. See the Categorical Exclusion document for more impact information.
There are no known shell fish resources this far up the river.
Janet M. Russell / May 8, 2000 / Wilmington
FORM DCM-MP-1
E(C]EHVE PLICATION
be completed by all applicants)
11113 2000
b. City, town, community or landmark
DIVISION OF 1. APPLICApffiASTAL MANAGEMENT Northwest (2.5 miles east of )
a. Landowner:
Name N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Address P. O. Box 25201
City - Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 Day Phone [phone]
Fax A9191733-9794
b. Authorized Agent:
Name
Address
City State _
Zip Day Phone _
Fax
C. Project name (if any) B-2513
State Project No. 8.2231501
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Brunswick
C. Street address or secondary road number
Mt. Misery Road (SR 1426)
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
river, creek sound, bay) Hood Creek
3. DESCRIPTION & PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PRO TE T
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 with new bridge
Requires roadway fill and excavation for
Channel realignment.
b
c.
Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
new work
Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Public transportation
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
methods of construction and daily operations
of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages. _ To provide public
transportation. Standard roadway construction
equipment will be used. Piles for new bridge will
be installed by crane working on high ground
Channel excavation will be done by crane but will
Require mechanized clearing in wetlands to
Access channel. Old bridge will be removed in a
manner that will prevent debris from falling into
stream.
Revised 03/95
u .? lu 22 IL V J ?
FORM DCM-MP-1 FEB 2 3 2000
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
4. LAND AND WATER D I V I S I ON OF N/A
CHARACTERISTICS COASTAL. MANAGEMENT
a. Size of entire tract N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW effluent, "wash down", and residential
or NWL 12 feet discharges.) surface runoff
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Blanton fine sand.
Muckalee loan (mk maymeade & Marvvn complex
1B0C). o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
e. Vegetation on tract swamp forest and N/A
upland forest
f.. Man-made features now on tract
existing bridge, roadway and utilities
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land In addition to the completed application form, the
use plan) following items must be submitted:
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community * A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
X Rural Other other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
h. How is the tract zoned by local government? claiming to be the owner of said property, then
_SBR-6000. stick built residential forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the from the owner to carry out the project

applicable zoning? X Yes No .
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable) * An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
been done for the tract? Yes X No Coastal Resources Commission Rule 710203 for a
If yes, by whom? detailed description.)
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
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)
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
in ZCS1 VY
FORM DCM-MP-1 (1
,u FEB 2 3 2000
L DD
site. Include highway or secondary road (S
number, landmarks, and the like. D I V I S I 0 4 O F TIFICATION AND
COASTAL MA ION TO ENTER ON LAND
* A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
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.
Name See Attached List on I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
Address permit drawings grant permission to representatives of state and federal
Phone review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
Name permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
Address project.
Phone
I further certify that the information provided in this
Name application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Address
Phone . This is the - day of 20 O °
* A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
Print Name William D. Gilmore. P E
Signature " ` C- ` J-0 ().I- 104. i.$.,
Landowner or Author ed Agent
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.
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE. Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-S R D
ECE:VP4r_'__
J1 3
z 2000
BRIDGES AND FEB
DIVISION OF
CULVERTS COASTAL MANAGEMENT
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.
g. Length of proposed bridge 140 feet
1. BRIDGES
h. Width of proposed bridge 30 feet
a. Public X Private
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material) 12 feet
21" Cored slab, Spans: 1 (@ 45'. 1Q 50' and
1 @45' j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge If yes, explain
Hood Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 6 feet
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? 12 feet
X Yes No
If yes, 1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 120.5 feet reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 23.9 feet opening? Yes X No
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing If yes, explain difference is negligible
bridge 11 feet
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) The entire bridge will
be replaced by a new bridge.
in. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes X 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
FEB 2 Q'tP
j. e p Dd culvert affect existing navigation
2. CULVERT N/A D I V I S I ONteei jal? Yes No
COASTAL MAM EeMLRNT
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
b. Number of culverts proposed
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
d. Will proposed culvert replace an. existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes,'
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
g. Width of proposed culvert
h.
i.
Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL
Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
Revised 03/95
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the NMW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
- Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 70 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 36 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 290 cubic yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 40 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 30 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 247 cubic yards
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
Roadway fill slopes
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Variable
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
X Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Form DCM-MP-5 FEB 2 3 2000
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future proposed project require the relocation of
maintenance? X Yes _ No ? ?/ I S I O?i?? ?
COASTAL MA Ug'?#%Ntf"y lines. X Yes -No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal yes, explain in detail Telephone line relocated
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands? Above ground on power poles New 12" water
Yes X No line will be bored under treambed No impacts
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2) to wetlands or surface water.
above. C. Will the proposed project require the construction of
(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 d.
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 X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 321 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled 8.5 feet
(3) Purpose of fill _ Roadway fill
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
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? High quali waters
erosion control measures
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)? Standard equipment to build bridge
(i.e., crane Wile drivers etc )
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.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on h.
highground? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
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-2513
Applicant or Project Name
'v , , 'e?' 4-
Signature
JJ' 1 29 ??
Date
Revised 03/95
R I
COA
NO[IIM6T DLrVA , ?' J+ l b

14
o „'`
svmr ckm > > \ z
off -

t ? bMbwk

_

•6) =t>
r

N
_
?s ,a
>z±
?
TIL

\ ?IL
y2
t-t> \ \ J
ATl ^"w4
OFF SITE DETOUR
/ SECT
I
1426
l
i
I ? 1
f I?
9
END
PAUECT
/?16 tr,
VIUNITY MAP
1426
14
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2231501, B-2513
BRIDGE NO.6 OVER HOOD CREEK
I I SHEET -L OF -T
LEGEND
WLB -- WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

WETLAND
. PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
5_-__W L B=
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
® DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE
SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
DENOTES TEMPORARY
eL1LL///1 FILL IN WETLAND _L WOODS LINE
1 DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN
IN WETLAND _
_
DRAINAGE INLET
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER ROOTWAD
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
TOP OF BANK
- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -C - PROP, LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- -- NATURAL GROUND
-- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
--TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
°-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 7- - - - WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
.. mm COIR FIBER ROLLS
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
D ITCEIVE
FEB 2 3 2000
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2231501 (B-2513)
2
ECEHVE W g
FEB 2 3 2000
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMEN a '
4r,
a
N
V
a ?I
sag i
J za "
GS <¢
s ?
?m
a O ZN
cc _ <
N
2
<
M
<
m
•
z m

w W
g H
NJ?
N
O?
QW<W u=1tl
JOB W
Vp•NN
` \
ZlS ? !x?\ \
SOOOY
---Now es aYN
\ ?p•N 95.91'
CL
J
wti
0
i .O
J
1 z
O <
a
a .o w ?
CQO?
C?nj V I_
NJ?N =

<w<W
s ?
; a
< a

? JO?-W
u?•NN C
? T a

a OC m
a ?f W N
m i? z a

N NV ?
W J ?•/
V
N
V

V1?
21-

N
r

a? 1 ? I 1 3? ?
I ?I I
I I "I I

O W

p
d
z x
cD ?
O O
U

I ? w ? ? o z? ?I
I
AtYI ?O
n ? ? ?
I ? 8r

'
a
W
I
1 NV

N
? n?
M a
?
I a a
O W Z
0
°?-emu F- O
. 30 N JmN > Z
r
x
• 4
• r w /% / N
i° X J 11
O/ ice/ WW .-1
?`a
X W z
W

- - w
j (!j
pE
i
? j\jpE
S0?
\ Q<

\ o< II
2 . W ~•
J r, s
a W _
KPH \ ? N
QNO N ?
C;n \ W
I-N u?N o`N? ``r
y?
\\ vii B N F
\ ? z Z a
\ O a v
z
pW ?. ?i1 ?1
_l \ W W W 7
.0
\ O O O O
a J
V ..a
am \ g A Q Q U
z?
J
ia< \
J•
= N \
N
U<W
OVN \
C
<a w
u? o\P
J () a \OZ
?ZY
=mO \
k? O O O O z W
W ?? W
D x r~ as ?•, w
W m ECEHVE
II ? ? o O
r. Lo
b J FEB 2 3 2000 ®o z
N DIVISION OF A O W
® COASTAL MANAGEMENT v a
A I ,
I I ? a
1 =
I , <
I Z
arm aHtla8 O
t \ ? N
r \ 10
r ? W
LL
v r ? W N
LL f ` W
O I N LL, a p T fUf?^.
d I N P, N N \?J
V1 t ' ti r ? C
Z i ? W ;; p ? EI
a z
' U
O
YI O N ? ? N _
F N
NN LL
W
NNt h r r ? 'MWW}W'If
Yti
W OQ (A tT ? i - -
V<N> i r
f V ? FJ? W N ? r - - - - .?
w ?? it .
rl-
'rte-
r
r ? , ? c o
r a / ev
? u n
1 1
r r o U U
L ? U
a
4
Z
I
® ? x
?3z ? o
R ECEHVE ax
? 0 0
FEB 2 3 2000 i x U
: i ?O W,
DIVISION OF w a
COASTAL MANAGEM T /: ° o z H o
?/ ohm a e w
ow ? ? z
z°
a° I ? U
CD
O \ W
------------------ - -------------
I
1
QLLJ
Q
J
W? I
OZ I
? a
? z
d
1 w
O
2W
I
I
I

U)
O N pp--
LL
w v Z cM
O r-
F- N t?S
m
'c U
HU
v m CF o o aQ-?n>Kt?
a - U) NCO LL
ZQN
co YO
?
=oo00Q W

w rn N
S c? t- u_ t- Z w
tiOU?wU
t~iv_ c`no co OZoZOO
? U ?
u
1 w`naL)m?
w
U)

j cU
0Q
Z W
W
N E
ca
.-.
C UQ
O
O

Z „
O O O
LL ...
'D
N Ln

. C
c

LO

IO
?m?
V N¢ o
O O o
O O
U z

a? W
a)-°i c ,
m U
i LLW

? t
s
i 0 0d Q
y o
cm O(D
> CV Z
C
G U)

?
U 0 z
Ln 2
C/) m
? >
m a) Q O `9 t
f
w O O fry Cl)
z
W - U
CL- U
E Q
O
F-
M
c -D
U

L
Q o

o o

0
0
L a) 0
.Q
U)
vv
U ,N d r s
-
(n O N O
? U a Lo
•- a
N to
c 0O l J J
O
E
? ti
O O
k-
co a0 O O O
+
Lo co + +
co O co + +
co O
?- F- ?- N

O J
Q
(n Z
O
H

FEB 2 3 2000
.C. RF-2
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
? TYPE 1 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 0.9m TO 1.52m ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 1.22m ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY. 6726 PLANTS PER HECTARE.
? TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 1.8m TO 3.Om ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 2.4m ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 1680 PLANTS PER HECTARE.
? NOTE: TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE
PAID FOR AS "STREAMBANK REFORESTATION"
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION TYPICAL
TYPE II
TYPE I
2.4 MET.
,.]1
tT.
ST"AM
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
MIXTURE. TYPE, SIZE, AND FURNISH SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING:
TYPE 1
50% SALIX NIGRA BLACK WILLOW 300mm - 460mm BR
50% CORNUS AMOMUM SILKY DOGWOOD 300mm - 460mm BR
TYPE 2
25% LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA SWEETGUM 300mm - 460mm BR
25% PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS SYCAMORE 300mm - 460mm BR
25% PRUNUS SEROTINA BLACK CHERRY 300mm - 460mm BR
25% BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 300mm - 460mm BR
? SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AREAS TO BE PLANTED
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
DETAIL SHEET
N.C.D.O.T. -ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
S 71 I.IE 111 SS
i£££££1CGtliff It f£££££ii is
4£4iVZErl£ J IIE££i£

I

- N
T

• -n N
• ?1

() cl
r4
?z
z?
z?
Z
tv
II II

z z
til
? r
r
z" zz
z n
Z\
\
0 \
O
z \
a ?
r
1
z `
z
O \
z
P X-
_f
P ,n-
0
r
N ?n
L)r
LDr
D
;Cl
O
C0
?C A
DQ

rr -,°i a
? n
N

>
<9
N
F
?y
S h
N
-i- D-f C)
o nr-

?rN
m
W
0
o°
N
/ I
-„ 1
m IN
n In
l

n c? o
mn? I
I
I
I

o 1
(n
O (A Z I
m r rE?1
nDZ m

r I

I

p
c
--A o I
? m I
E
D
CD \?/ - I
\ -4-X
(n rr7 \ +
m D +

m
\
O -
m 0 ? \
D r \
\
m r
D \
m
m D
zz
m

a
cf)
M m /
y / M
,6 i-
1
D D M?or- ?'? • ?' I

D m (A
N?,-r-cn
m

I
D
O
?
F?TD•
T ??

Z C')
N
c O.
_•
n
x N?
`D I
•
mFD
+
w

?r'll` 1
V) . I I
46c. vo)??
to x
I
W
?
®
d
2 I
?C) OI 1,
? I I
7
? c3
1

I? I I
I? I
I? I
I? f
I? I
f? I
? m
of
N I
x I

r? C)
r T
C
nu)
D

(n Z
Z
m CS
-i o
c
'Y
? r
0 m
m r
zlo
o Z Co
M
1
"
I tV

C11

I
I I
SOOOM
o
1 ?' , -M o zt- \

? m ? ?' ,L6y6 \

\\OQ

WOODS
I ?
I I
N
c?
a?
I

o I ?
I , -
I
IE
C y I I I •

? = I Iw
'
?
I Io
i I

I
I?ft
I I I?
I
I I?
I
I
- .,
I w
to l l

y
\ I
I
l

O
C
vm
v?
N ?
O -0P3
o
m
an
n
z
Ow
cm
-qo
--{ c
Xo
m
m
W
m
0
-n
nZ
cn z
W m
r
C?o
XD
-U z
fV
C-)
N

CA
m
m
• N
N

j

7 ?
?z
?®
?CD
z?
?z
II II

tt

© Olt

? r
It
z" "z
r
z ?
M?M
P?

?
\ o r
n
m?
VI
F\ ?
\
\ V1C7?_
mn-'

\ oNx
\ m r
\ D D m
r
\ c7 ?o
o \ 0
? ai
o
D \
Cn v
D
>
\ <
z C=
z 3

\
Z crr
z
° \ D
00 ti
z K -r,

\
\

\
\
\
\
?a\
m ?
\m Dorr-
,'
?rcn

oN-
N m
M
\
+ '>
D
m \ -
m o? \
n m \
MI f- O \
D \
m D ?
m mm ` Z \\\ ?p?/?pL
m ?pL?
77
Z
z
Cl)
iyti• / 000
?x "moo 1
/
z mD°y ?
X? T
D ??mcn ?T? tir i
- r? F? r • M 2
0
N ?
z C o t.,
X N O
mEo-
?+
r W
D w
z
N
t7? N
?-d
CA ?
:p U`
3 s
? cn o°
C x Ln
MC
pro
m
m 6
CO
m
m

m
om
m -i

O V ? -

r7
,r --n .

S
?
?
z -
?- -
N
to

1 /
I n
• I ? 1
•
I j •
I
I o
•o
I I
I I
I I ?
I
I I
K-
I
I
?
i •
- I Iw
I
.
I to I
I I I ?
_I
I I I

I
I I I?
I?
?
I ig I
_ I I
u ?

i
I
I
I
1
1
F
cx
-r-r oc o
?m _
C13
0
0
k?
!1 r /
/N
n /n
I
.l
r?
1
N I I
I orUi I

I?
I ?
I
I
l? I
I ?
\ ?3

o ?n
Nr
X /

(/? r C C7 (n
D Z c 2
cn
Q) z
m -r o
M c
0
o ;:a
o
M
w D

$
C11
z W
m

N

n I

1 fo,
liewu
?c L I I A?pox

X
m
m
O
WOODS
D Z
N
rn m
r
mo
x
?D
vz
D?
rV
D
iA3E)t'fl4VN Td1SVOO(D
pp(l? 5 ddd
m? r mm
???mrn
n>? m o0
zm o v,o
O g 2' 2, °
I mO N w°
t oa ? c
m
y V
J

?o
c ?

?
?o `

Y?v gg
y 6
g
0
m?
E 00
?T °
H

a ?
7 E ? A
e
a ??
? 6
A

3q
q6Z
? ? N n I
a . ?A o ? I
°o
>o
l c?
P9 \r?
,gy .? 8T r
m• w mm "r
?o A °a:
= Q, o
? V
9
G
O a
t
a r? ? m
i 1+ fir g'o QR?
ai Pf?,
m n u u ?? a ii in
?„s?ij Qhw±? r
N?? IV is ?
u, ru
P y
F; r
? ,n m
= m m?
N? Aoa ?
$o?
.a Nor ?m S"?T?Q
kNa. ano'q °
c °2? ?°AYti
i•FF?mokm?o R??'?`-2 c
Gp ?00 N???cIA? y
?a ?a'4?
??-A4
w4 m T
K$ T N N ?V Y 2
ASS $` po
a ?a
$ n ?Ki
y ? ,3oL?3?i
+ ao z
r - 70
- ,?
? O
?a« ? J
j?°-K?-
9
? 2
$s + e ?_.
m ,^? in a
? m
IJt mm m {?./
V -
?n o 09 ? ,i m :
Fpzti ? m. ? r
o?
PN rt ° J
r°v i Y $I o O
v ? mm
of n
0
E31
R
I
Ip I
Is
l?$ I
C9
°9 a ? N
\ ? I
m I
I

cs,?

1 1
i..
1
7S Y
S
1

N O

?
r s I
? ,b I

o ?
C) I
I

N I
I'
t,?o<kf ? i ,

? I
I

mf " Y I

N .
I
i

Q
_z
t° S

11 I'
I f1?}'h11'1' j
aft v??v $
N y g'r?
++++
t p rua ?_
°o y
goyY?
k
I
I
I.
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
? I
I
I
I
I `
I
I
i
I L
I`
I ?.
I
I
c ? I
-i e
m
gg H
iQ ?uh
a
F? N
? c
?Na
?,s'`TAIFo
r.n
`1 45
40j 14nSLpN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 1-1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000 ? -
2 22000
L, u FM
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management ?? wr S Gs;fLp
SECTION,
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3848
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Stroud
SUBJECT: CAM A. MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 6 OVER HOOD CREEK ON SR 1426, BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, Federal Project BRSTP-1426(2), State Project 8.2231501,
TIP No. B-2513.
Dear Mr. Stroud:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 6 over Hood Creek on SR 1426 in Brunswick County. The proposed project will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic will be detoured on surrounding
roads during construction. This project was approved as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) on
5 June 1997.
The existing bridge will be replaced by the construction of a new bridge, 140 feet in
length and 30 feet in width. To facilitate the construction of the new bridge, roadway fill
and excavation for channel realignment will be required. There will be 0.31 acres of
wetland impacts, 0.02 acres of surface water fill, 65 feet of channel fill, and 70 feet. of
channel relocation associated with this project. The location of spoil disposal area will be
the roadway fill slopes, with variable area. High quality water erosion control methods
will be used to assure that excavated or fill material will be kept on the site. Streambank
reforestation measures shall be used to aid in the restoration of areas disturbed during the
channel relocation. Attached is a "Streambank Reforestation Detail Sheet", listing the
vegetation to be planted. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), which is not on the list,
will also be included in the reforestation. A telephone line will be relocated above
ground on power poles and a new 12" water line will be bored under the streambed using
a directional bore method. No additional impacts to wetlands or surface water will be
incurred with the movement of these utilities.
NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Major Development Permit. . Enclosed are a permit
application, the CE document, permit drawings, and a check for $400.00 for the
processing of the CAMA and Section 401 applications. 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, we
are also requesting issuance of a United States Army Corps of Engineers NWP 23 and a
401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, contact Heather W. Montague
at [phone].
Sincerely,
// C- 19&
??William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
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., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. John Alford, Roadway Design
FORM DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name N .C. Dot. of Transportation
Address P O Box 25201
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name
Address
City State _
Zip Day Phone _
Fax
C. Project name (if any) B-2513
State Project No. 8.2231501
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Brunswick
b. City, town, community or landmark
Northwest (2.5 mikes east of )
C. Street address or secondary road number
Mt. Misery Road (SR 1426
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
river, creek sound, bay) Hood Creek
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.
emplace existing bridge with new bridge.
Requires roadway fill and excavation for
Channel realignment.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
new work
Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Public transportation
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
methods of construction and daily operations
of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages. To provide public
transportation Standard roadway construction
equipment will be used Piles for new bridge will
he installed by crane working on high around.
Channel excavation will be done by crane but will
Require mechanized clearing in wetlands to
Access channel Old bridge will be removed in a
manner that will prevent debris from falling into
stream.
Revised 03/95
ORM DCM-MP-1
in. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
1. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS N/A
1. Size of entire tract N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
b Size of individual lot(s) N/A waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
. sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
Approximate elevation of tract above MHW effluent, "wash down", and residential
or NWL 12 feet _ discharges.) s rtue runoff
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Blanton fine sand.
l
&
ex
Matvvn comu
Muckalee loan (mk. momeade
(BQC
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
e. Vegetation on tract swamp forest and
upland forest N/A
f.. Man-made features now on tract
existig?2lidge• roadway and utilities
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land
In addition to the completed application form, the
use plan) following items must be submitted:
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
* A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
Rural Other
X other instrument under which the applicant claims title
_ to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
h How is the tract zoned by local government? claiming to be the owner of said property, then
. eun
6
stint built
esidential forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
_
r
000 which the owner claims title, plus written permission
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the from the owner to carry out the project.
applicable zoning? X_ Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
* An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
been done for the tract? Yes X_ No Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
If yes, by whom? detailed description.)
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X_ No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? Y Yes -No
Coastal (marsh) Other X_
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
(Attach documentation, if available)
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 See Attached List on
Address permit drawings
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.
* 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 _ day of 2000
Print Name William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Signature ' C ' V.I. -In4vu-
Landowner or Author ed 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
X 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.
g. Length of proposed bridge 140 feet
1 BRIDGES
h.
Width of proposed bridge 30 feet
a. Public X Private
i.
Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material) 12 feet
21" Cored slab S12ans 1 na 45',19 50' and
1 @45' j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Hood Creek If yes, explain
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL +/- 6 feet
k.
Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing. bridge? 12 feet
X Yes No
If yes,
1.
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 120.5 feet reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 23.9 feet opening? Yes X No
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing If yes, explain difference is negligible
. bridge 11 feet
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) The entire bridge will
be =laced by a new bridge.
m.
Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes Y_ 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
arm DCM-MP-5
CULVERTS N/A
Water body in which culvert is to be placed -
Number of culverts proposed'.
Type of culvert (construction material, style)
Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
g. Width of proposed culvert h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL
is Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL.
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X_ No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs -X- Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 70 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 36 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 290 cubic yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
require any highground excavation?
X_ Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 40 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 30 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 247 cubic yards
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
Roadwgy fill slopes
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Variable
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
X_ Yes No
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 b. Will the proposed project.require the relocation of
maintenance?_2_ Yes -No any existing utility lines? X Yes _ No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal If yes, explain in detail Teleuhone line relocated
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands? Above ground on power voles. New 12" water
Yes X_ No line will be bored under streambed. No impacts
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2) to wetlands or surface water.
above. C. Will the proposed project require the construction of
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below any temporary detour structures?
the MHW or NWL? Yes _X- No Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2 If yes, explain in detail
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? Yes X_ No
MHW or NWL? Yes -XNo If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled and erosion controlled? High ouali waters
(3) Purpose of fill erosion control measures
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert (for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
result in any fill (other than excavated material dredge)? Standard equipment to build bridge
described in Item d. above) to be placed within: (i.e., crane,2ile drivers, etc.)
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 321 feet g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(2) Width of area to be filled 8.5 feet to project site? Yes X._ No
(3) Purpose of fill Roadwayfill If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
highground? Yes X _ No require any shoreline stabilization?
If yes, Yes . X- No
(1) Length of area to be filled If yes, explain in detail
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
4 GENERAL
NCDOT; TIP Number B-2513
Applicant or Project Name
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes _Y _ No
If yes, explain in detail
Signature
v, t F zoo
Date
Revised 03/95
.9
bJ w \ / -
LLUL
/ \ d' J
SANDY cwK
r
..n
i
7 ` \'+ /
Qi L42L
?n
OFF-SITE DETOUR
PMJECT
1426
9
1
eT 1
VICINITY MAP
1426
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2231501, B-2513
BRIDGE NO.6 OVER HOOD CREEK
SHEET -L OF-Z-
LEGEND
WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

a' WETLAND
"--WLBJ PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND g_
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
® DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED
EXISTNG LINES DENOTE
STRUCTURES)
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE

jl;!% TEMPORARY
?i DENOTES
y/
/
]
FILL IN WETLAND
z
- WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
`
IN WETLAND °,•.?_
?. DRAINAGE INLET
DENOTES TEMPORARY
TT
FILL IN SURFACE
ROOTWAD
WATER
» » DENOTES MECHANIZED
»
*' •' • CLEARING
•

FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
TB
TOP OF BANK

WE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
5
- EDGE OF WATER
- OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
- -C_ - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- .7- - - - WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
BOULDER DIVISION OF.HIGHWAYS
• COIR. FIBER ROLLS BRUNSWICK COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2231501 (B-2513)
Z OF
b
x/ /y0
'
I ES dVN
O <
i ?
? W
N
Cr ° r
4tlnY, ?n
b
?W<W s = a a
Vf NN m ? 4 4
8 X33\ \?

z

d -W
CEO Z
4N~? ~ O
3 3 Z ?I
p! yW
H ¢

• moo/ / WW :.i
?. /
w z

r O ?
OED
z
J ?
m ' \
N ? W
CND \ ? N
s>n F
W10
N-9 3 y
N N\N u z
\ , a c
\ ? w w
\ z z Za
O x
CL.
\ O O O
IL z
.K
<W
e T P ^?
J ? L
z80 4
N O O O O W
b ? " ?Cx70'? x
II
z II Z ? U o
W 1 i ?; Lt. Dd M W
' ? A m 1? F' O V c?i ? i?l
W ®0z
H`.,' U °
?)
W z
® ?, ? ? A > CG O W
A ? 1 t A ? C7.
t? y ? ? Cj a' A W
t ,
3MI 3>IVMB N
1 ?
M
1 ` i ?n ..?
? ?. ? U
t N °? d
vi , i I W s a
Z
1 Vi N ? J> U °
y?j ? s ; 24 W Fy
cQ? F N
= j r Y N IZ; ? b-r
t , I 0
m a? ? Rf7 1 ' rry
N ?° vNi.? 1 1 _ - W
$ o a '"? 1 1
o f vt i t I
1
err-
r
1 C4
r s / _
? d d
f / ?R o
Z
0
i o
o3z ? o
? x
FOU c, O ?I
w 3 ,a ?
oOz o
o
z
/ G m W 0
/ p dt p W
U W
// Z m rb
OLL1
z?
aZ
O
C? ----------------- - -------------1 U
OLLJ
ZJ ? ?
X10 1 ? z
OZ 1 ?
? U a
it A
it
;I
1

U) c
z cr)
0 ?.
N
?
~
Y =

? Cf) - i
OQ,°n??oC1?
= cn z o
zO 4mcoY
O

=aom0
W
F- LL F- z
LO z 0

amw0m0
W -n.Um=
L) 0
0
U
W
Z
w
co

'
Zi

U) v IT

LO co co O co 00 O

v ?

L LL
U
cU
W
? O N
0

W c
C 'o Lf)
~ co ~i
i c ? It
W
v co
3 U
W

W
ua.
m U
c
c

ii.

cwU
Q C14 °
o
Z °
=
(i v
d ?
C '?
O ) p r p Cr0
U N N Q ° O ° °

d
°13 v
c

? ?
s m :;
m ? U
Q
tV. O N

C y C
G V y
? d ° c

v
Z W? O O

g y

a- U
a? Q
F
? v
-
c
y
c ? V
c
c
^o
Q o o ?
y
? L n Cn

U N ?
?m V c
? r d V
N to r
p O J J 0
C J J J J
? ? O O LQ tf?
co co O O

r r r {- r r N
J
Q
Z - L - O
tL 0 LLI
O z -,
H0O0
co
H
f.ATi RAi6 /ROIKT IIIJNIiNL1 TA tMAL
,xun
.C. RF-2
nwta ,?a.xa ..LrRa.na eacwwrw.
? TYPE 1 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 0.9m TO 1.52m ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 1.22m ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 6726 PLANTS PER HECTARE.
? TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 1.8m TO 3.Om ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 2.4m ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 1680 PLANTS PER HECTARE.
? NOTE: TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE
PAID FOR AS "STREAMBANK REFORESTATION"
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION TYPICAL
TYPE Il
1TYPE I
2.4 Mh7.
£.it
NCf.
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
MIXTURE. TYPE, SIZE. AND FURNISH SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING:
rc,oc ,
50% SALIX NIGRA
50% CORNUS AMOMUM
TYPE 2
25% LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA
25% PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS
25% PRUNUS SEROTINA
25% BETULA NIGRA
BLACK WILLOW 300mm - 460mm BR
SILKY DOGWOOD 300mm - 460mm BR
SWEETGUM 300mm - 460mm BR
SYCAMORE 300mm - 460mm BR
BLACK CHERRY 300mm - 460mm BR
RIVER BIRCH 300mm - 460mm BR
? SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AREAS TO BE PLANTED
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
DETAIL SHEET
N.C.D.O.T.- ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
?Fi£?f£{££££{££?Ci•ri£f f{£ft;?it{{{{£
f E4 {l?SE qi; uF?Ft;
dd SrA7t'o?
r.. M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP- P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000
Mr. Linwood Peterson
456 Crown Crescent
Chesapeake, VA 23325
Dear Mr. Peterson:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No. 6 over
Hood Creek on SR 1426, 2.5 miles east of Northwest. This bridge is located on Mt.
Misery Road between Blue Bank Loop Road and Butler Road. The proposed action will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic would be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction.
Environmental permits from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) are required to authorize this construction and are being obtained by
the NCDOT. Since your property is adjacent to the proposed project, a copy of the
permit application is being provided for your review; no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions or wish to submit comments please contact your appropriate
NCDCM representative within 30 days, or call Heather W. Montague, Department of
Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,
L
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Planning and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/hwm
.A SUTt' °?
Qar ad
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000
Mrs. Nancy L. Clark
4299 Mt. Misery Road
Leland, NC 28451
Dear Mrs. Clark:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No. 6 over
Hood Creek on SR 1426, 2.5 miles east of Northwest. This bridge is located on Mt.
Misery Road between Blue Bank Loop Road and Butler Road. The proposed action will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic would be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction.
Environmental permits from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) are required to authorize this construction and are being obtained by
the NCDOT. Since your property is adjacent to the proposed project, a copy of the
permit application is being provided for your review; no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions or wish to submit comments please contact your appropriate
NCDCM representative within 30 days, or call Heather W. Montague, Department of
Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,
4/-'?-- 9:-'?
- William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Planning and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/hwm
+ASWFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000
Mr. Donald R. Lennon
201 Cherrywood Drive
Greenville, NC 27834
Dear Mr. Lennon:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No. 6 over
Hood Creek on SR 1426, 2.5 miles east of Northwest. This bridge is located on Mt.
Misery Road between Blue Bank Loop Road and Butler Road. The proposed action will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic would be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction.
Environmental permits from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) are required to authorize this construction and are being obtained by
the NCDOT.. Since your property is adjacent to the proposed project, a copy of the
permit application is being provided for your review; no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions or wish to submit comments please contact your appropriate
NCDCM representative within 30 days, or call Heather W. Montague, Department of
Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,.
?. C - 4--r-
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Planning and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/hwm
.w SU7E o?
?aM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000
Mr. Joseph R. Powell
4260 Mt. Misery Road
Leland, NC 28451
Dear Mr. Powell:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No. 6 over
Hood Creek on SR 1426, 2.5 miles east of Northwest. This bridge is located on Mt.
Misery Road between Blue Bank Loop Road and Butler Road. The proposed action will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic would be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction.
Environmental permits from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) are required to authorize this construction and are being obtained by
the NCDOT. Since your property is adjacent to the proposed project, a copy of the
permit application is being provided for your review; no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions or wish to submit comments please contact your appropriate
NCDCM representative within 30 days, or call Heather W. Montague, Department of
Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,

b-11- William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Planning and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/hwm
?Yd w? SG17? o?
dY y??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 18, 2000
Mrs. Betty B. Hoffman
2894 Elm Street
Cayce, SC 29033
Dear Mrs. Hoffman:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge No. 6 over
Hood Creek on SR 1426, 2.5 miles east of Northwest. This bridge is located on Mt.
Misery Road between Blue Bank Loop Road and Butler Road. The proposed action will
involve replacing the existing bridge in place. Traffic would be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction.
Environmental permits from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) are required to authorize this construction and are being obtained by
the NCDOT. Since, your property is adjacent to the proposed project, a copy of the
permit application is being provided for your review; no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions or wish to submit comments please contact your appropriate
NCDCM representative within 30 days, or call Heather W. Montague, Department of
Transportation, at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Planning and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/hwm

s P 459 519 795

r
US Postal Service
t for Certified Mail
i

.
r
p
Rece
p
vided .
ro
.
No Insurance coverage
e

not use for International Mail See revers
Do
Se tt
Nur '
cy
P ce, State, & ZIP ode /t
'-
F
133

$ 2
17
Postage
Certified Fee

Sped9al Delivery Fee

4 ea
Restricted Delivery
rn Return Receipt Showing to
'
s ¢ ` Whom & Date Delivered
?
o Raman Receipt Showrrg to Whom,
Q Date, & Addressee's Address
O TOTAL Postage & Fees $
cc
c* Postmark or Date

i u-
I?
!!//
(L

4

t` ? ,; r F
`?
? d I

m
m
m
'ccc m
CO W,
'o V cc
tr-
ara
r-I Ln ? CD'5
U E
Q
Er (D
Ln v c
S v) Q Q
? v
a 0 •?
a.
Wllrzc`
H
m
'CIS m
it
r%-
d>?
Er -C0
r-I (L
Ln 4) -,-.s
V m E
m
0 0 U c
? 4, U ?-
a a
N _ C
a (? C C
W
zo
P 459 519 796

US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
x•'.'' ` " No insurance coverage Provided. y
Do no use for International Mail See reverse
a Sen t0
L

1
StrQFff 4 ? 4
Y
f.?
Po Ofri , State & IP cric
4b
Postage $
Certified Fee

Special Delivery Fee i{
'
- m

r
do Restricted Delivery Fee
'C

f
Return Receipt Showing to m
2
r Whom & Date Delivered
s
4)
n Return Receipt Showing to Whom, a
Q Date, & Addressee's Address - o
`

O
TOTAL Postage & Fees
$ a
?
m o
cis
th Postmark or Date _ Ln 0 E
'
3 ' U 0 U c
x LL
?2?[ u7 m m o

`
d
S t+ U
S' 2 ai

,. a a av?
CMS o
:3 z

' Q
N

m
LL Cm

? m

LL
m

\ \\
ID
m

J!

'm
C3 )

? G
m
? ?
cc .6

7?• Q

`o

966L l pdv '008 £ wjoj Sc

V! fR

ep ? LL O ?
L? Q
•
?
?
3 LL
ea
m n ;SQ
s
$ U
U m O U a
d
O
ZS '
" C O

C
...

CM

a)
9 a e
3
- e

?

-

to
a° N
0.
v m N
¢
cc ?
¢ o N
a°
966L I !Jdv'OOR S uuo? Sc
? m
C
N M
m -
-

U
1 L

S
m
i
c m
"S
S
! \

m
m
LL
r
m
o i
T

a
.
e:g
J!
as ?
` v

d
o e
o
z
iN ?_ 'L
m o F ¢ as
E E Si
6 °° a
a ?`
g

U)
in
a cc
a°

0
v a
(D
CL
A U

r= 7 O

rt

o F-

a
o
0

4 p
,pl y
X4 ?y?

- - Z h 4 R 8a v
'r
V iF µV
+
yet.`
566 L Iudv '009E LLUo=l Scl
.

IF INCORRECT RETURN TO
WARRANT No-535784 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE
0 4 0 8 CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 5 3 5 7 8 4 01-06-00
" INVOICE
DATE PURCHASE
ORDER
AMOUNT
DISCOUNT
N AMOUNT
CODE NUMBER NUMBER

F

1-05-00

I

I ' I
I
i

400:00
TOTAL 400 :0 0
REMARKS:
CAMA MAJOR PERMIT & MINOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFIC.IATION
BRUNSWICK COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 6
r?rn?cruin
*SEE REVERSE SIDE OF STUB FOR CODES-_

C THE FACE Of THIS OOCVMENT HPS A COLpRED BACKGROUND ON WHITE PAPER. WARNING! THIS MICR NUMBER BLEEDS THRU PINK TO THE SACK SIDE. PLnL(Ln?[PLI2?lA[.10[P?17C 1[l?[.I?Ln[P
66=1658 5
2 o TATfq h? STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 531 5
` y DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 5
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Warrant No. 535784
2
2 PAY TOM„V MO. DAY YEl. AMOUNT 5
THE ORDER OF: 5
2 N" C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONME14T i 0 6-0 $ s x'* s a* 400 d 0
AkD NATURAL RESO'URCE5 5
2 DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT 5
1638 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
j2 RALEIGH. N. C. 27699- 1638 fry ?:,?, , t.t ,.• 5
- ""•• - S
2 STATE TREASURER
2 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA ±: •.r•s r w a::, r ..t;' ?? :r;va;« 5
2 PAYABLE AT PAR THROUGH FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 5
.D Lti[UCU[LjC'LC],cUCVCULZjcUcU[7,C70CLj?jLZC BEFORE ACCEPTING THIS DOCUMENT PLEASE EXAMINE FOR GENUINE WATERMARK FRONT S BACK. THIS DOCUMENT HAS VISIBLE FIBERSAND INVISIBLE FLUORESCENT FIBERS. C1-LP[P[PCPC.I-GPCPCPCPCPClLI-[Pf1CPC.I?
114 5 3 5 78411' i:0 5 3 L LO 5941: 5111000???60 LII'

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1426
Replace Bridge No. 6
Over Hood Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1426(2)
State Project 8.2231501
TIP No. B-2513
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit 423 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions; General Certification Conditions, Section 401 Conditions of Certification,
and the State Coastal Resources Commission Permit Conditions for Major Development
in an Area of Environmental Concern, the following special commitments have been
agreed to by NCDOT:
r:

Division 3/Roadside Environmental Unit
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. This is a standard NCDOT Procedure.
Division 31Structure Design Unit
In order to minimize effects of runoff on the stream water quality, construction will be
accomplished such that wet concrete does not come into contact with the surface waters.
Division 31 Structure Design Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices for "Bridge Demolition &
Removal" during the removal of the existing structure.
Commitments Developed Through Permitting
Bridge Construction
Division 31 Roadside Environmental Unit
In order to protect finfish populations, no excavation or filling will be permitted between
March I" through August 31St of any year without prior approval of the Division of
Coastal Management, in consultation with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
Division 3/ Structure Design
Debris resulting from demolition of the existing bridges, including deck components,
shall not enter wetlands or waters of the United States, even temporarily.
Preconstruction- July 27, 2000 Pagel of 3
x
?,

Division 31 Structure Design
All excavated materials and debris associated with the removal of the existing bridge will
be disposed of on an approved upland disposal,,site.
Telephone Line Relocation and Water Line Installation
Division 3
Telephone line relocation and water line installation shall not result in any permanent or
temporary impacts to wetlands.
Division 3
The minimum clearance for aerial communication lines will be 10' above the clearance
required for the bridge covered under this permit application.
Division 3
The new water line shall be installed using directional bore method from high ground to
high ground.
Division 3
There must be no resultant change in preconstruction bottom contours. Excavation
and/or fill within wetland areas for water line installation is not authorized.
Division 3
The utility line route or construction methodi will not disrupt the movement of those
species-of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody.
Division 3
Subaqueous lines must be placed a minimum of two feet below the bottom contour.
Mitigation
Division 31 Roadside Environmental Unit/ PD&EA
In accordance with the permitee's 2/18/00 application letter, streambank reforestation
measures shall be used to aid in the restoration of areas disturbed during channel
relocation. Vegetation to be planted includes' Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and
vegetation listed in the "Streambank Reforestation Detail Sheet" attached to the permit
application.
PD&EA Branch/ Roadside Environmental Unit;
Due to the possibility that compaction, mechanized clearing and/or other site alterations
might prevent the temporary wetland impact area from re-attaining wetland jurisdictional
status, the permittee shall provide an annual update on the wetland areas temporarily
impacted by this project. The annual update will consist of photographs provided during
the agency monitoring report meeting and a brief report on the progress of these
temporarily impacted areas in re-attaining wetland jurisdictional status. Three years . after
Preconstruction- July 27, 2000 Page 2 of 3
k
project completion, the permitteee shall schedule an agency field meeting with DCM, the
NC Division of Water Quality and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to determine
if the wetland areas temporarily impacted by this project have re-attained jurisdictional
wetland status. If at the end of 3 years the wetland areas temporarily impacted by this
project have not re-attained jurisdictional wetland status, NCDOT and the above listed
agencies shall determine whether a compensatory wetland mitigation plan will be
required.
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Division 31 Roadside Environmental Unit
High quality waters sediment and erosion control measures must be used for this project.
General Conditions
Division 3
The permittee and his contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division of
Coastal Management prior to project initiation.
Contacts:
Heather Montague, NC Department of Transportation PD&EA Branch, [phone]
Janet Russell, Division of Coastal Management,' Wilmington, [phone]
Dave Timpy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, [phone]
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, [phone]
Preconstruction- July 27, 2000 Page 3 of 3

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR
March 27, 2000
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3848
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Stroud
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 6 OVER HOOD CREEK ON SR 1426, BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, TIP NO. B-2513.
Dear Mr. Stroud:
This is an addendum to the previously submitted CAMA Major Permit Application cover
letter dated February 18, 2000. The wetland impacts that were reported in that
application reflected an increase from the impacts reported in the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) document, approved on 5 June 1997. This letter serves to clarify the discrepancy
between those impacts, as well as to document the standard NCDOT procedures
regarding bridge demolition.
The existing bridge will be replaced by the construction of a new bridge, 140 feet long in
length and 30 feet in width. To facilitate the construction of the new bridge, roadway fill
and excavation for channel realignment will be required. Impacts associated with the
channel realignment are a part of the final design plans and were not available for
evaluation at the time the CE was completed. The CE reported 0.02 acres of wetland
impacts. The channel realignment and it's associated work contribute to an additional
0.29 acres of wetland impacts, bringing the total estimated wetland impacts to 0.31 acres.
Mr. John Wadsworth with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was consulted
about this increase and he concluded that we would not need an addendum to the CE for

this change, but that this information should be included in the next construction
consultation to the FHWA.
The existing bridge has seven spans totaling 120 feet in length. The deck and bridge
railings for the superstructure are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed
of timber. Both the bridge rail and the substructure will be removed without dropping
them into Waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped
into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck is approximately 29.3 yd3.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be followed during the
removal of the existing structure.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Heather W.
Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
V- v /9?
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
b Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
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., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. John Alford, Roadway Design
o0b?'14S
A 70t A..
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
November 24, 2004 D
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, PE D
D
NC Department of Transportation N O V, 3 0 2004
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Re: Hood Creek Bridge Mitigation Site, Brunswick County, State Project No. 8.2231501,
TIP No. B-2513, USACOE Action ID No. 200000872, DWQ Project No. 000145,
CAMA Permit No. 116-00
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 Hood Creek Bridge
Mitigation Site in Brunswick County. Wetland mitigation was proposed for approximately 0.25
acres of 404-type wetlands impacted by NCDOT's bridge project B-2513, permitted by DCM
under CAMA permit # 13-01.
Areas temporarily impacted by mechanized clearing were re-vegetated with bottomland
hardwood species. The success criteria for this site were to re-vegetate where mechanized
clearing occurred 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
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. Randy Griffin, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Mr. Doug Huggett, DCM
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
W. Chris Militscher, EPA
Mr. Dave Timpy, USACE
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC

S S qS
d.N S?A1E o
a4? '° gyn.
pwn
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

March 27, 2000
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3848""?W?
ATTENTION: Mr. Bob Stroud
SUBJECT: CAMA MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 6 OVER HOOD CREEK ON SR 1426, BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, TIP NO. B-2513.
Dear Mr. Stroud:
This is an addendum to the previously submitted CAMA Major Permit Application cover
letter dated February 18, 2000. The wetland impacts that were reported in that
application reflected an increase from the impacts reported in the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) document, approved on 5 June 1997. This letter serves to clarify the discrepancy
between those impacts, as well as to document the standard NCDOT procedures
regarding bridge demolition.
The existing bridge will be replaced by the construction of a new bridge, 140 feet long in
length and 30 feet in width. To facilitate the construction of the new bridge, roadway fill
and excavation for channel realignment will be required. Impacts associated with the
channel realignment are a part of the final design plans and were not available for
evaluation at the time the CE was completed. The CE reported 0.02 acres of wetland
impacts. The channel realignment and it's associated work contribute to an additional
0.29 acres of wetland impacts, bringing the total estimated wetland impacts to 0.31 acres.
Mr. John Wadsworth with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was consulted
about this increase and he concluded that we would not need an addendum to the CE for

this change, but that this information should be included in the next construction
consultation to the FHWA.
The existing bridge has seven spans totaling 120 feet in length. The deck and bridge
railings for the superstructure are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed
of timber. Both the bridge rail and the substructure will be removed without dropping
them into Waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the deck to be dropped
into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck is approximately 29.3 yd3.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be followed during the
removal of the existing structure.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Heather W.
Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
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., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort
Mr. John Alford, Roadway Design