20000839 Ver 1_Complete File_20000621

O? WATER f?lichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
O? QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
r Division of Water Duality
September 9, 2005
Onslow County
DWQ No. 000839
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Natural Environment Unit
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
RE: Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site, Onslow County, TIP No. B-3008
Dear Mr. Harris:
This correspondence is in reference to your letter dated August 10, 2004, regarding the Juniper Swamp Bridge
Mitigation site located in Onslow County, North Carolina. This site is being utilized by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation as compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts associated with project B-3008.
By copy of this letter, we are notifying you that no further monitoring of the site will be required since the
construction and success criteria for the mitigation site has been met.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact Brian Wrenn at
919-733-5715.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek,, P.E.S
JEH/njt
cc: Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Dave Timpy, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Ken Averitte, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Mr. H. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer, 124 Division Dr., Wilmington, NC 28401
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer, 124 Division Dr., Wilmington, NC 28401
Central Files
File Copy
One Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone] / Intemet: htto•//h2o enr state nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
1
44
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
AUG 12 2004
.` WATER QUALITY SECTION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 10, 2004
Mr. Doug Huggett
NC Division of Coastal Management
Parker Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604

F
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Re: Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site, Onslow County, State Project No.
8.1261801, TIP No. B-3008, USACE Action ID No. 200001560 & 200001584, DWQ Project
No. 000839, CAMA Project No. 140-00
Mr. Doug Huggett:
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site
since the planting of bottomland hardwood species in March 2002. Located in Onslow County,
the site consists of approximately 1.04 acres of mitigation for wetland impacts associated with
project B-3008. NCDOT proposed to monitor Juniper Swamp Bridge site for at least three years;
only vegetation monitoring was conducted each year. After each growing season, annual
monitoring reports were submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies.
There were approximately 0.95 acres of wetland restoration and 0.082 acres of wetland creation
on site. There were no plots established on the site. By visual observation, the Juniper Swamp
Bridge site shows that natural re-vegetation is occurring and that the impacted area is re-attaining
jurisdictional status.
During the annual monitoring report meeting on April 29, 2004, NCDOT and resource agencies
agreed that the Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site could be closed and that monitoring could
be discontinued. A site review was held on August 04, 2004 with representatives from NCDOT,
CAMA, USCOE, WRC, USFWS, and EPA. It was decided at this site review that the Juniper
Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site could be closed and monitoring discontinued. NCDOT requests
that the appropriate resource agencies provide documentation stating that no further monitoring
is required and that the site is closed. If you have any questions about this project, please contact
Mr. Randy Griffin at [phone].
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
RALEIGH NC

Sincerely,

Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., CPM
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ
Mr. Dave Timpy, USACOE
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Bill Arrington, CAMA
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, CAMA
Mr. Tommy Douglas, NCDOT
Mr. Jason Elliot, NCDOT
Mr. Mason Herndon, NCDOT

e,. swi 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNOR
Mr. Doug Huggett
NC Division of Coastal Management
Parker Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
August 10, 2004
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
AUG 12 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Re: Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site, Onslow County, State Project No.
8.1261801, TIP No. B-3008, USACE Action ID No. 200001560 & 200001584, DWQ Project
No. 000839, CAMA Project No. 140-00
Mr. Doug Huggett:
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site
since the planting of bottomland hardwood species in March 2002. Located in Onslow County,
the site consists of approximately 1.04 acres of mitigation for wetland impacts associated with
project B-3008. NCDOT proposed to monitor Juniper Swamp Bridge site for at least three years;
only vegetation monitoring was conducted each year. After each growing season, annual
monitoring reports were submitted to the appropriate regulatory-agencies.
There were approximately 0.95 acres of wetland restoration and 0.082 acres of wetland creation
on site. There were no plots established on the site. By visual observation, the Juniper Swamp
Bridge site shows that natural re-vegetation is occurring and that the impacted area is re-attaining
jurisdictional status.
During the annual monitoring report meeting on April 29, 2004, NCDOT and resource agencies
agreed that the Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site could be closed and that monitoring could
be discontinued. A site review was held on August 04, 2004 with representatives from NCDOT,
CAMA, USCOE, WRC, USFWS, and EPA. It was decided at this site review that the Juniper
Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site could be closed and monitoring discontinued. NCDOT requests
that the appropriate resource agencies provide documentation stating that no further monitoring
is required and that the site is closed. If you have any questions about this project, please contact
Mr. Randy Griffin at [phone].
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WM..NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC'
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

Sincerely,

Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., CPM
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ
Mr. Dave Timpy, USACOE
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Bill Arrington, CAMA
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, CAMA
Mr. Tommy Douglas, NCDOT
Mr. Jason Elliot, NCDOT
Mr. Mason Herndon, NCDOT
CDE R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
an a-3-';!? q
C) nslOL-A)
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
November 24, 2004
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, PE l-A @ t J 11?? D
NC Department of Transportation t ?' la ?:/ D
Project Development and Environmental Analysis NOV 3 0 2004
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center cEPIR -'WATER QUALITY
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 '. ETUJ.2'SM40sTORIZAATERBRAt4CH
Re: Juniper Swamp Bridge Mitigation Site, Onslow County, State Project No. 8.1261801,
TIP No. B-3008, USACOE Action ID No. 200001560, DWQ Project No. 000839,
CAMA Permit.No. 140-00
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 Juniper Swamp Bridge
Mitigation Site in Onslow County. Wetland mitigation was provided on-site for approximately
1.04 acres of 404-type wetlands impacted by NCDOT's bridge project B-3008, permitted by
DCM under CAMA permit # 140-00.
The mitigation consisted of approximately 0.95 acres of wetland restoration where the on-site
temporary detour was removed and an additional 0.082 acres of wetland creation. 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
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
Wetlands Tracking
Projects o v,1et bent List
T,otaIs Print
Facility Name NCDOT Bridge 16 on NC 50 B-3008
Project Number 00 0839
O Inactive
Project Type purpose of bridge replacement
Location Juniper Creek
401s Recvd
Recvd From Date
DOT 6/21/2000
Issue General I401
401
Total for Project:
County Onslow
County2
Region Wilmington
DCM Office Morehead City
COE Office Wilmington
Last Total Total Total Mit Sent to Recvd . Action 401 401 Totals Mit
Region Region Date Last Action Acres Feet Acres Feet
Inspections/ Violations
Inspection Date Inspector
Compliant Letter Type Date Sent Reply Date Current St
J
J O Y ON I inspect.
,Ss ;yc?
w.;r7U ?w;

N`tMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NCDOT Bridge 16 on NC 50 B-3008
Project Number 00 0839
Recvd From DOT
Received Date 6/21/00 Recvd By Region
Project Type bridge replacement
County Onslow
County2
Region Wilmington
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
23 rF- O YO N ? 18-74-55-1 F-C _SW 30,623. F_ F-
r
I -I - O Y _0N ?F-?1r-1x-F-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Stream Impacts (ft.)
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? Q Y O N Did you request more Info? Q Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? Q Y O N
Is Mitigation required? Q Y O N Recommendation: Q Issue t9 Issue/Coed O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 343325 Longitude (ddmmss) 773453
Comments:
This office has no objections to the protect as proposed with the condition that they keen the turbidity
below 50 NTU outside the project site. This office would also require that all incidences that may
cause additional impacts to wetlands he reported to this office (901) S95-3900 x 215,
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1

Facility Name NCDOT Bridge 16 on NC 50 B-3008 County onstow
Project Number 00 0839 Regional Contact:
Date:
Comments (continued from page 1):
J. Steenhuis
8/21/2000
cc: Regional Office Page Number 2
Central Office
1 DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: NC Highway 50, Adjacent to Juniper Swamp, Onslow
County
Photo Index - 1995: None 1989: None 1984: None
State Plane Coordinates - X: 4247000 Y: 297000
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 04/06/00
Was Applicant Present - Yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 06/30/00
Office - Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Onsow County
Land Classification From LUP - Conservation/Rural
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PT ES(Coastal Shoreline)
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Two lane roadway bridge
Planned - New two lane bridge, temporary detour road
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA] OTHER
nPPT)r7PT) FTT T 'Mn T'nm„r,.,, Tm... -+.
(A) Vegetated Wetlands 0.358 acres
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands
(Open Water)
(C) Other 0.97 acres
(High round)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 1.33 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: C Swamp Open: N/A
8. PROJECT SUNEVIARY: The applicant proposes to replace the existing NC Highway 50 Bridge
No. 16 over Juniper Swamp. Replacement of the bridge will require the construction of a
temporary detour road and detour bridge.

9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is the existing bridge crossing of Juniper Swamp, on NC Highway 50, in Onslow
County. The bridge crossing is located approximately five miles north of the community of
Holly Ridge. Juniper Swamp flows east to west, beginning near the edge of the Cape Fear/ White
Oak River Basin boundary and the Great Sandy Run Pocosin. The stream is a tributary of Shaken
Swamp, which flows into the Northeast-Cape Fear River. The project area is flat, with elevations
of approximately 10-14 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum. At the bridge crossing,
Juniper Swamp consists of main stream channel approximately 50 feet wide, which is surrounded
on both sides by Cypress/Gum swamp forest, grading gradually into bottomland hardwood forest.
Plant species near the main stream channel include: Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum), Black
Gum (Nyssa Sylvatica), Sweetgum (Liquidanibarstyraciflua), and Red Maple (Ater rubrum). The
main stream channel is approximately 3 to 4 feet deep.
Juniper Swamp is considered Inland Waters by the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries/N. C.
Wildlife Commission. The N. C. Division of Water Quality classifies Juniper Swamp as "C
Swamp Waters".
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the existing two lane bridge
span at its present location. The existing bridge, which was constructed in 1956, has four spans
totaling 69 feet in length and 23.6 feet in width. It consists of a timber pile support structure with
concrete pile caps, concrete decking and guard rails. The existing structure has approximately 5.2
feet of vertical clearance between the bridge deck and normal water level (NWL). The new
structure would consist of concrete pilings, concrete pile caps and cored slab concrete decking.
The structure would measure approximately 90 feet in length and 32 feet in width (two 12 foot
lanes with four foot shoulders for bicycle traffic). The bridge would provide a vertical clearance
of approximately 5.9 feet above NWL and would have a horizontal clearance, inside pile bent cap
to inside pile bent cap, of 9.4 feet. To accommodate the wider bridge, the bridge approaches will
also include two 12 foot lanes with eight foot shoulders. The shoulders would widen to 11 feet
where guardrail is required.
To accommodate traffic during construction, a temporary detour road and temporary detour bridge
would be installed. The detour bridge would be located approximately 60 feet upstream of the
existing bridge. The detour approaches to the temporary bridge would require the temporary
placement of fill material in 0.358 acres of wetlands. Both the temporary detour road and detour
bridge would be removed. upon completion of the new bridge. In addition, approximately 0.082
acres of wetlands will be created during the removal of the temporary approach.
6f,
10. ANTICIPATED LMPACTS
The project would result in temporary impacts to 0.358 acres of wooded swamp by the
construction of the detour approaches to the temporary bridge. The new bridge would have a
vertical clearance of 0.7 feet higher than the existing structure. The reduction in the number of
pile bents in the stream bed would also provide greater horizontal clearance for boat traffic. Short
term turbidity is expected during pile-placement and during construction and removal of the
temporary approaches. The applicant states that there is the potential for portions of the old
bridge decking to be dropped into the stream channel during demolition.
Submitted by: Jim Gregson Date: August 7, 2000 Office: Wilmington
4 t - . JUN 2 0 2000
MASTAL MANAGEM!
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA _ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. DAVID MCCOY
27611-5201
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 12, 2000
Mr. Ted Tyndall
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Hestron Plaza II
151-B Highway 24
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Tyndall;
R ECEIVE
JUN 3 0 2000
COASTAL DIVISION OF
Subject: Onslow County, Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over Juniper Creek.on NC 50,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-50 (3), State Project No. 8.1261801, T.I.P.
No. B-3008.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace'Bridge No.
16 over Juniper Creek on NC 50 near Holly Ridge in Onslow County. Bridge No. 16 will
be replaced at its existing location with a concrete slab bridge. The new bridge will
measure 27 meters (90 feet) by 9.8 meters (32 feet). During construction traffic will be
maintained along an on-site temporary detour located approximately 18 meters (60 feet)
east of the existing bridge. The temporary and permanent jurisdictional impacts noted in
the enclosed CE document have been reduced during the final design of this project.
Final impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be 0.0 hectare (0.0 acre) of permanent fill,
0.145 hectare (0.358 acre) of temporary fill, and 0.076 hectare (0.188 acre) of mechanized
clearing. In addition, an area adjacent to the fill slope within the southeast quadrant is
proposed for 0.033 hectare (0.082 acre) of wetland creation.
JUN 2 0 2000
Upon completion of the new bridge structure and roadway section, all tem omry i
roadway fill related to the detour, as well as the fill related to the wetland creation a
r ASTAL MANAGEMENT'
?,?
will be removed down to the adjacent wetland elevation. Upon removal of the temr- naoaEHEHo
detour, areas will be surveyed for compaction. If areas are compacted, the areas will be
sub-soiled (ripped). After fill removal all wetland areas will be re-vegetated using the
following bottomland hardwood species: Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum), Swamp
Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var biflora), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Overcup
Oak (Ouercus lyrata), Willow Oak (Ouercus phellos).
The existing structure has four spans totaling 21 meters (69 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 timber 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 13.5 cubic
meters (17.6 cubic yards).
The project is being processed by the Federal Highways Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The project,
however, occurs in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) designated county and does
not meet the criteria for a General CAMA bridge replacement permit. This letter
therefore is a request for a CAMA Major Permit.
Attached for your information is a copy of the CAMA Major permit application,
CE planning document, permit drawings, and a check for $400 (See Attachments).
Additionally, copies of the letters sent to the adjacent 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 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality. We are currently working with the Division of Water Quality to develop a
Stormwater Management Plan for this project. A copy of the stormwater management
plan will be forwarded to your office, upon completion.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Randy
Griffin at [phone] Ext. 294.
Jurv 3 o iooo
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Sincerely,
IAA C . AaA., . [ .
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Snrt ( ,r:l <
JUN 20
2000
`V
V J 1 r
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 19,
COASTAL IJANA EM ENT
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
1997 Jeffrey 1. Crow, Director
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 16 on NC 50 over Juniper Swamp,
Onslow County, B-3008, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-50(3), State Project 8. 1261801, ER 97-
8359
Dear Mr. Graf:
D E (0 ?IV E
JUN 3 0 2000
Divlsrorv of
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
On February 18, 1997, 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, then efo; a, ;J :`gat
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.
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 r?C?
FORM DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION JUN 2 ? Z000 I
(To be completed by all applicants) i I
-OASTA! ?tAt?AG=!' ANT
r,4"R=HEAD
b. City, town, community or landmark
1. APPLICANT Holly Ridge, NC
C. Street address or secondary road number
a. Landowner: NC 50
Name N.C. Dept. of Transportation d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? x Yes No
Address P. O. Box 25201
- e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
City Raleigh State NC river, creek sound, bay) Juniper Creek
Zip 27611 Day Phone [phone]
3. DESCRIPTION & PLANNED USE
Fax [phone] OF PROPOSED PROJECT
b. Authorized Agent: a. List all development activities you propose e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
Name N/A and excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace existing bridge
Address
City State
Zip Day Phone b. Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
Fax new work
c. Project name (if any) State No. 8.1261801; (TIP B-3008) c. Will the project be for public, private or
Bridges No. 16 on NC 50 over Juniper Creek. commercial use? public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s), methods of construction and daily operations
and/or project name. of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages.
Replace obsolete bride
- public transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED standard construction methods
PROJECT
a. County Onslow
Revised 03/95
I Q) ) Di l 7 TM,
V 1
JUN 3 12000
DIVISIO[q COASTAL M NAGGSM?ENT
I +
FORM DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract N/A
d.
e.
£.
g•
h.
Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Approximate elevation of tract above MHW
or NWL
Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Muckalee loam & Foreston loamv sand
Vegetation on tract loblolly pine, longleaf
pine, sweetgum, water oak, green ash
Man-made features now on tract Two
lane roadway, bridge, power poles & lines
What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local lava'
use plan.)
Conservation _Transitional
_ Developed _ Community
X Rural x Other
*Urban Transition
How is the tract zoned by local government?
Rural
i.
k.
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? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? NCDOT & Cultural Resources
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)
Revised 03/95
M. Describe existing wastewater treatment_f .czB i(za_.
N/A
UN 2 0 2000
n. Describe location and type ?f ?eS;. RAGEMEN
waters of the state. (For example,-suaa °c u `r?iif
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
effluent, "wash down", and residential
discharges.) Runoff from Highway
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel i ' with the area to the
?, JUN 3 0 2000
DIVISION
COASTAL
AGEMENT
I 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 Barry Ottaway
Address 149 Ottaway Ave., Holly Ridge, N.C. 28445
Phone
Name Ernst Gur anus
Address 455 Chadwick, Sneads Ferry, NC
Phone
Name United States of America (USMC)
Address PSC Box 2004, Camp Lejune, NC 28542-0004
Phone
* A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
* A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources project.
(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.
Revised 03/95
f 1
6. CERTIFICATION AND
PERMISSION TO ENTE 6L4 MM MORriGl;D
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 /.Z day of Tu.Aj e, , i , 00
Print Name William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Signature / C , A
Landowner or Authorize Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
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.
JUN 3 0 2000
0-
(y
COASTAL MAONAGG MEIN,E
]BRIDGES AND
R iux 3a tooo Dr.
CULVERTS DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
C 'J I I
JUN 2 0 2000
COASTAL MANAG=MENT I
MOREHEAD
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 34 meters
1. BRIDGES
h. Width of proposed bridge 9.8 meters
a. Public X Private
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
Prestressed concrete
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge If yes, explain
Juniper Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL 3 meters
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? 1.8 above NWL
X Yes No
If yes, 1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 21 meters reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 7.2 meters opening? Yes X No
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing If yes, explain
bridge 1.6 meters above NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) Yes, all of existing
will be removed.
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 X No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Reviscd 03/95
Form DCIVI-MP-S
JUN 3 0 2000
Will the culvert `affeci1 nn??
j• proposed ?.?stm?n?8t?ation `
N OF ,
2. CULVERTS potential? Yes I No
gASTAL [MANAGEMENT p
If yes, explain cur,STAL rh.At?AG.M.NT
n,rt7a=^?=AD
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, Removal of Temp. Detour (see drawings)
(1) Length of area to be excavated
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert? (2) Width of area to be excavated
Yes No (3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
If yes, yards 5000 CY
(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 high ground excavation?
the MHW or NWL Yes No'
(4) Will all, or a.part of, the existing culvert be If yes,
removed? (Explain) (1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in 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 upland disposal site
MHW or NWL (2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow? (3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes No Yes X No
If yes, explain If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner. Disposal Site to be provided by
Contractor
Rcviscd 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5

(4) Will the disposal area be available for futureb. Will the proposed project requirdlhe relocation of
?
maintenance? Yes X No any existing utility lines? X Jtl.i 2 O I2aOO
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal If yes, explain in detail Relocation of poles

wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands? t
Will be required for temporarj5dUonrr?a,L_r.?
Yes X No construction vntn- ,u
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
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 X Yes No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2 If yes, explain in detail temporary detour
above. fill and detour bridge
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? Standard sediment and
(3) Purpose of fill & erosion control devices
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)? Crane, pile driver, etc.
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled see drawings g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(2) Width of area to be filled see drawings to project site? Yes X No
(3) Purpose of fill temporary detour If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
construction 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? X Yes No require any shoreline stabilization?
If yes, Yes X No
(1) Length of area to be filled see drawings If yes, explain in detail
(2) Width of area to be filled see drawings
(3) Purpose of fill temporary detour &
NC 50 widening
Ifs do. ??oa8
4. GENERAL Applicant or Project Name
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes X No C, 4 r ?
rJ
If yes, explain in detail ,
Signature
(D is 00 1
D
Date ?l JUN 3 0 2000
Revised 03195
DIVISION OF
COASTAL
MANAGE
MENT
r ,
. I © 1 / ? I I Hill .• \ ___ ( a •iir..n y` _ _
© 7 ,. ??',?l yrc•
_ , 1 4 _9 eula.?ll. , Ptleis
Dwt
J i 1 p 1 t : „ L 10 ., " _ ,\J* Mats. le 1 L 1. Ja
1 Mind i w 11 N ' R.cnlinds Bdtiide N ITIONAL Lrnlr . S
FOREST Loki•
so ' Lrm.n \Havelock
U1 I 1 C'ornr.rnr t__ ° _L _ac?
, II I r , 11 toursUm Loke\ '': C•-, s1, Itl L .-' 1 -• .
!! \
itdd I 90 Rost Hill . / Chin dui m
D Catherine liYt I\y Kellum • , ,- 1 r ');b 1 Hado•
1 Delwar y , emt.v .1 f O N \t `. ?'.? ?^ m, 70 Hr.
d o ll ! T 256 S L_r `A/ ?- uhns o-
+ Jackson ill-Stell.
421 ' Ttacne
2 ,© / r \. Sdverd ile •.' I
nl y I, traess J n , - s h. f'` ?y '1L\
Wallace O Tin City Cree4-?I It M?dra PirY ""??!= - -'
ere1 ansfia
24 -Pint Kndl-4h
11 S Hawi? I] 1- nt1 teen- ! e
iomans.Y •y / Wdlird IQ 5o Run
1 , Penderlti y °. Veron 11 CAW LE1EUNf =rv?.r d ?r or reS+\? "lndr rY..e.
Kerr r/ II Waltha MaIDI I! try 2, waRINE L\Sf ?ro..T?ret-Sepull? t.ald Beach
-1?PaMorr
I I ` IS Hill , ?/ Bopue In/t. I
{ 117 1, Bear Inlet
;K C Ivanhoe Il!
1 I 51 SJ \ It
(11 \S Di con t 7 Brown i inlet `_ -
Io / .,i Burpy eorl SITE \ 50 t ?I\bO ,I `yl,' j` I'1111
Scale of Miles Snead ` - l
0 5 10 20 30 \ olYSton EFe y, N-Rlonlnl,e
'r Holly Ride yd4 / 4.9-1 N•d Arc", 0 }
1 0 to 20 3o 40 48 JUN 2 d 2000
Scale of Kilometers i North Topsail Beach 1?
..90? a.xh Arr...
.-. ..7?== I" \t?\--`• _...•]^V-? \II !l TOPSAIL ISLAND
/ r... •\ -- .. .(7- 1 I,RA der. cF \T
,.. ?: ?.. U1Qj',rHEAD
t AHOY 'S;'°? \®•?.. _
oR [ AT
/ runs
L \
E Cp H V E
\ A
JUN 3 0 2000 „? -
4, -
- DIVISION OF 1 `'
, o o: t H
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SITE
r ? rr
.,+ 'rte ?`• ? l /'' ?' r / i• '?
E ? '•. trouT ? r
r ,
$CA" U N •
1 D t 1 . a ?_ / T ee
rl_
r
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1711CINITY ONSLOR' COUNTY
PRO,TECT:8.1261801 (R-5008)
APS M
FRIDGE N,O.16 AND APPROACHES
ON NC 50 iOVFR JUNIPER CRI F.K
SHf, O
-iJLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
WETLAND
WL
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
(POND)
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
WMDENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
?- < FLOW DIRECTION
T---1- 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

- EPB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
CD BOULDER
-•- - CORE FIBER ROLLS
O
LEGEND
i
PROPOSED BRID
I
I
PROPOSED BOX
PROPOSED PIP
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
0 SINGLE TREE
COASTAL MANAG
MOREHEAI
CULVERT
E CULVERT
r"L WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
T
00000 VORTEX ROCK WEIR
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
OISSIPATOR BASIN
VANE
D IV B
JUN 3 0 2000
D
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNT"
PROJECT: 8.1261801 (B-3008)
BRIDGE NO.16 AND APPROACHES
ON NC 50 OVER JLTNIPER CREEK
SHEI-"1' OF

Q
-I- 09+ZI d1S 3NI?H91dW
11T 1111TI
rr
W
co
rr
w
Ocr-
,J L11
O F-
2 ?
N U
Q o

cn

co w
x w
w
u

x z a a
z o
(^
o N
c ? LV
w L-.
°
o z
° .?
z ? -?
° ?
o
?.
A ?
, o
?
W
ci ° a Q U
z w
z p z V'

s , \
? I j
?lJ I
?,
) U

I I I
r ??c.' rn N

! O gz
I
. Q F o C

Cn I.
I O
Ln
I

: LL W -4 r F
a
U
Q Na
c?
U
U ~f N
U
`?? i3z wz wz
oa o" o

I
Z wN
?
~? W V WW?
*

? I ?
rill-1 o
Z x
a I l r
a I ? I ?
I I I
r

'-
I I
??
J

?
I II ,
o I I I I? ?

J, I
' ? r l , s? o W
a I I 1 o uo
-
m I I 1 *, ZW
??
I I -b I ?I `? ? Z w F

I LL NC I NAD 8'3 ?y
I I :? I
? I ?

I I
I
' I
m l
E,
EIV

m i I
? I
?I
I
I I I I JUN 3 0 2000
COASTAL IMAONAGGEMEN T
i

O'er I ?l
I
1

? ?{
1
o
I 1
`Lf)

I ? ,
? ? I
I I

z
_W, 1
I
? ?? I
N_o
XE p \
WCo Z \, \
f1
W
Lo
Op
CL?
O -
rr Cr
CLCD
a
Q
t-
O
J
G`
Q
cl)
09-+g VlS 3WIHOldW
7
O

0

t~

cn

r

o

D

?:

co

b

C
,

O

L`,

z
a
U

z
ti

o

W

Q
z .
O

~
?_
A o
-

Z
O `°

U

p

??.
-4
p

z

A w
o

c,
N

2
z a 0
0
0
0
s
,? -? I A e A N
r _ ^
} O Q w .c E- U
I- U U? H?
r r W ? L] N? N?
\ p z
0 p 0
w?w Q Z U Z z W
JN ?? AB Ac: A.U
W
pp p U x
O2 N L-ti V) x
a-m
V) v
/- D
W
::D 11 e °?--
0
N
c?z
71
Ir NC GRID 4
NAD 83
JUN 3 0 2000
In
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
0
EW
W
x
u.i
0
-?- 09+ZI d1S 3NI?KiVIN
V \ I '.
W \ I
1 I
? 1 I
m ? \ I
? I I
14
r,r
W
m +i
G'
W
orr
J W
O F-
= :D
uo U

1\ \
? S• 1
NC GRID
NAD 83
- I- Uy*LI v i-- -

O

o

F
cn

p

z

u
o
C)
p
C-04

O
a. c?'a
U

O

q
U
O

>
O o
V)
Z
0
U

0
C,
O
z

W
Q r4
0O

U
z
z a o
a
U
W
Q
Li ^
O U
N:E
LLJ L/)
Z)
N
W'
'lL ~
? Z
1 D
? o
? n N

z
o

w ?. L
U ?
Q a Z?
N ?z
oa z

F- o
a o?
A? AL. AU
x
x
' °
Cl\i
?v
\M ,? z
1 Y bi ?
fnRr ?
V
I* ? o
LI, E 'it,
JUN 3 0 2000
D
rz Ln
DIVISION OF
O
E?
W
x
IN! IVlAPJA aCIVICIV I
? cv ? O
FICK
D
JUN 30200 0
DIVISION IOF 0
COASTAL MAN?GEMENTu O
a I J ?
n I cr-
1D
a
N I z
Q
H
J V)
?
O
lfl

N
Q
I-
N

F-
Z
W
=Z
_Q
Om
:E
JW
O
C\li
ca
? sn N

ms z C
E
- o
?
a
ms U
.
;c, E
U F
rn ? c
z
Z z

oa o oe
A? oc. O U
L:.
O
w
x

17 O
1
1Y
?l

1 Z \' f
t c c=:??
Q
N
C)
l z
O

CD
1 J
a

Q
? Z
I
O
k?
u
o
N
O

Q

,.a U
cn .
@
z
Q
N U

x

O ?

N
? O

z
0

c.

?

a co

o
?

O
Q
U

z

O O

z
O m

U
?
O w
o

c
Q A q z
z a o
T
'
V N :2

00
O
F^

U

@ t!j m
o U
L'

I x
?
? @ U Q ti
p 1 I z E-? O @ P4
p
p 1
I
z
I
o
o
z O o0
?o O
J i N I rn ? 0- U) z w O

LU cD -? H
r,
O
" o
zN
C?
0 +
CO I i X
W I
I - J
a W
q >
Q p
P? U
U U F
H r 1
I > ? U q z G?
m a I ?
I J Imo-
z z
z ci w a t- p0
H
I
I ?? W
W
Co ..•t
l 1
1
I
J ?
U
O
-
Q N

JI O S

I
?
Q
? O
O
I
1 1
1 L
/ - `
O
O

? ?
1
1 I
---
-? --
-- ?
-?
?
U Q n
I w

1 r
1
ail ?-
s -?0
z ? z
1
' 1
---
1--
-- /
- - r
ILL i
o
C

L 1
?
V) I
I
LCD

0
1
0 O
00
CL
0
LU C11-
co
+

cr-
I z Cf)
p 1
' co
C/ ) cr- "4
p I ? I
``'

W N
co i
1 `)
0 I a o v
o c+v 0
~
0
H r 1 lz
? I
z
`° O

x L:a
m a ?

H
I
W J I

I I Q Q
N O C)
.p
r r r--

o
0
0 I
cc)
W
C9 r
T W
Q
H

m Q
F-
N I
Z
H
0 ?
F--
W
W
ED 0
z
W
LL
O
N Lu
O (')
ZQ
O

Q ? CO
U
W
a
a
C?
W
In
O
(Z
O
Iz
W
0
0
0
ti
W r
0 r
O
H Q
m ?-
m cn
Z {
H I-
0 W
W 0
M 1

rI rI 00
1
{ C?
1
z
1
i ?
J
1
1 < ?
1 F-
1 Q O
1 Z
1 j
W
1 J
1 W
1
1 N
J
Q
I
1 Cr
1 O
l Z
J' W
CD
rr,
co
F-
W
? o
1 0
` W
I V)
O
1 CL
O
1 ?
t CL
1
C)
z
D
O
{ cr-
1 C,
1
' J
Q
1 ?
1 =D
I ?-
1 Q
1 Z
7
NI OI o0

O
F• -• U
Z' co u

O ? F? c? ,? W
0.

o
0
Z
'
O o
-{- O O v
i U Ci
N a o w z o
A ? ? ? U F
Q ?, Q z
qz
z
O
O
00
O
?O
+
Cl
O
N
+
9
P=l
?a
a

U
F a
O U

N ~

o

x ?

O N
O O

Ln
E
0
(D
N C
o c
E
O
U
c L v
w U
v o

F - m c
U ? ? E
C o s
a U
0
? rn a?
W
Q c ? ?
L; z E
c
W U W
Q o

LL
LL c o s
- 4

0

c3L
m
Z
LL -

. tD O
0
a) rn
N C o
O O
M
L
L
a?

0
W
0)v
ma) r-
L CJ - c9
?. C L
` p
>

Q ?
o

U) _
> C) t

O X
Z w c

W N to
r
ll c
a - cs
o
O
E0
a?
c
.D N co
O
al
O O L O
O O
?
a)
U?

N E E E p w

D O
r
r
O
M
0

(n
9 cl?
O
r r r U cn M
0
0
O

E
J 1
J
O_
O
O
LL (D (D
+ t
r ?

r J

(n z O
F-
Y
U
Z
O
w
_
~ Z

O¢ o?
w
cn _
z0 °
c-) >
m00
a:
0
Lr)
F-' w o U
LL O 0 Z co Z
O Z J :D Z; Z
O O
Z
EL
5; 0 r GD
Q
p U W
p
-
Z '
W
LL' (n 2
a. (n
D i?iSi?Y1"JA \\vJ? ??(yy1J°
JUN ? 0 2000
DIVISIO OF
COASTAL- MA AGEMEN'
O
O
O
N^
,V,
z
Onslow County
Bridge No. 16 on NC 50
Over Juniper Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-50(3)
State Project 8.1261801
TIP # B-3008
JUN 2 0 zoo0
=Ao
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:

Dated William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

Date
fo Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
I'
JUN 3 0 ZO
-- 00
D
COAS TAL'MANAGENJE,?iT
Onsloxv County
Bridge No. 16 on NC 50
Over Juniper Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-50(3)
State Project 8.1261801
TIP 4' B-3008
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1998
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
_ 7-7- g
Jeff am
Pr ect Planning ngineer
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
5.''u? t •?
JUN 2 0 2000 1
i I `
C-0, Tp.L rJAfJAC Er,",tr?T I
rviO-rlEME AG
D C v?
,q JUN 3 0 2000
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Onslow Countv
Bridge No. 16 on NC 50
Over Juniper Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-50(3)
State Project 8.1261801
TIP # B-3008
JUN 2 0 2000 j ?
? r
I i I
I _0ASTA.LP,AN:AGEME14T
NiG°?H-ap
Bridge No. 16 is located in Onslow County on NC 50 crossing over Juniper
Swamp. It is programmed in the 1998=2004 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.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 27 meters (90 feet) in length and 9.8 meters (32 feet) in width at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic
will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour bridge
approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing bridge.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter (4 foot)
shoulders. The bridge will include (54 inch) bicycle safe rail and 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (I 1 feet) where guardrail is required.
Approach work for the temporary detour will require approximately 228 meters (750 feet)
of fill through wetlands. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed for the
permanent alignment will be 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is S 976,000 including S 950,000 in construction
costs and S 26,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is S 295.000.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water in
or entering the stream during'bridge construction in order to minimize effects on the
stream water quality. 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." C 11 V
?
D
C? ?U? 3 0 2000
JIVISIOfJ OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
K, l
J I U N 2 0 2000 L?
?worth Carolina Division of XVa D I V l S 1 O N 0
General Certification v?711 be obtained prior to issuanceof t?G i 1 T- ter Quality ection permit.
Encroachment into wetlands and surface waters as a result of project construction
may require a permit from the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). N.C. Coastal
Area Management (C.AMA) Program. According to Ms. Janet Russell with the DCM
Wilmin-ton District Office, Juniper Creek may be an Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC) if it is a navigable water bod}'. It would be necessary for DCM personnel to visit
the site to make this determination. If Juniper Creek is considered an AEC then it will be
necessary to obtain a CAMA major development permit from DCM. The major
development permit serves as an application for three other state
from the COE required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The state p rmnitspermits
include: (1) Permit to excavate and/or fill; (2) Easement in lands covered by water, and
(3) Section 401 Water Quality Certification. A United States Coast Guard permit will not
be needed.
Based on preliminary design plans, temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands
will total approximately 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres) and 0.39 hectares (0.97 acres)
respectively. Fill slopes and widths will be minimized in wetland areas to decrease the
footprint of the proposed project. Following construction of the new bridge, the area
affected b}• the temporary detour will be returned to original contours and revegetated
with native tree species. If final wetland delineations and design plans show the wetland
impacts to be greater than one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements for the impacts to wetland areas rests
with the Army Corps of Engineers.
(TI. ANITICIPAT D SIGN FX PTION5
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely.
_TV. FXTgTIN T CONDITION
L, -. ., y r .-...
C 0 is classifieci as a Rural 1v4,7j or Co1lPctor in t-he St.:±vc ;?d
Liassiticauon z,stem.` Traffic vol,'? is c;li-7ently T800 velicles pcr daY ( I3) and is
projected to be 3300 VPD in the year2020. The posted
speed limit on this section of
NC 50 is » mph. The road serves tourists traveling to and -from the coast, as well as
minor local traffic. Three school busses cross the bridge twice daily.
The existing bridge was completed in 1956. It is 21 meters (69 feet) long. Tnere
are approximately 8.2 meters (27 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck and
streambed. The two travel lanes provide 7-2 meters (24 feet) of bridge roadway width.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiencv rating of the
bridge is 30.2 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 33 tons for single
vehicles.
2
The horizontal and vertical alignments of the roadwaN
i? iC hA ? IC ? li
JUN 2 0 2000 1? I
I 1 i
CGAST?! !'AN,2EMIENT i
[,II:)REHcAD
near the bridge are both
good. The pavement on the approaches to the bridge is approximately 6.1 meters
(20 feet) wide. Shoulders are approximately 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
This section of NC 50 is part of the Richlands Loop Bicycle Route. This route is
presently recommended for use only during the early spring and fall months due to heavy
motor vehicle traffic to and from the coast in the summer and a lack of paved shoulders.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
NC 50 carries approximately 1800 vehicles per day presently (1997) and is an
important tourist route to and from nearby beaches. The division engineer recommends
that traffic be maintained on site. If the road were closed, the shortest detour route would
require at least 17.6 kilometers (11 miles) of additional travel. Because it is an important
tourist link, the traffic is relatively high, and the only detour route is very long, only
alternates that maintain traffic on site are considered. There are two "build" options
considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace Bridge No. 16 on new alignment to the east of the
existing bridge. The replacement structure would be a bridge approximately 27 meters
(90 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained on the existing structure during
construction.
Alternate 2 would replace Bridge No. 16 on the existing location with a bridge
approximately 27 meters (90 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary
on site detour bridge and alignment to the east of the existing bridge. The temporary
structure would require a bridge 15.2 meters (50 feet) in length.
"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.
CLEVE D
J Ju
rv 3o zooo
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
N71. ECTINi.AT n CO.gT
COMPONENT I ALTERNATE 1 I ALTERNATE 2
(Recommended)
Nea' Bridge Structure S ''18.000 S
I 187.000
Bridge Removal 12
000
, 13.000
Roadway & Approaches 309
000 -
. 13,000
Temporary Detour 0
400,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 165
000
. 186.000
Engineering & Contingencies 136
000
, 142.000
Total Construction I S 850,000 ( S 950,000
Fight of Vr'a)' I S 28.000 S 26,000
Total Cost I S 878,000 S 976,000
VII F (1MMFiVI) D ?p p? x,.1.5
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
` pp. t'"? ` •3 / meters (9`- Teet) in length at the same 1oc3ion and roadway clevaticsz as
the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-
site detour approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing bridge. The temporary
detour alignment will require a bridge approximately 15 meters (50 feet) in length.
The new vn idLz v„ill rr ;_,.'t a V
---- _l?:r_ec??,iit?•1_-2.rret;r: (4 fc '
3hotilder.. Th: bridap :,U lltctude (J4 .Welt) bicycle safe rail and 12 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including 1-2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (I I feet) where guardrail is required.
Approach work for the temporary detour will require approximately 228 meters (750 feet)
of fill through wetlands. Based on preliminary design work, the desi`n speed for the
permanent alianment will be 1001=111 (60 mph).
Approach work for the temporary on site detour will require approximately
228 meters (750 feet) of fill through wetlands. The detour will require a bridaP
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) in length with a roadway grade approximately 1 meter
4
I. Y•
JUN 2 0 2000 I
COASTAL MANAGENI.ENT
(3 feet) below the existing road grade. The detour bridge will provide-two-3--rnieier
(11 foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4 foot) shoulders. The design speed of the detour
alignment will be approximately 70 km/h (45 mph).
Both Alternates 1 and 2 would have impacts to wetlands. Alternate 2 will
temporarily impact approximately 039 hectares (0.97 acres) of wetlands and permanently
impact approximately 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres). Alternate 1 would have permanent
impacts to approximately 0.63 hectares (1.55 acres) of wetlands. These anticipated
impacts are based upon a right-of-way width of 24 meters (80 feet) for permanent
alignments and 18.3 meters (60 feet) for the temporary detour alignment. Project
construction typically does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore, actual wetland
impacts may be less.
Alternate 2 will maintain the existing good alignment and provide a slightly better
design speed [100 kph (60 mph)]. Alternate 1 would worsen the alignment and the sight
distance on the curve north of the bridge, necessitating 2.1 meters (7 feet) of additional
bridge width.
The amount of environmental impacts are somewhat similar for both alternates.
Even thought it is slightly more expensive, NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it
maintains the existing good alignment.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
existing 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.
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. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
ILA,
C E E V
I?a JUN 3 0 2000
D
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
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 that will be adversely affected
by the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existin; flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
An underground telephone line runs along the west side of the roadway and goes
aerial over the stream. An aerial power line runs along the east side of the bridge. 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 Onslow County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 1 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 si-cmificant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project is located in a rural area with no urbanized land uses. The proposed
project corridor is totally wooded and undeveloped.
`Ch_ ':mziiianC Protection."o:icy n? requires all feaeral anencies or th:ir
representatives to consider the impacts of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) was asked to determine whether the alternates under consideration will impactO
prime or important farmland soil. The NRCS determined that the proposed bridge L?-??r(
replacement will not impact prime farmland. > Ci
Cn
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS ?C ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
<
Z
LA-W
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources D ?
O
databases, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that they "areD -
O.O o°
6 s
(j'j 12 n
1
s
aware of no historic structures located within the area of potential effect.
recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted.
The State Office of Archaeology (SOA) knows of no archaeological sites within
the proposed project area. Based on 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. Therefore, the SOA
recommends that no archaeological investigations be conducted.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Regional Characteristics
The proposed project lies in Onslow County, in a rural area located in the eastern
portion of North Carolina. The project area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 3 to 4 meters (10 to
14 feet) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The topography of the project
vicinity is flat with minimal relief. Within the project area the swamp forest is nearly
level with the adjacent channel. Moving away from the channel, the land surface slopes
gently to slightly higher elevations to the north and south.
Onslow County's major economic resources include agriculture and forestry. The
project vicinity is primarily wooded with some logging activity.
Soils
According to NRCS mapping, soils in the project area consist of two main types
(Soil Survey of Onslow County, 1992). Muckalee loam (Mk) is a nearly level, poorly
drained soil which occurs along the floodplains of freshwater creeks. This soil is flooded
frequently for brief periods. Surface runoff is typically slow and permeability is
moderate. This soil series is listed as a hydric soil by the NRCS, and may indicate the
presence of wetlands. In the project area, this soil occurs within Juniper Swamp.
Foreston loamy sand (FoA) consists of moderately well drained soils on uplands,
typically at 0 to 2% slopes. Surface runoff is slow and permeability is moderately rapid.
This soil is found in the higher upland areas within the project area.
I': v
Iv??
? I
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 Muckalee soils have a site index that averages 90 for loblolly
pine, sweetgum, and water oak; and 85 for green ash. The Foreston soils have a site
index that averages 90 for loblolly pine and 75 for longleaf pine.
Q C PA H V R
!UN 3 0 2000
D
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Physical Characteristics of Surface N aters
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin. One surface water resource.
Juniper Swamp, will be impacted by the proposed project. Juniper Swamp originates
about kilometers (3 miles) east of the project area and flows west about ; kilometers -
(3 miles) to its confluence with Shaken Creek.
Juniper Swamp is approximate]), 15 meters (50 feet) wide within the area under
Bridge No. 16, and constitutes a perennial blackwater swamp system with very slow
streamflow. The substrate within the swamp was mainly silt and clay. with some
dissolved and some particulate organic matter. The swamp has a closed canopy and
riparian vegetation consists of deciduous and evergreen trees.
. At the time of the field survey, the open water areas within the swamp averaged
0.9 to 1.2 meters (3 to 4 feet) in depth. In the project area, the swamp widens on either
side of the bridle. 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 retain organic
debris. Bryophytes (mosses) and filamentous algae were evident along the cypress knees,.
above the water surface as well as along the banks. The water color was dark yellow to
brown, 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. Juniper Swamp (Index ; 18-74-33-4-1-) is classified as a
Class C Sw waterbody. Class C water resources are used for aquatic life pr-0pagation and
s;val, fishing, wildlife, =ondary recreatio
an6 waters which have slow velocities and other natural characters tics which are d frere an,
from adjacent streams. nt
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HWQ), Water Supplies (WS-I of
1AIS-11) _or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilomF_ters-fl d..z D'nject S uay area ?. .I11tlu) If
General Watershed Characteristics
The surrounding. vicinity, appears to be primarily forested land with some forestry
practices. There are also some small areas of cropland upstream of the project area.
These practices are likely to be the primary sources of water quality d ezradation to the
water resources within the project area Surface runoff from forestry and agriculture
causes nutrient loading and increased sedimentation which can affect water quality.
MI. IL7?1'
s i1), U 20?0 D
00?
D'Vi.-SiON D;
r"0 ,
7. 7
I JUN 2 0 2000
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ` I
COASTAL MANAG.FEVENT I
NIORE-HEA:)
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), manage y t e
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. A station has been established by DEHNR along Juniper Swamp at
NC 50 for the purpose of developing swamp creek criteria. The majority of
macroinvertebrate species identified during the BMAN February 1997 sampling event
were indicative of low velocity, depositional environments. Many of the identified
species are widely discussed in literatures tolerating low oxygenated, mildly polluted
waters, and therefore have been assigned high'pollution tolerance values. Although
BMAN Bioclass Ratings are currently not assigned to swamp waters, this sampling
station had a high total biotic index of 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, indicating moderately poor
water quality.
Point Source Dischargers
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 Juniper Swamp 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 on-site detour would have greater impacts to the aquatic community due to the
construction of two separate structures. 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. ry }? ? ? V 17,
9 JUN 3 0 2000
D
DIVISION OF
On"STAL MANAGEMENT
Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions andior additions to
surface and groundwater floxv from construction.
Increased scouring of the existing channel due to increased water flows from the
siormwater runoff associated with curb and nutter systems.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the natural communities in which
the construction activity occurs. Downstream communities could potentially be affected
by stormwater runoff or sediments from the project site. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be followed in order to minimize the
amount of sediment being released by construction activities.
' BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a disturbed
community, two forested wetlands communities, 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 ranee 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 shoulders and the irregularly
maintained areas between the road shoulders and the forested community. Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regttlarly
maintained areas along the road shoulders are dominated by various grasses including
ryegrass and fescue. Violet, thistle, plantain, white clover, and panic grss are also
In areas along the edge between the shoulders and the adjacent forested
community, species include Chinese privet, wax myrtle, poison ivy, trumpet creeper,
Virginia creeper, cross vine, Japanese honeysuckle, goldenrod, and rush.
iTnA species presrrt in these disturbed habitats are oppommistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves,
fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Northern mockingbirds and
American crows are two of the more common birds that use these habitats. Due to the
location and linear nature of this community it is unlikely that it is utilized b
any
or amphibians, except as they cross the road from one forested area to another reptiles
T-? (D AV B
it I , JUN 3 0 ZOOD Di
to DIVISION O;
COASTAL MANAG-Eh41-ENI i
_
0-JUN J 0 200
'?, ;, ;-- '?.? ?= i?,:; ?'i?:
DIVISION OF ?
JUN 2 0 2000 `
COASTAL MANAGEMEN
Forested Wetlands ?
C•DAST;-.? r.?.N ?
n=Fi=AD
The project area is dominated by forested wetlands including a swamp forest and
a bottomland hardwood forest community. There is no distinct boundary separating these
two communities, however, the species composition differs slightly.
Swamp Forest
The swamp forest community is found within the project area along Juniper
Swamp. Bald cypress, sweetgum, red maple, and black gum are the dominant canopy
species. The understory and shrub layer are dominated by red bay, fetter bush, dog-
hobble, possum-haw viburnum, titi, and coastal pepperbush. The herbaceous layer is
sparse and includes giant cane, netted chainfern, and cinnamon fern. Vines include
laurel-leaf greenbrier, grape, and poison ivy.
No mammals were directly observed during the field activities. Due to frequent
flooding it is likely that small mammals are uncommon, although the cotton mouse and
marsh rabbit may be present. Beavers may also utilize these areas.
The only amphibian observed during the site visit was a southern leopard frog,
however, due to the wetness of the swamp forest, a variety of amphibians are likely
present. Green treefrog, Brimley's chorus frog, southern dusky salamander, three-lined
salamander, and broken-striped newt are all species that may be found in this habitat.
Although a green anole was the only reptile observed, species such as eastern
cottonmouth, copperhead snake , brown water snake, snapping turtle, and spotted turtle
may also utilize this habitat.
A wide variety of birds use the swamp forest for foraging and nesting. Species
identified during the field survey included barn swallow, Carolina chickadee, yellow-
billed cuckoo, and acadian flycatcher. Other bird species which may be present in this
habitat include downy woodpecker, barred owl, northern parula warbler, and common
yellowthroat.
This community corresponds most closely to the Cypress-gum Swamp
community of the NHP classification system.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The swamp forest community grades into a bottomland hardwood forest
community to the north and south of Juniper Swamp. The bottomland forest community
is distinguished from the swamp forest by having fewer cypress and black gum trees in
the canopy and slightly drier conditions, however, there is no clear boundary between
these two communities. The canopy is dominated by red maple, sweet gum, and overcup
oak. On the east side of NC 50, black willow is a dominant understory species. The
shrub layer includes species listed above as well as wax myrtle, American holly, and
I1
mulberry. The species in the herbaceous laver are similar to those in the swamp forest.
Fines include Japanese honeysuckle and grape.
Faunal species expected to utilize this area are similar to those in the adjacent
swamp forest community. No mammals were observed during the site visit. however,
species listed above as well as grey squirrels, white-tailed deer, raccoon, and opossum
may be present. Reptiles and amphibians found in this habitat are similar to those
described above. Durine the site visit, a white-breasted nuthatch. wood thrush, Carolina
chickadee, blue jay. and American robin were observed. Other species such as tufted
titmouse, and prothonotary warbler may also utilize this habitat.
This community corresponds to the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood
community of the NHP classification system.
Upland Forest
This community is adjacent to the bottomland hardwood community south of the
bridge. Vegetation in the canopy layer in this area is dominated by loblolly pine and red
maple. Red maple saplings, wax myrtle, American holly, Chinese privet, mulberry, and
highbush blueberry are present in the shrub layer. Herbaceous vegetation includes
bracken fern and giant cane. Vines include cross-vine and poison ivy.
Lame mammals utilizing the upland forest are likely similar to those found in the
bottomland forest. No reptiles or amphibians were observed in this area during the site
visit, however, eastern king snake, northern black racer, eastern box turtle, slimy
salamander, and American toad may utilize this habitat.
.'3ir;is which u? adjacent ;.vamp Purest and bottomland forest likely utilize
this upland habitat as well. Additional species may include eastern peewee, red-bellied
woodpecker, and rufous-sided towhee.
Due to the suppression of natural fires, introduction of loblolly pines, and man-
induced disturba..^e over the years, this upland forested community is diffiquIt to cl_ zsin?
wiLhL%the ^L,.rsystem.
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 Juniper Swamp is a low gradient, low to mid order,
blackwater stream containing silt and clay substrates and having low water clarity. The
riparian community contains mostly trees. n C ? II ``
I} ILI,
1
13 I oil
I? JU14 0 2000
DIVISION OF
COt %S TA! MANAGEIA-EN

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.
Impacts to terrestrial communities 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 temperature 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; altering water chemistry;
and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may caused decreased light
penetration through an increase in turbidity. Although both alternates will cause
temporary increases in sedimentation from construction, Alternate 2 will have a slightly
greater impact on the aquatic community and riparian habitat.
Wet concrete should 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.
14
I'_` it 711
r
JUN 2 0 2000
Coo TAL ANaC=AdENT
Juniper Swamp provides habitat for a variety of species of fish. Accord?pq,,,_AD
Brad Hammer. the District 2 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NN7RC), fish species known to exist in Juniper Swamp within the project
area include largemouth bass (s), bluegill, chain pickerel, pumpkinseed, and flier. Juniper
Swamp has not been stocked for gamefish species.
Organisms identified by the February 1997 BMAN survey are typical for lotic
depositional environments, such as blackwater streams. Lotic depositional environments
generally contain fine sediments and occur in stream pools and along margins of higher
velocity streams. Macroinvertebrate sampling was performed in July 1997 during severe
storms and heavy rainfall. Species abundance, diversity, as well as mean organism size
were observed to be low, all of which can most likely attributed to high stream flows and
sediment scouring during the rain event. The most abundant organisms found in the
survey were of the Insect family, Chironomidae (order Diptera),and of the aquatic
Annelida class, Oligocheata, both of which are commonly sediment burrowers.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted by project
construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area along
NC 50. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths of 457 meters
(1500 feet) for Alternate 1, and 396 meters (1300 feet) for Alternate 2 (including the
temporary detour). The entire proposed right-of-way width for each alternate is 24 meters
(80 feet). The proposed right-of-way width for the temporary detour is 18.3 meters
(60 feet). The table below details the potential impacts to terrestrial communities by
habitat type. Due to the unclear boundary between the swamp forest and bottomland
hardwood forest, impacts to these wetland communities are combined as forested
wetlands. It should be noted that impacts are based on the entire right-of-way width and
actual loss of habitat will likely be less.
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 O
area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, ti
Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacted Area in hectare (acres)
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Permanent Permanent Temporary
Detour
Disturbed Community 0.29 (0.72) 0 25 (0.62) 0.10 (0 25)
Forested Wetlands 0.63(l.55) 0.41 (1.01) 0.39 (0.97)
Upland Forest 0.04 (0.11) 0.02 (0.06) 0.016 (0.04)
Total Impacts 0.96 (2.38) 0.68 (1.69) 0.506 (1.26)
13 i'
r
CO
JUN 3 0 2000
DU
DIVISION OF
JUN 2 0 2000
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters !
COASTAL r.IANI:,cEMENT I
MOREHEAD
Jurisdictional wetlands occur on both sides of NC 50. According to the NWI
mapping, these areas are bottomland hardwood forest mapped as palustrine forest
including areas which are temporaril} flooded, partially drained/ditched. with broad-
leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1 Ad), and seasonally flooded with broad-leaved
deciduous and broad-leaved evergreen. vegetation (PFOIC and PFO1/3C). According to
the soil survey, these areas contain Muckalee soils, which are identified as a hydric soil.
Wetlands delineated in the field based on the criteria established in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer's (COE's) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Hydric soils are present in these areas. Other wetland characteristics 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 the swamp forest
wetland is 70. The DWQ rating for the bottomland hardwood forest wetland is 58.
The portion of Juniper Swamp within the project area meets the definition of
surface waters. Juniper Swamp is therefore classified as Waters of the United States.
Within the area under Bridge No. 16, Juniper Swamp is approximately 15 meters
(50 feet) wide.
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. Alternate 1 would have impacts of less than 0.63 hectares
(1.55 acres). Alternate 2 (including an on-site detour) would impact about 0.80 hectares
(1.98 acres) of wetlands, however, some of these impacts would be temporary and the
wetlands could be restored when bridge construction was completed and the temporary
detour removed. These anticipated impacts are based upon a right-of-way width of
24 meters (80 feet) for permanent alignments and 18.3 meters (60 feet) for the temporary
detour alignment. Project construction typically does not require the entire right-of-way,
therefore, actual wetland impacts may be less. These impact estimates are only for
15
wetland areas directly disturbed by construction. Additional wetland areas may be
indirectly affected due to changes in «•ater levels and siltation from construction
activities.
Surface waters will also be impacted. Alternate 1 would impact 24 meters
(80 feet) of stream encompassing 0.028 hectares (0.07 acres). Alternate 2 would have the
same impacts. plus additional temporary impacts of 18.3 meters (60 feet) encompassing
0.021 hectares (0.05 acres). These anticipated impacts are based upon a right-of-way
width of 18.3 meters (60 feet). Project construction typically does not require the entire
right-of-way, therefore, actual surface water impacts may be less.
Anticipated wetland and surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and The Division of Coastal Management (DCM).
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. `
Encroachment into wetlands and surface waters as a result of project construction
may require a permit from the Division of Coastal Management (DCM), N.C. Coastal
Area Management (CAMA) Program. CAMA directs the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) in
which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to property, public
health, and the natural environment. A CAMA permit is required if the project meets all
of the following conditions: _
It is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
it is in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
it is considered development under the terms of the Act;
and it does n;t " , T :- .. - -•- - _ -,. , , .., .....
qu4lirmoo.- an exemption idenxtfied by the Actor by the CRC.
According to Ms. Janet Russell with the DCM Wilmington District Office,
Juniper Creek may be an AEC if it is a navigable water body. It would be necessary for
DCM personnel to visit: the site to make this determination. If Juniper Creek is
considered an AEC then it will be necessary to obtain a CAMA major development
permit from DCM. The major development permit serves as an application for three
other state permits and for permits from the COE required by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The state permits include: (1) Permit to excavate and/or fill; (2) Easement in
lands covered by water; and (3) Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
DD
i IAI 11 r?
r ' C I L 1
16 ILITIV JUN 3 0 2000
'. ^ r-, n?
n1V1310N
?V I`i
I JUN 2 0 2000
Section 404 impacts to non-CAMA wetlands will also occur. C ' stWn?ii i_ANaC?h.9?
likely to be authorized by provisions of CFR 330.5 (a) Nationwide Pernintj~or?'#
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 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-:
that 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.
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. Because the
new bridge will be wider than the existing bridge in order to accommodate bicycles and
modern design standards, complete avoidance of area wetlands is not possible. Due to
the important tourist link, the relatively high traffic volume, and the long off site detour
route, it was determined that traffic must be maintained on site. Maintenance of traffic on
site will require impacts to area wetlands.
17 ,LIN 30m0
DIVISION
COASAL MANAGEMENT
tea/ ?+
?t JUN 3 0 200D
DIVISIQh$1 t
???Ludes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
COS! ?t6u `erne impacts to wetlands. Implementation of these steps Will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Fill slopes and widths Will be
minimized in wetland areas to decrease the footprint of the proposed project. Following
construction of the new bridge. the area affected by the temporary detour will be returned
to original contours and revegetated with native tree species.
Compensatory mitigation is riot 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.
. If final wetland delineations and design plans show the wetland impacts to be
greater than one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
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.

is
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists ten federally protected species for
Onslow County as of May 14, 1998.
JUN 2 0 2000 ??
? i AL F- ?`NT
S/A Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare sne_ "-
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.
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.
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead sea turtle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1978
The loggerhead sea turtle is a large [25 to 123 cm, (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 occur-ring 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 number 115) of eggs, above the highwater
mark on the seaward side of the dunes. Incubation periods range form 56 to 65 days.
Although omnivorous, the diet of the loggerhead is composed primarily of marine
invertebrates.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect D ITCEIVE
19 JUN 3 0 2000 LO)
CCas AL M DIVISION
Erv T
No habitat exists in the project area for the loggerhead sea turtle. Juniper Sx\-amp
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 pro ject vicinin%
It can be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
C12aradrius melodus (Piping plover) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Charadriidae
Federally Listed: 1985
The piping plover is a medium sized shore bird. found on 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 le,,s are also
orange.
The piping plover is endemic to North America and breeds in three `eographicaliv
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 ime 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 dean 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.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area forth- piping plover. The project site is
entirely wooded and contains no sandy beaches, tidal pools, or mud fl
ats. A search of the
N-HP databas found no occurrence Of the piping Plover in the project vici.T.;t?1, It.c gin: b°
c: lc:ud-d thaf Yi7e project wM not impact t is .^.reatened species. _
Chclonia mydas (Green sea turtle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1973
The green sea turtle is a medium to large turtle growing to about I 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 botto f h- ell and
appendages are cream white.
?0
ZNR-?? IT J Jhr ? ! i }
?000
CIDAS -,A!
JUN ?
DIVISION OF y? JUN 2 0 2000
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
0 ArT^! %1ANACEM.NT
The green sea turtle ranges throughout the tropical oceans and estarYes3RE;???;
occurs from New England south to Argentina. They nest primarily on tropical beac es of'-?
the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea, as well as the Atlantic Coast of Florida. However,
the} 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 Juniper Swamp is a freshwater system. 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.
Although omnivorous, they feed primarily on jellyfish and Portuguese man-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 Juniper Swamp is a freshwater system. A search of the NHP database
21
found no occurrence of the leatherback sea turtle in the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the project ",ill 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---')
to 67.5 kilograms (100 to 150 pounds). In adults the fur is short brownish on the back
and sides, urith 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.
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 lmown 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
within in the project region that would preclude the site as potential Eastern cougar
habitat. A search of the NIP database found no occurrence of the Eastern cougar in the
.? project vicinity. It can be concluded ` -
. that the project
will not
•- } >- _ - _ .. - _ . _ . _ - . iI2lPact this End nAre?
??
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
- =t-? !V JJh'.3?
V--nebrate Family: Piciciae 2000 I
Federally Listed: 1970
DIVISIOI?? D=TA! IviH>\r?iG=;V1`Rt.
The red-coclmded woodpecker is a small to medium sized bird 18 to COAS
20 centimeters (7.4 to 7.9 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. Nmntrous small
white spots arranged in horizontal rows give a ladder-back appearance. The chest is dull

I'?nl _ ?, v I_ I ,cr I _
JUN 2 0 2000
white with small black spots on the side. Males and females look alike exce` !
p?????.,e?t, ANT
a small red streak above the cheek. I MOREHEAa
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
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 foot) intervals. Potential
foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is present in the project-area. The
upland wooded 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 conclud ate oject
will not impact this Endangered species.
V P?
Anzaranthus pumilus (Seabeach amaranth) Threatened
JUN 3 0 2000
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 03 meters (1 foot) in diameter and
consisting of 5 to 20 branches. The stems are fleshy and pint:-red or reddish, with small
rounded leaves that are 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters (0.5 to 1 inch) in diameter with a small
notch at the rounded tip. The leaves are clustered toward the tip of the stem and are a
COASTUAIL'MANAGEMENT
23
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 NBP 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.
Lrsimacnia asDerulaefolia (Rough-leaved loosestri
fe) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulacae
Federally Listed: 1987
t? The rough-leaved IOOSestrife is a perennial rhizomatous herb, with erect stems 30
t(1 .ce:.ttmeterr (12 to 24 inches in Rel?llitt T 1-Cave' are unusually sessile, occulrin-p in
or 4. They are broadest at the base [0,8 to 2 centimeters (0.3
whorls of 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 I've 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. D_spite winter dormancy, the
Plant is easy, to rogrli7?.m
.uL ,i r?ecau?e; .; :ediiish color a?:d cisstinct:ve itat ri3tt_tn;.
The habitat for the rough-leaved ]oosestrife is generally the ecotone between
]ongleafpine or oal, savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where moi
soils occur and where low vege n. sandy, or peaty
ration 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.
BioIo_ical Conclusion: No Effect I Er.. I ;?
JUN %3 0 2000 --J
24
DIVISI DIIN' +D;
JUN 2 U 2000 r
The project site is wooded with no longleaf pine or oak savannas liabLe-F?sent
A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the rough-leaved loksestj fey; nl e:H; 1,ENT
project vicinity. A survey for rough-leaved loosestrife during its known flowering season
was conducted by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter. Chris Rivenbark, and Lindsey Riddick
on July 2, 1998. No rough-leaved loosestrife was observed during the site inspection. 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 meter Q 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 although roadside habitat does occur. A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Cooley's meadowrue in the
project vicinity. A survey for Cooley's meadowrue during its known flowering season
was conducted by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter, Chris Rivenbark, and Lindsey Riddick
on July 2, 1998. No Cooley's meadowrue was observed during the site inspection. It can
be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
11-1
BUJ ECKV-P,
JUN 3 o saoo
25 DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
I
N

1 1 m`''ar
G i •?
. 1 I . /
. ? I
0,0
1 -
1
1
1
/ A!,aDurtt
?R¢Nanni? Bel• aEe'
.' FOREST
cwh-
ountam {aka-g" L;,y-d•
renne LaMt ? ^5 ,. Kellum ., ???it ` `A
0 -N
+ lacksonvill, ? srln ??;
t, ..
16 6 ) \= Miortr 71 Park .rt
? RunS / 1L4 .?4,
Vtfona
\ --1
1. u
a JUN 2 0 2000
rL nSii L IfATti c.ElwlENT
N1OF?EHEAD
' A
1
d
N

North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ONSLOW COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 16 ON NC 50
OVER JUNIPER CREEK
B-3003
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
t I -? Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
CEIVEIM
JUN 3 0 2000
Y, DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMEN
I JJ , \
i
F`
[ 1 ' ?

DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT I`!
1CURr 3

J E
ji
1CJRE-
DIVISION! OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
END OF BRIDGE LOOKING NORTH

JUN 3 0 2000
DIVISION OF
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIGURE 4
01 • .
Jura
WET
WATER Q'
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
w 5Wt o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C.
27611-5201
June 12, 2000
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
000839
Subject: Onslow County, Replacement of Bridge No. 16 over Juniper Creek on NC 50,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-50 (3), State Project No. 8.1261801, T.I.P.
No. B-3008.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. Bridge No. 16 will be replaced at its existing location with a concrete
slab bridge. The new bridge will measure 27 meters (90 feet) by 9.8 meters (32 feet).
During construction traffic will be maintained along an on-site temporary detour located
approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing bridge. The temporary and
permanent jurisdictional impacts noted in the CE document have been reduced during the
final design of this project. Final impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be 0.0 hectare
(0.0 acre) of permanent fill, 0.145 hectare (0.358 acre) of temporary fill, and 0.076
hectare (0.188 acre) of mechanized clearing. In addition, an area adjacent to the fill slope
within the southeast quadrant is proposed for 0.033 hectare (0.082 acre) of wetland
creation.
Upon completion of the new bridge structure and roadway section, all temporary
roadway fill related to the detour, as well as the fill related to the wetland creation area,
will be removed down to the adjacent wetland elevation. Upon removal of the temporary
detour, areas will be surveyed for compaction. If areas are compacted, the areas will be
sub-soiled (ripped) and re-vegetated using the following bottomland hardwood species:
Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum), Swamp Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var hiflora),
?a
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata), Willow Oak
(Quercus phellos).
The existing structure has four spans totaling 21 meters (69 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 timber 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 13.5 cubic
meters (17.6 cubic yards).
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register and as amended in the Federal
Register: March 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 47, Pages 12817-12899).
Per our conversations with Mr. Jim Gregson, Wilmington CAMA Office, a
CAMA Major Development Permit will be required for this project. Under separate
cover, the Department will be applying for the appropriate CAMA permit from the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management. We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply for this project, and
are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Randy
Griffin at 733-7844, ext. 294.
Sincerely,
4i? rlr,C C . /L, 't - >?;,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Allen Pope, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Jeff Ingham. P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
IF INCORRECT RETURN TO
Warrant No. 1018730 ?? NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date 06-09-2000
CONTROLLER'S OFFICE
Rol FIC:H Mr 77RQQ-1..9;1A 43381 0298 005
INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE OPURCHASE ORD R CONTRACT INVOICE AMOUNT (-) DISCOUNT (+) FREIGHT NET AMOUNT
06-08-2000 400.00
i 400.00
Detach stub before depositing TOTAL: 400.00 400.00
Remarks TIP NO. B-3008
ONSLOW COUNTY

Pay
to the
Order of
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA' Warrant No. 1018730
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1515 Date 06-09-2000
II' LO 113 7 3011' 1:0 5 3 L LO 5941: 511100011160 Lila
Amount $400.00
RALEIGH NC 27699-1638 rreaern m: auie I Inrauru , naleryn, ?? n ye w no
payable at per through Federal Re yatem
TINS FORM CONTAINS MICR PRINTING
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1638 MAIL SERVICE CTR

0
Onslow Countv
Bridge No. 16 on NC 50
Over Juniper Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-50(3)
State Project 8.1261801
TIP # B-3008
cl-i
CSI ==''t
r-
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
()00839
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date-,(,-William Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
fo Division Administrator, FHWA
Onslow Countv
Bridge No. 16 on NC 50
Over Juniper Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-50(3)
State Project 8.1261801
TIP # B-3008
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1998
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
?_7--7_- 79---
Jeff m
Pr ect Planning /nggineer
??CA,
WaynAlliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
0
Onslow Count,
Bridge No. 16 on NC 50
Over Juniper Swamp
Federal Project BRSTP-50(3)
State Project 8.1261801
TIP # B-3008
Bridge No. 16 is located in Onslow County on NC 50 crossing over Juniper
Swamp. It is programmed in the 1998-2004 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.
RY OF RECOMMENDATION
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 27 meters (90 feet) in length and 9.8 meters (32 feet) in width at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic
will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour bridge
approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing bridge.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter (4 foot)
shoulders. The bridge will include (54 inch) bicycle safe rail and 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required.
Approach work for the temporary detour will require approximately 228 meters (750 feet)
of fill through wetlands. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed for the
permanent alignment will be 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 976,000 including $ 950,000 in construction
costs and $ 26,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $ 295,000.
ti SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water in
or entering the stream during bridge construction in order to minimize effects on the
stream water quality. 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."
V#
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit.
Encroachment into wetlands and surface waters as a result of project construction
may require a permit from the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). N.C. Coastal
Area Management (CAMA) Program. According to Ms. Janet Russell with the DCM
Wilmington District Office, Juniper Creek may be an Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC) if it is a navigable water body. It would be necessary for DCM personnel to visit
the site to make this determination. If Juniper Creek is considered an AEC then it will be
necessary to obtain a CAMA major development permit from DCM. The major
development permit serves as an application for three other state permits and for permits
from the COE required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The state permits
include: (1) Permit to excavate and/or fill; (2) Easement in lands covered by water; and
(3) Section 401 Water Quality Certification. A United States Coast Guard permit will not
be needed.
Based on preliminary design plans, temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands
will total approximately 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres) and 0.39 hectares (0.97 acres)
respectively. Fill slopes and widths will be minimized in wetland areas to decrease the
footprint of the proposed project. Following construction of the new bridge, the area
affected by the temporary detour will be returned to original contours and revegetated
with native tree species. If final wetland delineations and design plans show the wetland
impacts to be greater than one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements for the impacts to wetland areas rests
with the Army Corps of Engineers.
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely.
IV EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 50 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 1800 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
projected to be 3300 VPD in the year 2020. The posted speed limit on this section of
NC 50 is 55 mph. The road serves tourists traveling to and from the coast, as well as
minor local traffic. Three school busses cross the bridge twice daily.
The existing bridge was completed in 1956. It is 21 meters (69 feet) long. There
are approximately 8.2 meters (27 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck and
streambed. The two travel lanes provide 7.2 meters (24 feet) of bridge roadway width.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 30.2 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 33 tons for single
vehicles.
4
The horizontal and vertical alignments of the roadway near the bridge are both
good. The pavement on the approaches to the bridge is approximately 6.1 meters
(20 feet) wide. Shoulders are approximately 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
This section of NC 50 is part of the Richlands Loop Bicycle Route. This route is
presently recommended for use only during the early spring and fall months due to heavy
motor vehicle traffic to and from the coast in the summer and a lack of paved shoulders.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
NC 50 carries approximately 1800 vehicles per day presently (1997) and is an
important tourist route to and from nearby beaches. The division engineer recommends
that traffic be maintained on site. If the road were closed, the shortest detour route would
require at least 17.6 kilometers (11 miles) of additional travel. Because it is an important
tourist link, the traffic is relatively high, and the only detour route is very long, only
alternates that maintain traffic on site are considered. There are two "build" options
considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace Bridge No. 16 on new alignment to the east of the
existing bridge. The replacement structure would be a bridge approximately 27 meters
(90 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained on the existing structure during
construction.
Alternate 2 would replace Bridge No. 16 on the existing location with a bridge
approximately 27 meters (90 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary
on site detour bridge and alignment to the east of the existing bridge. The temporary
structure would require a bridge 15.2 meters (50 feet) in length.
"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 1 ALTERNATE 2
(Recommended)
New Bridge Structure $ 228,000 $ 187,000
Bridge Removal 12,000 12,000
Roadway & Approaches 309,000 23,000
Temporary Detour 0 400,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 165,000 186,000
Engineering & Contingencies 136,000 142,000

Total Construction $ 850,000 $ 950,000
Right of Way $ 28,000 $ 26,000
Total Cost $ 878,000 $ 976,000
VII RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 16 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 27 meters (90 feet) in length at the same location and roadway elevation as
the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-
site detour approximately 18 meters (60 feet) east of the existing bridge. The temporary
detour alignment will require a bridge approximately 15 meters (50 feet) in length.
The new bridge will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1.2 meter (4 foot)
shoulders. The bridge will include (54 inch) bicycle safe rail and 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. The approaches will include two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders. The shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required.
Approach work for the temporary detour will require approximately 228 meters (750 feet)
of fill through wetlands. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed for the
permanent alignment will be 100 km/h (60 mph).
Approach work for the temporary on site detour will require approximately
228 meters (750 feet) of fill through wetlands. The detour will require a bridge
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) in length with a roadway grade approximately 1 meter
4

(3 feet) below the existing road grade. The detour bridge will provide two 3.3 meter
(11 foot) lanes and 12 meter (4 foot) shoulders. The design speed of the detour
alignment will be approximately 70 km/h (45 mph).
Both Alternates 1 and 2 would have impacts to wetlands. Alternate 2 will
temporarily impact approximately 0.39 hectares (0.97 acres) of wetlands and permanently
impact approximately 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres). Alternate 1 would have permanent
impacts to approximately 0.63 hectares (1.55 acres) of wetlands. These anticipated
impacts are based upon a right-of-way width of 24 meters (80 feet) for permanent
alignments and 18.3 meters (60 feet) for the temporary detour alignment. Project
construction typically does not require the entire right-of-way. therefore, actual wetland
impacts may be less.
Alternate 2 will maintain the existing good alignment and provide a slightly better
design speed [100 kph (60 mph)]. Alternate I would worsen the alignment and the sight
distance on the curve north of the bridge, necessitating 2.1 meters (7 feet) of additional
bridge width.
The amount of environmental impacts are somewhat similar for both alternates.
Even thought it is slightly more expensive, NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it
maintains the existing good alignment.
VIII ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
existing 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.
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. 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 that will be adversely affected
by the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
An underground telephone line runs along the west side of the roadway and goes
aerial over the stream. An aerial power line runs along the east side of the bridge. 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 Onslow 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
The project is located in a rural area with no urbanized land uses. The proposed
project corridor is totally wooded and undeveloped.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impacts of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) was asked to determine whether the alternates under consideration will impact
prime or important farmland soil. The NRCS determined that the proposed bridge
replacement will not impact prime farmland.
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
6
aware of no historic structures located 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. Based on 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. Therefore, the SOA
recommends that no archaeological investigations be conducted.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
Regional Characteristics
The proposed project lies in Onslow County, in a rural area located in the eastern
portion of North Carolina. The project area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 3 to 4 meters (10 to
14 feet) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The topography of the project
vicinity is flat with minimal relief. Within the project area the swamp forest is nearly
level with the adjacent channel. Moving away from the channel, the land surface slopes
gently to slightly higher elevations to the north and south.
Onslow County's major economic resources include agriculture and forestry. The
project vicinity is primarily wooded with some logging activity.
Soils
According to NRCS mapping, soils in the project area consist of two main types
(Soil Survey of Onslow County, 1992). Muckalee loam (Mk) is a nearly level, poorly
drained soil which occurs along the floodplains of freshwater creeks. This soil is flooded
frequently for brief periods. Surface runoff is typically slow and permeability is
moderate. This soil series is listed as a hydric soil by the NRCS, and may indicate the
presence of wetlands. In the project area, this soil occurs within Juniper Swamp.
Foreston loamy sand (FoA) consists of moderately well drained soils on uplands,
typically at 0 to 2% slopes. Surface runoff is slow and permeability is moderately rapid.
This soil is found in the higher upland areas within 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 Muckalee soils have a site index that averages 90 for loblolly
pine, sweetgum, and water oak; and 85 for green ash. The Foreston soils have a site
index that averages 90 for loblolly pine and 75 for longleaf pine.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin. One surface water resource.
Juniper Swamp, will be impacted by the proposed project. Juniper Swamp originates
about 5 kilometers (3 miles) east of the project area and flows west about 5 kilometers
(3 miles) to its confluence with Shaken Creek.
Juniper Swamp is approximately 15 meters (50 feet) wide within the area under
Bridge No. 16, and constitutes a perennial blackwater swamp system with very slow
streamflow. The substrate within the swamp was mainly silt and clay, with some
dissolved and some particulate organic matter. The swamp has a closed canopy and
riparian vegetation consists of deciduous and evergreen trees.
At the time of the field survey, the open water areas within the swamp averaged
0.9 to 1.2 meters (3 to 4 feet) in depth. In the project area, the swamp widens on either
side of the bridge. 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 retain organic
debris. Bryophytes (mosses) and filamentous algae were evident along the cypress knees,
above the water surface as well as along the banks. The water color was dark yellow to
brown, 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. Juniper Swamp (Index # 18-74-33-4-1) 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) if
the project study area.
General Watershed Characteristics
The surrounding vicinity appears to be primarily forested land with some forestry
practices. There are also some small areas of cropland upstream of the project area.
These practices are likely to be the primary sources of water quality degradation to the
water resources within the project area. Surface runoff from forestry and agriculture
causes nutrient loading and increased sedimentation which can affect water quality.
Benthic Macroinvertehrate Ambient Network
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. A station has been established by DEHNR along Juniper Swamp at
NC 50 for the purpose of developing swamp creek criteria. The majority of
macroinvertebrate species identified during the BMAN February 1997 sampling event
were indicative of low velocity, depositional environments. Many of the identified
species are widely discussed in literatures tolerating low oxygenated, mildly polluted
waters, and therefore have been assigned high pollution tolerance values. Although
BMAN Bioclass Ratings are currently not assigned to swamp waters, this sampling
station had a high total biotic index of 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, indicating moderately poor
water quality.
Point Source Dischargers
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 Juniper Swamp 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 on-site detour would have greater impacts to the aquatic community due to the
construction of two separate structures. 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.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the natural communities in which
the construction activity occurs. Downstream communities could potentially be affected
by stormwater runoff or sediments from the project site. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be followed in order to minimize the
amount of sediment being released by construction activities.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a disturbed
community, two forested wetlands communities, 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 shoulders and the irregularly
maintained areas between the road shoulders and the forested community. Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly
maintained areas along the road shoulders are dominated by various grasses including
ryegrass and fescue. Violet, thistle, plantain, white clover, and panic grass are also
present.
In areas along the edge between the shoulders and the adjacent forested
community, species include Chinese privet, wax myrtle, poison ivy, trumpet creeper,
Virginia creeper, cross vine, Japanese honeysuckle, goldenrod, and rush.
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. Northern mockingbirds and
American crows are two of the more common birds that use these habitats. Due to the
location and linear nature of this community it is unlikely that it is utilized by any reptiles
or amphibians, except as they cross the road from one forested area to another.
10
Forested Wetlands
The project area is dominated by forested wetlands including a swamp forest and
a bottomland hardwood forest community. There is no distinct boundary separating these
two communities, however, the species composition differs slightly.
Swamp Forest
The swamp forest community is found within the project area along Juniper
Swamp. Bald cypress, sweetgum, red maple, and black gum are the dominant canopy
species. The understory and shrub layer are dominated by red bay, fetter bush, dog-
hobble, possum-haw viburnum, titi, and coastal pepperbush. The herbaceous layer is
sparse and includes giant cane, netted chainfern, and cinnamon fern. Vines include
laurel-leaf greenbrier, grape, and poison ivy.
No mammals were directly observed during the field activities. Due to frequent
flooding it is likely that small mammals are uncommon, although the cotton mouse and
marsh rabbit may be present. Beavers may also utilize these areas.
The only amphibian observed during the site visit was a southern leopard frog,
however, due to the wetness of the swamp forest, a variety of amphibians are likely
present. Green treefrog, Brimley's chorus frog, southern dusky salamander, three-lined
salamander, and broken-striped newt are all species that may be found in this habitat.
Although a green anole was the only reptile observed, species such as eastern
cottonmouth, copperhead snake , brown water snake, snapping turtle, and spotted turtle
may also utilize this habitat.
A wide variety of birds use the swamp forest for foraging and nesting. Species
identified during the field survey included barn swallow, Carolina chickadee, yellow-
billed cuckoo, and acadian flycatcher. Other bird species which may be present in this
habitat include downy woodpecker, barred owl, northern parula warbler, and common
yellowthroat.
This community corresponds most closely to the Cypress-gum Swamp
community of the NHP classification system.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
The swamp forest community grades into a bottomland hardwood forest
community to the north and south of Juniper Swamp. The bottomland forest community
is distinguished from the swamp forest by having fewer cypress and black gum trees in
the canopy and slightly drier conditions, however, there is no clear boundary between
these two communities. The canopy is dominated by red maple, sweet gum, and overcup
oak. On the east side of NC 50, black willow is a dominant understory species. The
shrub layer includes species listed above as well as wax myrtle, American holly, and
11
mulberry. The species in the herbaceous layer are similar to those in the swamp forest.
Vines include Japanese honeysuckle and grape.
Faunal species expected to utilize this area are similar to those in the adjacent
swamp forest community. No mammals were observed during the site visit, however,
species listed above as well as grey squirrels, white-tailed deer, raccoon, and opossum
may be present. Reptiles and amphibians found in this habitat are similar to those
described above. During the site visit, a white-breasted nuthatch, wood thrush, Carolina
chickadee, blue jay, and American robin were observed. Other species such as tufted
titmouse, and prothonotary warbler may also utilize this habitat.
This community corresponds to the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood
community of the NHP classification system.
Upland Forest
This community is adjacent to the bottomland hardwood community south of the
bridge. Vegetation in the canopy layer in this area is dominated by loblolly pine and red
maple. Red maple saplings, wax myrtle, American holly, Chinese privet, mulberry, and
highbush blueberry are present in the shrub layer. Herbaceous vegetation includes
bracken fern and giant cane. Vines include cross-vine and poison ivy.
Large mammals utilizing the upland forest are likely similar to those found in the
bottomland forest. No reptiles or amphibians were observed in this area during the site
visit, however, eastern king snake, northern black racer, eastern box turtle, slimy
salamander, and American toad may utilize this habitat.
Birds which utilize the adjacent swamp forest and bottomland forest likely utilize
this upland habitat as well. Additional species may include eastern peewee, red-bellied
woodpecker, and rufous-sided towhee.
Due to the suppression of natural fires, introduction of loblolly pines, and man-
induced disturbance over the years, this upland forested community is difficult to classify
within the NHP system.
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 Juniper Swamp is a low gradient, low to mid order,
blackwater stream containing silt and clay substrates and having low water clarity. The
riparian community contains mostly trees.
12
Juniper Swamp provides habitat for a variety of species of fish. According to
Brad Hammer, the District 2 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), fish species known to exist in Juniper Swamp within the project
area include largemouth bass (s), bluegill, chain pickerel, pumpkinseed, and flier. Juniper
Swamp has not been stocked for gamefish species.
Organisms identified by the February 1997 BMAN survey are typical for lotic
depositional environments, such as blackwater streams. Lotic depositional environments
generally contain fine sediments and occur in stream pools and along margins of higher
velocity streams. Macroinvertebrate sampling was performed in July 1997 during severe
storms and heavy rainfall. Species abundance, diversity, as well as mean organism size
were observed to be low, all of which can most likely attributed to high stream flows and
sediment scouring during the rain event. The most abundant organisms found in the
survey were of the Insect family, Chironomidae (order Diptera),and of the aquatic
Annelida class, Oligocheata, both of which are commonly sediment burrowers.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted by project
construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area along
NC 50. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths of 457 meters
(1500 feet) for Alternate 1, and 396 meters (1300 feet) for Alternate 2 (including the
temporary detour). The entire proposed right-of-way width for each alternate is 24 meters
(80 feet). The proposed right-of-way width for the temporary detour is 18.3 meters
(60 feet). The table below details the potential impacts to terrestrial communities by
habitat type. Due to the unclear boundary between the swamp forest and bottomland
hardwood forest, impacts to these wetland communities are combined as forested
wetlands. It should be noted that impacts are based on the entire right-of-way width and
actual loss of habitat will likely be less.
Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacted Area in hectare (acres)
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Permanent Permanent Temporary
Detour
Disturbed Community 0.29 (0.72) 0.25 (0.62) 0.10 (0.25)
Forested Wetlands 0.63(l.55) 0.41 (1.01) 0.39 (0.97)
Upland Forest 0.04 (0.11) 0.02 (0.06) 0.016 (0.04)
Total Impacts 0.96 (2.38) 0.68(l.69) 0.506 (1.26)
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
area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds,
13
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.
Impacts to terrestrial communities 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 temperature 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; altering water chemistry;
and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may caused decreased light
penetration through an increase in turbidity. Although both alternates will cause
temporary increases in sedimentation from construction, Alternate 2 will have a slightly
greater impact on the aquatic community and riparian habitat.
Wet concrete should 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.
14
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands occur on both sides of NC 50. According to the NWI
mapping, these areas are bottomland hardwood forest mapped as palustrine forest
including areas which are temporarily flooded, partially drained/ditched. with broad-
leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1 Ad); and seasonally flooded with broad-leaved
deciduous and broad-leaved evergreen vegetation (PFOI C and PFO 1 /3C). According to
the soil survey, these areas contain Muckalee soils, which are identified as a hydric soil.
Wetlands delineated in the field based on the criteria established in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer's (COE's) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Hydric soils are present in these areas. Other wetland characteristics 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 the swamp forest
wetland is 70. The DWQ rating for the bottomland hardwood forest wetland is 58.
The portion of Juniper Swamp within the project area meets the definition of
surface waters. Juniper Swamp is therefore classified as Waters of the United States.
Within the area under Bridge No. 16, Juniper Swamp is approximately 15 meters
(50 feet) wide.
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. Alternate I would have impacts of less than 0.63 hectares
(1.55 acres). Alternate 2 (including an on-site detour) would impact about 0.80 hectares
(1.98 acres) of wetlands, however, some of these impacts would be temporary and the
wetlands could be restored when bridge construction was completed and the temporary
detour removed. These anticipated impacts are based upon a right-of-way width of
24 meters (80 feet) for permanent alignments and 18.3 meters (60 feet) for the temporary
detour alignment. Project construction typically does not require the entire right-of-way,
therefore, actual wetland impacts may be less. These impact estimates are only for
15
wetland areas directly disturbed by construction. Additional wetland areas may be
indirectly affected due to changes in water levels and siltation from construction
activities.
Surface waters will also be impacted. Alternate 1 would impact 24 meters
(80 feet) of stream encompassing 0.028 hectares (0.07 acres). Alternate 2 would have the
same impacts, plus additional temporary impacts of 18.3 meters (60 feet) encompassing
0.021 hectares (0.05 acres). These anticipated impacts are based upon a right-of-way
width of 18.3 meters (60 feet). Project construction typically does not require the entire
right-of-way, therefore, actual surface water impacts may be less.
Anticipated wetland and surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Division of Coastal Management (DCM).
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.
Encroachment into wetlands and surface waters as a result of project construction
may require a permit from the Division of Coastal Management (DCM), N.C. Coastal
Area Management (CAMA) Program. CAMA directs the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) in
which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to property, public
health, and the natural environment. A CAMA permit is required if the project meets all
of the following conditions:
It is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
it is in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
it is considered development under the terms of the Act;
and it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by the CRC.
According to Ms. Janet Russell with the DCM Wilmington District Office,
Juniper Creek may be an AEC if it is a navigable water body. It would be necessary for
DCM personnel to visit the site to make this determination. If Juniper Creek is
considered an AEC then it will be necessary to obtain a CAMA major development
permit from DCM. The major development permit serves as an application for three
other state permits and for permits from the COE required by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The state permits include: (1) Permit to excavate and/or fill; (2) Easement in
lands covered by water; and (3) Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
16
Section 404 impacts to non-CAMA wetlands will also occur. 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 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
that 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 DE14NR 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.
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. Because the
new bridge will be wider than the existing bridge in order to accommodate bicycles and
modern design standards, complete avoidance of area wetlands is not possible. Due to
the important tourist link, the relatively high traffic volume, and the long off site detour
route, it was determined that traffic must be maintained on site. Maintenance of traffic on
site will require impacts to area wetlands.
17
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. Fill slopes and widths will be
minimized in wetland areas to decrease the footprint of the proposed project. Following
construction of the new bridge, the area affected by the temporary detour will be returned
to original contours and revegetated with native tree species.
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.
If final wetland delineations and design plans show the wetland impacts to be
greater than one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
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 ten federally protected species for
Onslow County as of May 14, 1998.
Federally Protected Species for Onslow County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
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
Felis concolor concolor Eastern cougar E
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach amaranth T
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loostrife E
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's meadowrue E
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).
18
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.
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.
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead sea turtle) Threatened
Vertebrate Family: Cheloniidae
Federally Listed: 1978
The loggerhead sea turtle is a large [25 to 123 cm, (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 number 115) of eggs, above the highwater
mark on the seaward side of the dunes. Incubation periods range form 56 to 65 days.
Although omnivorous, the diet of the loggerhead is composed primarily of marine
invertebrates.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
19
No habitat exists in the project area for the loggerhead sea turtle. Juniper Swamp
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 on 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.
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, 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.
20
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 Juniper Swamp is a freshwater system. 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.
Although omnivorous, they feed primarily on jellyfish and Portuguese man-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 Juniper Swamp is a freshwater system. A search of the NHP database
21
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.
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.
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: Na 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
within in the project region 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.
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 7.9 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
22
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
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 foot) intervals. Potential
foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is present in the project area. The
upland wooded 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.
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 foot) 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 I inch) in diameter with a small
notch at the rounded tip. The leaves are clustered toward the tip of the stem and are a
23
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.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
24
The project site is wooded with no longleaf pine or oak savannas habitat present.
A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the rough-leaved loosestrife in the
project vicinity. A survey for rough-leaved loosestrife during its known flowering season
was conducted by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter, Chris Rivenbark, and Lindsey Riddick
on July 2, 1998. No rough-leaved loosestrife was observed during the site inspection. 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 (I meter (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 although roadside habitat does occur. A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Cooley's meadowrue in the
project vicinity. A survey for Cooley's meadowrue during its known flowering season
was conducted by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter, Chris Rivenbark, and Lindsey Riddick
on July 2, 1998. No Cooley's meadowrue was observed during the site inspection. It can
be concluded that the project will not impact this Endangered species.
25
N

1 ?
1
N
•1
A
O
G

ers \? \ /Pi; \
_ RitPoends?
NFOREST
Calhmne
OunUm {.ake- ? _
Jenne LeMe ? 1 5 Rel u`m
0 -N
+ lacksonvill' ??:
Mews •,Jl#??, ney
Run y
Yams
.?tl
1 is
\ ?I on
s0 7 /1 1
sn"ds
s Folkston Ferry
se ?' _.,aQ. a r a
/ I
~ Bell ad*
rte= e`, e
Bro. I
I
Q? ? \
7 00
4P.North Carolina
x Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ONSLOW COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 16 ON NC 50
OVER JUNIPER CREEK
B-3008
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
END OF BRIDGE LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3
END OF BRIDGE LOOKING NORTH
EAST FACE OF BRIDGE
FIGURE 4
S7A Ir; '
aW 7
D
North Carolina Department of Cultural ]Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 19, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 16 on NC 50 over Juniper Swamp,
Onslow County, B-3008, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-50(3), State Project 8.1261801, ER 97-
8359
Dear Mr. Graf:

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On February 18, 1997, 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, r6, :`gat
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: tom. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett