20040306 Ver 1_Complete File_20040309

x .. ..
,,,~e~n
~~.
~=
~. a..
•~ w..~..N' ~.!
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)~nnES B. HUNT J~. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GAELLAND B. GA~RF-n~ JR.
GOVEIa~IOR P.O. BOX ~5~01. ~,~LEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 16, 1997
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P. E. TC
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 61 on NC 133 over
Town Creek in Brunswick County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-133(1), State Project No. 8.1231401, TIP No. B-3115
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 10. 1997. The following
persons were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Ray Moore Structure Design
Lanette Cook Program Development
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Chris Howard Traffic Control
Eddie Sasser Traffic Control
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
Lee McCrory Roadway Design
Gary Foster Roadway Design
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are underground phone cables on the
both sides of NC 133 going aerial across the creek. There is also a fiber optic cable underground
along the east side of NC 133. Along the east side of NC 133 there are overhead power lines that
cross over to the west side just south of the bridge.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated, prior to the meeting, that Town Creek is classified as
Class C - SW. Implementation of Standard Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures will be
acceptable. Surface water and wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized where ever
possible.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should routinely minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. NCDOT

^~ ~ .k
should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and
prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into the stream. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks,
reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings. Town Creek
has high potential for anadromous fish usage and the NCDOT policy entitled "Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" should be followed for this project.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known architectural or archaeological resources in the project area and no unknown
resources are likely to be found. Therefore, no surveys will be required for this project.
Mr. Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new bridge will be required to
replace the existing bridge. This bridge should be 91 meters (300 feet) in length. This new bridge
should be placed at approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. An on-site
detour structure should be a bridge 82 meters (270 feet) in length and could be placed
approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existin~~ bridge. The detour structure should be
located west of the existing bridge to minimize temporary wetland impacts. Brunswick County is
one of the counties under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
Therefore, a CAMA permit will be required for this project.
A desired design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph) should be achieved on this project. The
roadway approaches will have two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes, 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulders, and a total shoulder width of at least 2.4 meters (8 ft). The shoulder will be 1.0 meters
(3 feet) wider where guardrail is warranted. This section of NC 133 is classified as a Rural Major
Collector Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
The Brunswick County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that two school
busses cross this bridge twice per day during the school year. Closing the bridge during
construction would cause significant delays for these busses. Any detour route would involve
may miles of indirect travel; therefore, school bus traffic needs to be maintained on-site.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 61, NC 133 carries 5600
vehicles per day at present [1998]. This figure is expected to increase to 12,000 vehicles per day
by the year 2020. These traffic figures include 3% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and 2% truck-
tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 10%.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing the bridge in-place, with an on-site
detour is important for this project. The traffic volume and length of indirect travel routes make
an off-site detour unreasonable.
Two alternates will be evaluated for replacing Bridge No. 61 over Town Creek.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 61 in place with a new bridge. Traffic will be maintained on a
temporary detour located west of the existing bridge during construction.

~ ~ y.
Alternate 2: Replace Bride No. 61 on new alignment to the west of the e~istina bridge with a
ne~v bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the e~cistina bridge during construction.
The TIP cost estimate for this project is $ 1,400,000 including, $ 200,000 spent in prior
years, $ 1,100,000 for construction and $ 100,000 for right of way acquisition. The current
project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in May 2000 and construction to
begin in June 2001.
BG/

~...:•~: .~~ P~T,
,ti ~J: iyne.x
' n y T:Y nl.a
fl.: ~':
plu 'wwv ,n... '~~,
B R U N S W L~%~,~~C ~~
i` 9
y: t' s ~~'- t~.~ a R ~ y. .
~- 1 Rr y t]
nf. 11~ '- .r~~l l~~ j "I~ ~fry~
/ ~ v ~ ~H tfi ^t' ~
// 1 „. ~*
-.~ 1
.. ee. ~ aoe ~.
~f ~ Oc• ,~ leacn tir ~ u s . ~ •~
_~ ~~v

~~
~ ~~~
I~
,~' 1
~ ~,
`- 1
. ~ ~`
,,
CAMPBELL
ISLAND

`'~
1.
,~OF NORiN ~c~qo North Carolina Department of
q \~ Transportation
_! Division of Highways
9 ~~
''~F_ _,oa`~~ Planning & Environmental Branch
Brunswick County
Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
B-3115
Figure One

BRIDGE PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
11 /6/97
TIP PROJECT: _ B-3115 DIVISION: Three
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP - 133(11
STATE PROJECT: _8.1231401
COUNTY: Brunswick
ROUTE: NC 133
DESCRIPTION: Reblacement of Bride No. 61 on NC 133 over Town reek
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bride
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Wilmin~on NC Ouad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Major Collector
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 1,100,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 100,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 200,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 1,400,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 5300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2020) 12000 VPD
TTST ~ % DUAL ~
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder ection 20 foot
pavement gassed shoulder
EXISTING STRUCTURE
LENGTH 91.5 McTEas WIDTH 8.1 METERs
300 FEET 26.4 FEET
COMMENTS:

N
~~~ ~;~

I ~l
1 ~-
_ ~
J ~ ~
J
CAMPBELL
ISLAND
~~.
°F"°"r"~,~ North Carolina Department of
~~ qo\
y `~~,, Transportation
.~
g ~! Division of Highways
~~ Q°~~ Planning & Environmental Branch
~OF TIIPH'~~
Brunswick County
Replace Bridge No. 61 on lYC 133
Over Town Creek
B-3115
Figure One

NCDOT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT SLOPING MEETING
DATE: T.LP. No.: Project Engineer:
Project Description: Replace
Existing bridge built 19_
Right of Way 19_
Posted limits: mph;
dimensions existing: _
proposed: _
structure existing:
Bridge No. over on
Sufllciency Rating
Let/Construction 20
Ibs cars lbs trucks
-wide x long travel lanes
-wide x long travel lanes
in County
Paved/Llnpaved
Design Year 20_
elevation above stream
elevation above stream
proposed:
school buses accidents
current use v.p.d., anticipated use v.p.d. Design Year
Classification:
Division Engineer recommendations:
Hydraulics recommendations:
Detour type/rationale:
Design constraints:
Right-of-Way issues:

WRC comments:
Moratorium recommended - for
Sediment and Erosion control recommended -
DWQ comments:
Utility conflicts:
Historic properties:
Anticipated wetland issues:
Other cultural/natural resource issues:
checklist:
avoid wetlands, show alternatives in document
maximize bridging (i.e. cost of mitigation vs. cost of extra bridging)
replace with bridge if possible, aced rational for culvert
discuss temporary impacts and restoration ~.,Q ti w "33
any geotechnical work'?
prefer bridge to culvert
anadromous fish
any stream rechannelization or new wetland impac~ti (mitigation)'?
hazardous spill basins
erosion/side slope problems
approach work impacts
any associated highway projects'?
Stream name: DWQ Index No. River Basin:
DWQ Classitication: NWI Info:

~pQ~~EHT oFT"F~y~ United States Department of the Interior
a
a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
_' Post Office Box 39726
M4RCN ~ ~a°~ Raleigh, North Carolina 276583726
Apri126, 2004
Phillip Harris
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
~, ~n36 ~
This letter is in response to your letter of April 13, 2004 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusions of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) for fourteen federally protected species for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 61 on NC 133 over Town Creek in Brunswic_k_ County (TIP No. B-3115). The
fourteen species are as follows:
Common Name Scientific Name Biolo ical Conclusion
Lo erhead sea turtle Caretta caretta No effect
Green sea turtle Chelonia m das No effect
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s coriacea No effect
Kem 's ridle sea turtle Le idochelys kem ii No effect
Pi in lover Charadrius melodus No effect
Eastern cou ar Puma concolor cou ar No effect
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus umilus No effect
Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis No effect
Shortnose stur eon Aci enser brevirostrum MA-NLAA
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus MA-NLAA
Wood stork M cteria americana MA-NLAA
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus MA-NLAA
Rou h-leaved loosestrife L simachia as erulae olia MA-NLAA
Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum Goole i MA-NLAA
*MA-NLAA =May affect, not likely to adversely affect
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the proposed project
will have no effect on the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, Leatherback sea turtle, Kemp's

ridley sea turtle, piping plover, eastern cougar, seabeach amaranth and red-cockaded
woodpecker.
The Shortnose sturgeon is within the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries. We recommend that you
consult them with your request for concurrence.
Your letter states that a visual survey was conducted for bald eagles on April 6, 2004. However,
the letter does not describe the extent of the survey area. Nevertheless, given that there is no
large water body within one-half mile of the project area, and given that the project only involves
replacing an existing bridge with another bridge on the same alignment, the Service concurs with
your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.
Future eagle surveys must extend, at a minimum, outward in a one-half mile radius from the
project limits where suitable habitat exists. This should be stated in the survey methodology
section of your biological evaluation.
Your letter states that the April 6, 2004 site visit did not reveal any wood storks or nests. The
only known occurrences of nesting wood storks in North Carolina is a colony of birds ranging
from 15-100 individuals that frequent Sunset Beach during early June through mid-September.
This is the northernmost breeding range for this species. Due to the limited and localized nesting
activity of this species in North Carolina, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the wood stork.
The Project Commitments "Green Sheet" in the 2002 Federal Categorical Exclusion document
states that the Service's "Precautions for the general construction in areas which maybe used by
the West Indian manatee in North Carolina" will be considered in all aspects of project
construction. Please note that these precautions have been revised and can be found at the
following website: http://nc-es.fws.gov/mammal/mammal.html. Please replace the old
guidelines with the revised guidelines. Given that NCDOT commits to implement these
guidelines, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect the West Indian manatee.
Your letter states that a plant survey for rough-leaved loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue was
conducted on April 6, 2004. This survey date falls outside the appropriate survey window for
both species. Appropriate survey windows for all federally listed plant species can be found at
the following website: http://nc-es.fws.gov/plant/optimal survey windows for~lants html.
Enclosed with your letter was a report for an earlier survey conducted for these two species on
June 23, 1999. In that survey, no specimens of either species were observed. Due to a new
policy of the Service's Raleigh field office, we will now, as a general rule, consider plant surveys
valid for five years, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. This new policy will be stated
on our website in the near future. Considering the results of the 1999 survey, the Service
concurs that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect rough-leaved loosestrife
or Cooley's meadowrue.
We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered i£ (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a

manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that maybe affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
~ ~ ~~
~~ Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

O~PPSMENT OF lh~'yM
9o
7 3
~.. -- as
M4ACM 9 ~0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
May 11, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 16, 2004 regarding the proposed Wilmington
Bypass in Brunswick and New Hanover Counties (TIP No. R-2633A/B). Enclosed with your
letter were the following two documents: "Wilmington Bypass, Addendum to Natural Systems
Technical Memorandum" dated April 2004 (Addendum) and "Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Foraging Habitat Analysis for Brunswick County Cluster #1, Wilmington Bypass Project" dated
September 5, 2003. Your letter and the two enclosed documents provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological conclusions of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) for 14 federally protected species in Brunswick and New Hanover
Counties. The 14 species are as follows:
Common Name Scientific Name Biolo ical Conclusion
Green sea turtle Chelonia m das None
Kem 's ridle sea turtle Le idochel s kem ii None
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochel s coriacea None
Lo erhead sea turtle Caretta caretta None
Pi in lover Charadrius melodus No effect
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus umilus No effect
Eastern cou ar Puma concolor cou ar No effect
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus No effect
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum Goole i No effect
Shortnose stur eon Aci enser brevirostrum No effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia as erulae olia MA-NLAA*
Wood stork M cteria americans MA-NLAA*
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus MA-NLAA*
Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis MA-NLAA*
*May affect, not likely to adversely affect
These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).

NCDOT has not provided a biological conclusion for the four species of sea turtles. However,
due to lack of habitat, the Service believes that the project will have no effect on the green sea
turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle and loggerhead sea turtle. Also, due to
lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project will have no effect on
the piping plover and seabeach amaranth. The eastern cougar is likely extirpated from eastern
North Carolina; therefore, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project will have no
effect on the eastern cougar.
NCDOT has rendered a "no effect" conclusion for the bald eagle. Potential habitat for this
species does exist within the project area in the vicinity of the Cape Fear River. The Addendum
states that no eagle nests were identified in rare species surveys. Although the addendum does
not provide any information for these surveys, additional information submitted by NCDOT
(May 6, 2004 email from Rachelle Beauregard with attached letter) stated that flight surveys
were conducted in 2002 along the project corridor and one-half mile beyond for bald eagle nests.
Given the results of the survey, the Service would concur with a "may affect, not likely to
adversely affect" conclusion for the bald eagle.
NCDOT has rendered a "no effect" conclusion for Cooley's meadowrue. Potential habitat for
this species likely exists within the project area. The Addendum states that survey data have not
identified this species within the project area. No information is provided for these surveys. In
lieu of more specific information, the Service is unable to concur with your biological conclusion
for Cooley's meadowrue. The Service would likely concur with a "may affect, not likely to
adversely affect" conclusion if additional survey information was provided which demonstrated
that an adequate survey revealed no specimens of the species within the project area.
The shortnose sturgeon is under the purview of NOAA Fisheries. We recommend that you
contact that agency with your request for concurrence.
According to the information provided, a population ofrough-leaved loosestrife occurs within
the project corridor, but outside the project right-of--way. The population is located
approximately 2500-3000 feet west of the proposed road and approximately 500 feet north of the
existing US 74. There will be no direct effects to this species. Indirect effects from secondary
development are possible, but assigning the cause of the effects to the new road would be
problematic given that the population is located much closer to the existing US 74 than the
proposed new road. Based on the information provided and other available information, the
Service concurs with your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect rough-leaved loosestrife.
According to the information provided, potential roosting habitat exists in the project area for the
wood stork. There is no mention of surveys for this species. However, the only known
occurrence of nesting wood storks in North Carolina is a colony of birds ranging from 15-100
individuals that frequent Sunset Beach during early June through mid-September. This is the
northernmost breeding range for this species. Due to the limited and localized nesting activity of
this species in North Carolina, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the wood stork.

The Addendum states on page 17 that "USFWS Precautionary Guidelines for General
Construction in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina
(USFWS 2003) should be adhered to during bridge construction..." Please note that these
precautions have been revised and renamed and can be found at the following website: http://nc-
es.fws.gov/mammal/mammal.html. Please replace the old guidelines with the revised guidelines.
Given that NCDOT commits to implement these guidelines, the Service concurs with your
conclusion that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian
manatee.
One active red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cluster occurs near the project. At the time that the
"Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Foraging Habitat Analysis for Brunswick County Cluster #1,
Wilmington Bypass Project" document was prepared, a maximum of 0.45 acres of potential
foraging habitat for Cluster #1 would have been impacted by the project. However, subsequent
avoidance and minimization efforts made during the NEPA/404 Merger process have reduced
this impact to a maximum of 0.07 acres of potential foraging habitat. Based on the information
provided and other available information, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
L , ~a""""
~~
~~~~ Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

.,r•
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 11, 2004
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed grade separation of the
intersection of US 74 Bypass and SR 1435, Scotland County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-3334).
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
It appears that the proposed project does not involve any stream crossings. However, Shoe Heel
Creek and associated wetlands are located immediately to the west of the project area. Due to
the limited scope of the project, impacts to fish and wildlife resources should be minimal. The
Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided. Highway shoulder and median widths should be
reduced through wetland areas;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
There are five federally endangered species listed for Scotland County: the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides bor°ealis), American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Canby's

~•'
Dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia). Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database does not indicate any known occurrences of these species near the project vicinity, use
of the NCNHP data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs
near the project site. The NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of
federally protected species and does not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It
may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. Information about the habitats in which
these species are often found is provided on our web site, http://endangered.fws.~,ov/ . If suitable
habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any of the five species, surveys should be conducted
to determine presence or absence of the species. All survey documentation must include survey
methodologies and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would

be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
c "' ~%~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

yd .w°'~
M ~~ ~~
^'\
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVF?RNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401-1890
Attention: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 61 on NC 133 over Town Creek in Brunswick County,
NCDOT Division 3. Federal Project No. BRSTP-133(1), State Project No.
8.1231401, WBS Element: 32874.1.1, TIP No. B-3115
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
61 over Tom Creek on NC 133. Bridge No. 61 will be replaced on the existing alignment
with a new bridge approximately 300 feet in length and a with cleared roadway width of 32
feet. The approaches will include two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders. Permanent
impacts to wetlands associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 61 will include 0.10 acre
of permanent fill and 0.07 acre of mechanized clearing. The traffic will be detoured to NC
87 during bridge construction.
Please find enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), PCN form, permit drawings,
half size plans, a North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stormwater Exemption letter,
Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee and an EEP Request Letter.
March 12, 2004
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
1NETl.ANpS I A01 CROUP
MAR, g 2004
1fd'F,4~Ei,':~iti~~L! i ~ ~ECTfU~I
-~~Q363
According to Bridge Maintenance records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 27.9 out of
a possible 100. The new bridge will provide wider road shoulders on either side of the
structure which will increase the safety rating for the bridge.
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:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 188
RALEIGH NC 27604

2
Town Creek is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrological Cataloguing Unit
03030005) and classified by the Division of Water Quality as C-Sw. Class C refers to waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. The Sw (swamp waters) sub-classification is a supplemental classification
intended to recognize those waters having naturally occurring low velocities, low pH and
low dissolved oxygen. Town Creek is also classified as an Anadromous Fish Stream.
PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Bride Demolition: Bridge No. 61 is 300 feet long and 26.4 feet wide. It has a reinforced
concrete deck on steel I-beams with concrete caps on timber piles. Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, which dictates that all existing structures over
water be removed by non-shattering methods, will be followed during demolition and
construction. Bridge No. 61 will be removed with less than 5 cubic yards of temporary fill
in the wetland or surface water. The bridge will be removed in pieces that remain in place on
the caps until they are removed by the crane. If any portion of concrete drops in the water,
every effort is made to remove these from the water. Turbidity curtains shall be installed
along the banks of Town Creek to help prevent components of the existing bridge from
entering the watercourse. NCDOT will adhere to a moratorium allowing no work in water
during the period of February 1 through June 15 to protect the shortnose sturgeon and other
anadromous fish.
Permanent Impacts: The permit drawings report wetland impacts of 0.10 acre of permanent
fill and 0.07 acre of mechanized clearing. The permanent fill is due to the piers for the
proposed structure. The mechanized clearing is due to roadway embankment. There will be
no marsh or coastal wetlands impacted There will be less than 0.01 acre of fill in surface
water from the piers for the proposed bridge structure.
Temporary Impacts: There will be less than 0.01 acre of fill in non-coastal wetlands due to
the piles for the temporary work bridges. There will be less than 0.01 acre of fill in the
surface water due to the piles from the temporary work bridges.
Schedule for Construction: It is assumed that the Contractor will begin
construction of the proposed temporary work bridge shortly after the date of
availability for the project. The Let date is July 20, 2004 with a date of
availability of August 25, 2004. .
Restoration Plan: Following the construction of the temporary work bridge, the
construction of the permanent bridge will be completed. Once the temporary
work bridge is no longer needed, all material used in the construction of the
temporary work bridge will be removed. The temporary impact area associated
with the work bridge is expected to recover naturally. Restoration of the project
area will take place immediately following project completion and prior to traffic
flow to the new bridge.

Removal and Disposal Plan: After the temporary work bridge is no longer
needed, all temporary work bridge material will become the property of the
contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the
removal and disposal of all work bridge material and demolished bridge material
to an off-site upland location.
Utility Relocation: There are four utility lines located at the project site. NCDOT's Utility-
Right-of--Way (Unit 3) has provided relocation plans for two utilities (Bell South and
AT&T). Preliminary relocation plans were also provided for Brunswick EMC and Time
Warner. At this time our data indicate that there will be no CAMA or Section 404
jurisdictional resources impacted. If final plans result in 404 and/or CAMA impacts,
NCDOT will apply for a Nationwide l2 Permit.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Threatened and Endangered Species: Plants and animals with federal classification of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of January 29, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 14
federally protected species for Brunswick County. In August 1999 a survey for the federally
protected species found that habitat does exist for the endangered woodstork (Mycteria
americana), roughed-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), Cooley's Meadowrue
(Thalictrun cooleyi) and the threatened bald eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus) species.
Currently, these species receive biological conclusions of "Unresolved". However, another
survey will be conducted for each of these species in May of 2004, prior to project
construction. Biological conclusions of "No Effect" for each of the remaining species are
valid and are presented in the attached CE.
• West Indian Manatee: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a list
of "Precautions for the general construction in areas which may be used by the
West Indian manatee in North Carolina". These precautions will be considered in
all aspects of project construction (see attached precaution instructions).
• shortnose Sturgeon: To ensure the project will not adversely affect the
endangered shortnose sturgeon, explosives will not be used in the bridge
demolition. To protect the shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous fish, there
will be no in-water or in-marsh activity during the months of February 1 through
June 15.
Essential Fish Habitat: The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Management and Conservation Act (MSFCMA) set forth a new mandate for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC) and other
Federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The

4
FMCS, with the assistance from NMFS, have delineated "essential fish habitat" (EFII) for
managed species. In the South Atlantic region, waterbodies in Brunswick County are listed
in which EFHs are found. Town Creek is not a listed waterbody for EFHs. Therefore the
rules of the MSFCMA will not apply for this project
MITIGATION OPTIONS
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: Specific avoidance and minimization measures for
this project include using a maximum slope of 3:1 and replacing the existing bridge in its
current location with anoff--site detour. The new bridge will span the entire width of Town
Creek with none of the supporting structures installed in the water. The tidal freshwater
marsh will not be impacted because the new bridge will span this community as well.
Turbidity curtains shall be used to contain all bottom disturbing activities, including pile or
casement installation, placement of rip/rap, excavation or filling within the watercourse of
Town Creek. The NCDOT shall install turbidity curtains along the banks of Town creek to
prevent sediment from the causeway restoration area from entering the watercourse. The
turbidity curtains will be properly maintained and retained in the water until construction is
complete and turbidity within the curtains reaches ambient levels.
COMPENSATION: This project will permanently impact a total of 0.17 acre of non-coastal
wetlands. Despite the minimization strategies employed for the proposed project, the
resulting wetland impacts will be greater than 0.1 acre and will require mitigation.
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (MOA)", it is
understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the
Section 404 compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in
Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during the Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) transition
period which ends on July 1, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 1 the necessary compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water
Act will be provided by the EEP (see attached letter to EEP). The offsetting mitigation will
derive from an inventory of assets already in existence within the same Ecoregion and the
same 8-digit cataloguing unit. We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional
resources to the greatest extent possible as described above. The remaining unavoidable
impacts to 0.17 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation
provided by the EEP program.

5
REGULATORY APPROVALS
It is anticipated that the temporary work bridge will be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit 33. We are, therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
for these activities. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR§
771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit
23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate that 401 General
Certification, numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
records
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Carla Dagnino at [phone].
Sincerely
~---~-
-- Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division Environmental Officer
Ms. Beverly Robinson, PDEA Project Planning Engineer)
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW23, NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ^
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Tran~ortation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number:~199)-733-3141
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: NA
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:~919)-715-1501
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 13

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate t1SGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of bridge No. 61 on NC 133 over Town Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3115
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
C ~~`~~~~
County: Brunswick Nearest Town:
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Brunswick County -take 133 off
NC 17 and travel south until you reach
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N 34 8 12 & W 77 59 14.4
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 2.25 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Town Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is located in a rural area of Brunswick County and
zoned for some commercial and some residential.
Page 6 of 13

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: "I'he
project will consist of replacing bride No. 61 with a new bridge approximately 300 feet in
length and with cleared roadway width of 32 feet. The approaches will include two foot lanes
with 8 foot shoulders. The traffic will be detoured to NC 87 during bridge construction.
Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The sufficiency rating of the existing bridge is
27.9 out of a possible 100. The new bridge will provide wider road shoulders on either side
of the structure which will increase the safety for the bridge.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 13

Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed impacts include 0.10 acre of
permanent fill and 0.07 acre of mechanized clearing; less that 0.01 acre temporary fill in wetland
due to the piles for the temporary work bridges; less than 0.01 acre fill in surface water from the
piers for the proposed bride structure and less than 0.01 acre fill in surface water from the piles
of the temporary work bridges.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on ma) (acres) es/no) (linear feet)
(Site I) Fill from Permanent 0.10 Yes 10 Non Riparian
bride iers
(Site 1)
Mechanized Permanent 0.07 Yes 10 Non Riparian
Clearin
(Site 1) Fill from Temporary <0.01 Yes 10 Non Riparian
work brid e

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
•* 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:/hvww.fema.~v_.
*•* List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (c.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: O.Sacre
(non coastal wetlands)
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.2 acre
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before [m act Perennial or
Intermittent?
leases eci )
(site I) Fill in SW Permanent <0.01 Town Creek 80 feet Perennial
Fill in SW Temporary <0.01 Town Creek 80 feet Perennial

• List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching straightening, etc. if stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
•" Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as U"I' (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
ww~+.usgs.f;ov_. Several Internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.togozonc.com,
www.mapuuest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 13

Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: <0.01 acre
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)

Type of Impact* Area of

Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
ba ,ocean, etc.)
NA

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dreaging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Specific avoidance and minimization measures for this project include usins? a maximum
slope of 3.1 and r~lacing the existing bridge in its current location with anoff--site detour. The
new bridge will span the entire width of Town Creek with none of the supportin>; structures in
the water The tidal freshwater marsh will not be impacted because the new bride will span this
community as well.
Page 9 of 13

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http: //h2o.enr.state.nc. us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The NC DENR Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) will assume responsibility for
satisfying the Section 404 compensatory mitigation requirement for NCDOT projects that are
listed in Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during the EEP transition period with ends on July 1
2005.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
Page 10 of 13

the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.17 acre if onsite; 0.34
acre if offsite
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ^
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ^ No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page I I of 13

Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
NA

Total
• Gone 1 extends out 30 tact perpendicular trom near bank of channel; "Lone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
NA
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
NA
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application?
Yes ^ No
Page 12 of 13

XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~~ ~ ~ ~ o~
Ap licant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13

~,w.AAT[o,~
r
~~aw.d~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 5, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E. „_, ..~ F~.,~ a
EEP Transition Manager ~ ,,,~,,, ~s ~ ,M ~ ~;. ~,,,,,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center f~if„' ~' 2004
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 [[ '' ~aa
Dear Sir: ~t•,i,,s<i~:.:,~d~i~~'.; .'.;;±~~?f?AAM
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Request for EEP Confirmation of Mitigation: Brunswick County. Bridge No.
61 on NC 133 over Town Creek. Federal Project No. BRSTP-133(1), -State
Project No. 8.1231401, WBS Element: 32874.1.1, TIP No. B-3115.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 61
over Tom Creek on NC133. Bridge No. 61 will be replaced on the existing alignment with a new
bridge approximately 300 feet in length and a cleared roadway width of 32 feet. The approaches
will include two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders. During construction traffic will be detoured
to NC 87. Impacts to wetlands associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 61 will include
0.10 acre of permanent fill and 0.07 acre of mechanized clearing.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application can be found at
http•//www ncdot org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Applications.html. The remaining impacts to
jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. We
estimate that 0.17 acre of wetlands will be impacted.

The project is located in the Southern Outer Coastal Plain in Brunswick County in the Cape
Fear River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03030005.
The wetland impacts, summarized in Table 1, totals 0.17 acre of non-riverine bottomland
wetlands. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the wetland impacts by using
the EEP for the 0.17 acres of impacts.
Table 1: Summary of Jurisdictional Impacts
Section Permanent Wetlands ac Streams ft
Riverine Non riverine
R/W 13+70-L-
To 16 + 70-L- 0.17
Please send the letter of confirmation to Dave Timpy (LJSACE Coordinator) at U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers Division 3 Regulatory Field Office, (P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC
28402-1890). Mr. Timpy's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the project is
July 20, 2004 for which the let review date is (June 1, 2004).
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
(North Carolina Division of Water Quality) requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their
willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT
requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with
copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Carla Dagnino at
[phone]
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM Mr. Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Mike Street, NCDMF Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E. ,Hydraulics Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental Mr. H. Allen Pope, PE; Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, DIV 3 DEO

"` r
Brunswick County
Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-133 (1)
State Project 8.123140]
TIP No. B-3115
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
~ t a z. ~ ~.~--
Date Robert P. Hanson, P. E., Assistant Manager
r Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
I~
ti
l lC lC L ~, ,~ ~~
Date icholas Graf, P. E.
Drvts~on Admmtstrator, FHWA

Brunswick County
Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-133 (1)
State Project 8.1231401
TIP No. B-3115
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
1 ~ U~ ~n ~~
a e Beverly G. R son
Project Development Engineer
7/i/ot ~
i
Date J mes A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
Project Development, Unit Head .
~ Z a2
Dat Robert P. Hanson, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
t~t~H CARO~jHq•~.
,mac o~ES o'~,t '',
~ gE Al l 1
207tI1
~~Q
~~ N~~ E ••' S' ~,
.,~ ~••..I N..• ~.
'•., A. M ~N
.,,,~~
~.l.oz

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
II. HISTORY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................... 2
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS .................................................... 2
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 2
V. STUDIED ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 3
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................ 4
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................... 4
A. General Project Information ............................................................... 4
B. Air and Noise ..................................................................................... 5
C. Land Use & Farmland Effects ............................................................ 5
D. Historical Effects & Archaeological Effects ...................................... 6
E. Natural Resources .............................................................................. 6
1. Soils ....................................................................................... 6
2. Water Resources .................................................................... 6
a. Best Usage Classification ........................................... 7
b. Stream Characteristics ............................................... 7
c. Water Quality ............................................................. 7
d. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network........... 8
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................... 8
3. Biotic Resources .................................................................... 9
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................ 9
b. Aquatic Community ................................................... 11
4. Wildlife .................................................................................. 11
a. Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................... 11
b. Aquatic Impacts ......................................................... 12

5. Jurisdictional Topics .............................................................. 12
a. Waters of the United States ........................................ 12
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....... 13
c. Permits ....................................................................... 13
d. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ........................ 14
6. Bridge Demolition ................................................................. 14
7. Rare and Protected Species .................................................... 14
a. Federally-Protected Species ....................................... l4
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species 23
VIII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.......... 25
IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 26
TABLES
Table 1 Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .................................. 12
Table 2 Federally Protected Species for Brunswick County ........................... 15
Table 3 Federal Species of Concern for Brunswick County ........................... 24
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Snapshots of Bridge
Figure 4 Proposed Detour Route
APPENDIX

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
TIP PROJECT B-3115, Brunswick County
Bridge No. 61, on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-133(1)
State Project 8.1231401
1. Structure Design Unit, Division 3:
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 61 is 300 feet (91.4 meters) long and 26.4 feet
(8.04 meters) wide. It has a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams with concrete caps
on timber piles. Thus, there is a potential for components of the bridge to be dropped
into Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the bridge will be as much as approximately 158.9 cubic yards. This
calculation was based on the entire length of the bridge extending over surface waters as•
well as jurisdictional wetlands. All deposited components will be removed from the
Waters of the U.S. as quickly as possible. During construction, Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed. To ensure the project
will not adversely affect the endangered shortnose sturgeon, explosives will not be used
in the bridge demolition.
2. Hydraulics Unit, Structure Design Unit, Division 3:
Stream Crossing Guidelines: NCDOT's "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage" will be followed in the design 8c construction phases.
3. Division 3:
Construction Moratorium: There will be no in-water or in-marsh activity from
February 1 thmugh June 15. This is considered the in-migration, spawning, and out-
migration period for the endangered shortnose sturgeon and another anadromous fish.
All measures should be taken to prevent sedimentation in Town Creek during
construction.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a list of "Precautions for the
general construction in areas which may be used by the West Indian manatee in North.
Carolina." These precautions will be considered in all aspects of project construction;
therefore, this project will not affect the West Indian manatee.
NCDOT has agreed to delay closing NC 133 until after Labor Day.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
June 2002

4. Roadside Environmental Unit:
DesigniStandards in Sensitive Watersheds: To ensure the project will not
adversely affect the endangered shortnose sturgeon, Design Standards for Sensiti
Watersheds (formerly High Quality Water Guidelines) will be used.
S. Roadway Design Unit:
Fill slope in wetland areas: To minimize wetland impacts and provide for s~ope
stability, the maximum fill slope of 3:1 will be used in wetland areas. .
6. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Division 3:
1) NCDOT will investigate whether any necessary improvements are needed for
to be used as a detour route, including the need for additional traffic signals at
resurfacing..
2) NCDOT will provide Carolina Power and Light Company and Brunswick Coy
Emergency Management Officials with an estimate of the amount of time the
of NC 133 will add to evacuation times for the Brunswick Nuclear Plant.
3) In response to local government requests, NCDOT will provide further public
notification regarding this bridge replacement, road closure and detour route.
will be coordinated with Brunswick County Emergency Management.
87

Categorical Exclusion
June 2002
Page 2 of 2

Brunswick County
Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-133 (1)
State Project 8.1231401
TIP No. B-3115
Bridge No. 61 carries NC 133 over Town Creek in Brunswick County. TIP
• Project B-3115 proposes to replace this bridge, and is programmed in the Draft 2004-
2010Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NC 87
will be used as a detour route during the replacement of Bridge No. 61 and will be
' patched and resurfaced as a part of this project. This project is part of the Federal
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been
classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are
expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 61 will be replaced in its existing location on NC 133 over Town
Creek (see Figure 2). The new bridge will be approximately 300 feet (91 meters) in
length and placed at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will
be detoured onto NC 87 (See Figure 4).
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 32 feet (9.6 meters),
which will provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) offsets. The
approaches will include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4 meter) shoulders
with 4-foot (1.2 meter) full depth paved shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the
design speed should be approximately 60 mph (100 km/h).
NC 87 will be used as the detour route during the replacement of Bridge No. 61.
NC 87 will be patched and resurfaced from the southern city limits of Boiling Spring
Lakes to the northern city limits of Boiling Spring Lakes.
The proposed project is included in the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The current schedule includes right of way acquisition in
July 2003 and construction in July 2004.
The estimated cost of the project is $1,905,000 including $1,400,000 in
construction costs, $5,000 in right of way costs and $500,000 for patching and resurfacing
NC 87. The estimated cost shown in the Draft 2004-2010 TIP is $1,935,000 which
includes $235,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,700,000 for construction.

II. HISTORY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
A Categorical Exclusion was approved for this project on May 23, 2000 by
NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. In the approved Categorical
Exclusion, the recommended alternative would replace Bridge No. 61 on new location
west of the existing bridge. The existing bridge would be utilized as a detour structure.
After further investigation, it was determined the proposed horizontal alignment would be
worse than the existing horizontal alignment. It was determined replacing the bridge on
existing alignment with an offsite detour would be the best alternative for this project and
reduce the project cost. Because this alternative was not discussed in the May 2000
categorical exclusion, this new document has been prepared.
A second bridge project is located along NC 133 in the area. TIP Project B-3116
will replace Bridge Number 56 carrying NC 133 over Allen Creek. This bridge is located
approximately 4.5 miles (7.24 kilometers) south of Bridge Number 61. NC 133 will be
closed and NC 87 used as a detour for this project also. Right of way acquisition for
Project B-3116 is scheduled for federal fiscal year 2002 and construction is scheduled for
federal fiscal year 2003.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be required.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 133 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Currently (2001) the traffic volume is 12,000 vehicles per day
(VPD). By the year 2025, the traffic volume is projected to increase to 25,000 vpd. Single
unit trucks and tractor-trailers make up three percent and two percent of these volumes,
respectively. NC 133 has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour.
The existing bridge was built in 1955. It has a reinforced concrete deck on steel
I-beams and the substructure is concrete caps on timber piles. The deck is 300 feet
(91 meters) long and 26 feet (7.8 meters) wide. There is approximately 26 feet
(7.8 meters) of vertical clearance between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and the
streambed. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 35 tons (31751.5
kilograms) for single vehicles and the legal load limit for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The
sufficiency rating is 27.9. This structure is functionally obsolete and the substructure is
becoming structurally deficient.

Vertical alignment is good with a slight upgrade on the north side of the bridge.
There is a slight curve in the horizontal alignment, which begins approximately 150 feet
(45.7 meters) from the north end of the bridge. The approach pavement width is 19 feet
(5.8 meters) with acceptable width grass shoulders.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates 14 accidents were reported between
April 1998 through March 2001 from SR 1518 (Daws Creek Road) to SR 1555 (Mellaney
Lane).
Four school buses cross over the studied bridge with 2 trips per day.
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are underground phone cables
on both sides of NC 133 going aerial across the creek. There is also a fiber optic cable
underground along the east side of NC 133. Also along the east side of NC 133, there are
overhead power lines that cross over to the west side just south of the bridge.
V. STUDIED ALTERNATIVES
The four "build" options considered for this project are as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 61 in place with a temporary detour bridge located to
the west during construction. The estimated cost for Alternate 1 is
$2,110,000 to include $1,875,000 for construction and $235,000 for right
of way acquisition.
Alternate 2) Replace bridge No. 61 on new alignment to the west of the existing bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
estimated cost for Alternate 2 is $1,935,000 to include $1,700,000 for
construction and $235,000 for right of way acquisition.
Alternate 3) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 61 in place with a new bridge.
Traffic will be detoured onto NC 87 during construction. The estimated
cost for Alternate 3 is $1,405,000 to include $1,400,000 for construction
and $5,000 for right of way acquisition.
Alternate 4) Replace Bridge No. 61 on new alignment to the east of the existing bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
estimated cost for Alternate 4 is $3,425,000 to include $2,475,000 for
construction and $950,000 for right of way acquisition.
"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.

Alternates 1 and 3 both replace the existing structure in the same location with a
bridge approximately 300 feet (91 meters) in length and maintain a design speed of 60
mph (100 km/h). Alternate 3 is recommended because there is no onsite detour.
Although Alternate 2 offers the same benefits; but, this alignment would require an on-
site detour. Alternate 4 would increase the impacts to the project area. The Division
concurs in the recommendation.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 61 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a new bridge
in the same location. The new bridge will be approximately 300 feet (91 meters) in
length and placed at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will
be detoured onto NC 87 during construction (See Figure 4).
NC 87 will be patched and resurfaced from the southern city limits of Boiling
Spring Lakes to the northern city limits of Boiling Spring Lakes as a part of this project
(see Figure 5 ).
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 32 feet (9.6 meters),
which will provide two 12-foot (3.6 meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2 meter) offsets. The
approaches will include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders
with 4-foot (1.2-meter) full depth paved shoulders. Approach work will extend
approximately 600 feet (180 meters) to either side of the new bridge. Based on
preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 60 mph (100 km/h).
NC 133 will be closed during replacement of Bridge No. 61.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of
the human or natural environment with implementation of the environmental
commitments listed in the project commitments section of this document and use of
current NCDOT standards and specifications.
4

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 known hazardous waste impacts.
No significant adverse effects on families or communities are anticipated. Right-
of-way acquisition will be very minimal.
No significant 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.
Closing NC 133 to construct Bridge No. 61 will require 18.6 miles (29.9
kilometers) of additional travel for residents traveling from south of Bridge No. 61 to
US 17. Road user cost for this additional travel will be approximately $300,000.
Additional time will be required for school bus services and other public services. The
public officials in charge of administering these services have been consulted and do not
object to the recommended alternative.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Brunswick County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
This project will impact no soils considered to be prime or important farmland.

D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates they "are aware of no
historic structures within the area of potential effect." Therefore, the SHPO
recommended no historic architectural surveys be conducted (see appendix).
The SHPO knows of no archaeological sites within the proposed project area. It is
unlikely that any archaeological resources, which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction.
Therefore, the SHPO recommended that no archaeological investigations be conducted in
connection with this project (see appendix).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Soils
There are two soil types located in the project area. A brief description of
each soil type is provided.
• Chowan silt loam (CHl is nearly level, poorly drained soil found on
floodplains of the Cape Fear River and its tributaries. It has a
surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam, underlain by grayish-
brown silty clay loam. It has slow surface runoff, moderately slow
permeability, and is flooded for six months of most years. The
main limitations of this soil are wetness and flooding. The
Capability Unit is VIIw. This soil is listed as hydric for Brunswick
County.
Bavmeade fine sand (BaB) is awell-drained soil found on low ridges
and convex divides. The surface layer is dark gray fine sand,
underlain with a light gray fine sand. Surface runoff is slow,
permeability is moderately rapid, and the available water capacity
is low. The seasonal high water table is four to five feet below the
surface. The Capability Unit is IIIs.
2. Water Resources
There is one water resource in the project study area. NC 133 crosses one
perennial stream, Town Creek (also known as Rattlesnake Branch).

a. Best Usage Classification
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the
Lower Cape Fear River, Coastal Watershed (Subbasin 03-06-17), and
Hydrologic Unit 03030005 of the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) which reflects water quality conditions
and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same
classification as the streams to which they flow. The classification for
Town Creek [DEM Index No. 18-18, 9/1/74] is CSw. Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. The Sw (Swamp Waters)
subclassification is a supplemental classification intended to recognize
those waters having naturally occurring low velocities, low pH, and low
dissolved oxygen. Town Creek is also classified as an Anadromous Fish
Stream.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
b. Stream Characteristics
The headwaters of Town Creek are approximately 23.3 kilometers
(14.5 miles) west-northwest of Bridge No. 61. The creek flows east
southeastward under the project bridge and outfalls into the Cape Fear
River approximately 3.1 kilometers (1.9 miles) east of the project study
area.
Town Creek, at NC 133, is approximately 80.0 feet (24.4 meter)
wide and ranges in depth from 6.0 to 8.0 feet (1.8 to 2.4 meter). The
substrate in the study area is most likely composed of organic muck. The
creek is tidal, occasionally bringing brackish water into what would
otherwise be a freshwater marsh.
c. Water Quality
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a
pipe, ditch, or other defined points of discharge. Point source dischargers
located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no NPDES sites
located within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area.

Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. Excluding road runoff,
there were no identifiable non-point sources that could be observed during
the site visit. Due to the potential of impacts from deck drains, every effort
will be made not to discharge the bridge deck drains directly into the
stream, if possible.
d. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this
goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical and physical data that can be
used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed
every S years. An assessment of water quality data indicates that the
Lower Cape Fear River and Coastal Watershed generally has good to
excellent water quality due largely to good tidal flushing (NCDEHNR
1995a).
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water
quality management, DWQ's Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There are no
BMAN sampling stations in the project vicinity (NCDEHNR 1995a).
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result
from activities associated with project construction, such as clearing and
grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction,
fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation.
The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from
the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the
crossing and increased erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to
vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway
runoff.

Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel
and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes
in surface and groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the
project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of
the project. The short-nosed sturgeon may inhabit the project study area.
Accordingly, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (formerly High
Quality Water Guidelines) will be enforced during the construction phase
of the project. The project study area is located within the coastal plain
and crosses a perennial stream. NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage (see Appendix) will be adhered to during the
life of the project. To further insure water quality suitable for the
shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous fish, a moratorium on in-stream
work will be enforced from February 1 through June 15 All measures
should be taken to prevent sedimentation in Town Creek during
construction.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include tenrestrial and aquatic communities. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an
asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Much of the flora and fauna described from biotic communities
utilize resources from different communities, making boundaries between
contiguous communities difficult to define. There are four communities
located in the project area to the west of NC 133 (impact area). While not
lying within the project area boundaries, the adjacent cypress-gum swamps
are nevertheless noteworthy. The communities contained within the
project area are discussed below.
Tidal Freshwater/ Brackish Marsh
Tidal freshwater (brackish influenced) marsh, oligohaline variant,
is found to the north and south of Town Creek. This variant occurs in
areas with slight salt influence. Salt levels may be higher during rare high
tide events. Although these marshes form upstream of the mouth of the
creek, they are still tidally influenced. Tidal flooding brings in nutrients
derived from seawater and varying amounts of sediment to the community.
9

Much of the tidal freshwater marsh community is unusual in appearing to
have recently replaced tidal cypress-gum swamp. Numerous dead trees
and some live trees remain in the marsh. It is uncertain what caused the
shift. Possibilities include storm-driven salt-water intrusion or rising sea
level. It is presumed to be a natural process. In contrast to brackish and
saltwater marshes, tidal freshwater marshes are very diverse. The Town
Creek site is dominated by common cattail, wax myrtle, black willow,
Arrow arrum, and beakrush.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community exists in what appears to be an old borrow pit,
which originates from the southern edge of the marsh community and
roughly parallels NC 133 to the southwest of the bridge. It was most
likely formed when the road was constructed. It is approximately 30 feet
(9.1 meters) wide and 5 feet (1.5 meters) deep. The soils here are
composed of highly organic mucks and there is evidence of frequent
flooding, presumably overflow from Town Creek. The overstory is
dominated by bald cypress, swamp tupelo, red maple, and sweet gum.
Dominant herbs and vine include: netted chain fern, arrow arum, catbrier,
rush, royal fern, Virginia chain fern, and poison ivy.
Upland Pine Forest
This strip of woods borders the west side of the "borrow pit".
Mature loblolly pine and sweet gum dominate this community. The
understory consists primarily of red bay, water oak, southern magnolia,
sassafras, and mockernut hickory. Other species present include
muscadine, honeysuckle, wax myrtle, and poison ivy.
Disturbed Roadside
This upland community is located to the north and south of the
marsh community on both sides of NC 133. It encompasses two types of
habitats that have recently been or are currently impacted by human
disturbance: maintained roadside shoulder and disturbed fringe. Because
of mowing and the use of herbicides, this community is kept in a constant
state of early succession. Roadside shoulder is a regularly maintained
habitat that is kept in aloes-growing, early successional state. Herbs,
grasses, and vines located here include: goldenrod, morning glory, pepper
vine, ragweed, Japanese honeysuckle, common plantain, winged sumac,
muscadine grape, and catbrier.
Disturbed fringe is comprised of shrubs and sapling sized trees that
exist in the roadside shoulder/ freshwater marsh ecotone. Species
10

observed here include: wax myrtle, red maple, sweet gum, and black
willow.
b. Aquatic Community
The Natural Heritage Program lists the area east of Town Creek as
a priority Aquatic Habitat and the area west of Town Creek as priority
Tidal Wetlands.
4. Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich
ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common
mammals and birds associated with ecotones and upland forests are woodchuck,
least shrew, southern short-tailed shrew, hispid cottonrat, eastern cottontail
rabbits, ruby crowned kinglet, Carolina chickadee, bluebird, downy woodpecker
and white-breasted nuthatch. The ground beetle and bessbug were also found in
this community, feeding under logs.
The adjacent cypress-gum swamp provides habitat for an assortment of
birds and mammals. Birds often associated with swamp communities include red-
winged blackbird, white-throated sparrow, song sparrow, and northern cardinal.
Yellow-romped warblers and common yellow throat may also be found in this
community. Yellow warbler, red-eyed vireo, Carolina wren and mourning dove
may also frequent this area.
Mammals that may frequent the swamp community include white-footed
mouse and raccoon. In addition, white-tailed deer* and gray squirrel may also forage
in or near this community. Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant
in the riparian edge. Spring peeper* and northern cricket frog* breed in semi-
permanent pools during the spring. Rat snake, worm snake, ring-necked snake and
queen snake may be found here as well. The box turtle may also be found in the
swamp community.
a. TerrestrialImpacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction. Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities
resulting from project conswction. Estimated impacts are derived based on a
project length of 1,000 feet (304.8 meters), and the entire proposed right of
way width of 60 feet (18.3 meters). However, project construction often does
not require the entire right-of--way; therefore, actual impacts may be less.

Table 1. Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacted Area ac (ha)
Altenate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4
Communi Existing
~ Location Pen~nanent Existing Permanent
Realignment Location Realignment
Tempo~Y West Road Closure East
detour
1 tClal rreshwater Marsh
(wetland)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
(wetland)
Pine Forest
0.16ac/o.12 ac 0.16 ac
(0.07 ha)(o.os ha) (0.07 ha)
0.12ac/o.lo ac 0.12 ac
(0.05 ha)(o.o4 ha) (0.05 ha)
0.29 aclo.21 ac 0.29 ac
0.16 ac 0.90 ac
(0.07 ha) (0.36 ha)
0.12 ac 0.25 ac
(0.05 ha) (0.10 ha)
0.29 ac 0.29 ac
(upland) (0.12 ha)(o.09 ha) (0.12 ha) (0.12 ha) (0.12 ha)
Disturbed Roadside 1.12 ac/o.83 ac 1.12 ac 1.12 ac 1.12 ac
(upland) (0.44 ha)/(o.33 haJ (0.44 ha) (0 44 ha) (044 ha)
Total Impacts 1.69 ac/1.26 ac 1.69 ac 1.69 ac 2.56 ac
(0.68 ha)(o.sl ha) (0.68 ha) (0.68 ha) (1.02 ha)
Note: Detour impacts are based on a right of way width of 80 feet ( 24.4 meters).
Temporary detour impacts are shown in italics .
b. Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Town Creek will result from
the replacement of Bridge No. 61. Impacts are likely to result from the
physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality).
Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic
community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall
quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can
result in the following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting
from an increased sediment load.
5. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge
or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
12

b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
There are wetlands in the project area in the form of tidal
freshwater marshes. Vegetation includes common cattail, wax myrtle,
Arrow arrum, and beakrush. Permanent and temporary impacts are as
follows:
• Alternate 1 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of the
bridge on the same alignment are approximately 0.28 acres (0.12
hectares). Temporary impacts for the construction of a temporary
detour to the west of the existing bridge are 0.22 acres (0.09
hectares).
• Alternate 2 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of
the bridge to the west of the existing bridge with a new bridge are
approximately 0.28 acres (0.12 hectares).
• Alternate 3 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of the
bridge on the same alignment are approximately 0.28 acres (0.12
hectares).
Alternate 4 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of
the bridge to the east of the existing bridge with a new bridge are
approximately 1.15 acres (0.46 hectares).
There will be no impacts to jurisdictional surface waters because
the new bridge will span the entire width of Town Creek.
c. Permits
The subject project is located within a county that is under the
jurisdiction of Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA is
administered by the N. C. Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to
identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) in which
uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to property,
public health and natural environment. A CAMA penmit from the
NCDCM is required if the project meets all of the following conditions:
a) Located in one of the twenty counties covered by CAMA;
b) Located in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
c) Considered to be "development" under CAMA; and,
d) Not qualify for an exemption as identified by CAMA or the CRC.
13

The project fulfills all of the above statements. More specifically,
the project will require a CAMA major development permit.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification
from the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide Permit.
The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance
of a Section 404 permit or CAMA permit.
The FHWA has determined a US Coast Guard permit will not be
required for construction of this project.
d. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Specific avoidance and minimization measures for this project
include: using a maximum slope of 3:1, and replacing the existing bridge
in its current location with an off-site detour. Final design will reveal final
impacts. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest on the Corps of
Engineers.
6. Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 61 is 300 feet (91 meters) long and 26.4 feet (8.04 meters)
wide. It has a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams with concrete caps on
timber piles. There is potential for some components of the bridge to be dropped
into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the reinforced concrete floor would be a maximum of 158.9 cubic
yards (121.5 cubic meters). This calculation was based on the entire length of the
bridge extending over surface waters as well as jurisdictional wetlands. All
deposited components will be removed from the Waters of the U.S. as quickly as
possible.
Bridge removal for this project is classified as Case 2 for bridge removal
which allows no work at all in water through a moratorium period of February 1
through June 1 S.
7. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists fifteen federally protected
species for Brunswick County. Biological Conclusions of "No Effect"
14

were found for all federally protected species, except the shortnose
sturgeon. Although no populations of this species have been reported from
the project vicinity, favorable habitat does exist for this species. Based on
concurrence of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a biological
conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" has been determined for
the shortnose sturgeon.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
shows two occurrences of federally protected species in the project study
area. The American alligator and the red-cockaded woodpecker (last
observed in 1973) have been observed within 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) of the
project area.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Brunswick Coun
----
moron Name Scientific Name ~ Status
shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened,
due to similarity of appearance
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Piping Plover
Greet Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Eastern Cougar
Bald Eagle
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Wood Stork
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
West Indian Manatee
Seabeach Amaranth
Caretta caretta Threatened
Charadrius melodus Threatened
Chelonia mydas Threatened
Dermochelys coriacea Endangered
Fells concolor couguar Endangered
Halieetus leucocephalus Threatened
Lepidochelys kempii Endangered
Mvcteria americana Endangered
Picoides borealis Endangered
Trichechus manatus Endangered
Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
Rough-Leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
Note: "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout ail or a
significant portion of its range.
"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Descriptions of Federally Protected Species found in Brunswick County, NC
Name: shortnose sturgeon
Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small (1 meter in length) species of fish that occurs
in the lower sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John
River, Canada to the Indian River, Florida. It can be differentiated from the Atlantic
IS

sturgeon because of its shorter snout, wider mouth, and the pattern of its preanal shields
(the short-nose having one row and the Atlantic that has two).
The short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with salinity less than seawater.
It feeds benthicly on invertebrates and plant material and is most active at night. It is an
anadromous species that spawns upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within
close proximity of the rivers mouth. At least two entirely freshwater populations have
been recorded, in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by
dams or pollutants to reproduce successfully.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique
habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity. However, favorable habitat does exist for this species.
Based on a conversation with the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Service on December 3,
1999, a moratorium is recommended to avoid in-water activity from February 1 through
June 15. The National Marine Fisheries Services concurs with the recommendation of
North Carolina Marine Fisheries, and has issued a finding of "Not likely to Adversely
Affect" for the impacts of the shortnose sturgeon (see letter in Appendix). This is
dependent on the commitments found on the Project Commitment Green Sheet.
Name: American alligator Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is
therefore not protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in
order to control the illegal trade of other protected crocodilians such as the American
crocodile, federal regulations (such as hide tagging) are maintained on the commercial
trade of alligators. No survey is required for this species. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on
September 12, 2001. There has been a sighting of this species within 1.0 km (0.6 mile) of
the project area.
Name: Loggerhead sea turtle Threatened
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The loggerhead sea turtle is found in a wide variety of habitats, including the open ocean,
bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and large river mouths. Hatchlings are
often seen in association with floating sargassum seaweed. The diet includes sponges,
jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish. Loggerheads often forage in coral reefs, rocky
areas, and shipwrecks.
16

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species end
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have
been reported from the project vicinity. There are no suitable beach or marine habitats
located in the project study area. Additionally, the project study area does not exhibit the
salinity necessary to support this species. Therefore, no effects to this species will occur
from the construction of this project.
Name: Piping plover Threatened
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The piping plover has a breeding range including the Great Lakes region and the
Atlantic Coast between Newfoundland and Cape Lookout, NC. Populations in the Great
Lakes region are listed as Endangered; populations elsewhere in the range are listed as
Threatened. This species winters on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts from North
Carolina to Mexico, and the Bahamas and West Indies. Preferred habitat consists of large
sandflats or mudflats for foraging in close proximity to a sandy beach for roosting and
nesting.
Piping plovers nest on sandy or gravelly beaches in sparsely vegetated areas that
are slightly higher in elevation than the surrounding beach
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have
been reported from the project vicinity. Suitable habitat does not exist within the project
vicinity for this species.
Name: Green sea turtle Threatened
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The green sea turtle can be found in tropical and temperate waters from
Massachusetts to Mexico on the east coast of North America, and British Columbia to
Baja California on the west coast, as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Most nesting in the United States takes place on the eastern coast of Florida between
Volusia and Dade Counties, though some nests have been observed in Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands as well
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
17

Name: Leatherback sea turtle
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The Leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the turtles, weighing 295-680 kg with a
length of 1.2-1.8 m. This turtle is unique in that its carapace is not composed of hard
scutes, but is rubbery with small bones embedded in it. Preferred nesting beaches are
usually isolated, with close proximity to deep water, bordered by vegetation, and steep
enough so that dry sand is not too far from the water.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Eastern cougar Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The eastern cougar is a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat weighing between 68 and
91 kg. The cougar's body and legs are a uniform tawny color, although the belly is a pale
reddish color, and the backs of the ears, tip of the tail, and sides of the muzzle are black.
Habitat requirements consist primarily of large tracts of wilderness and adequate
prey, and this species can live in coastal swamps as well as mountainous regions.
Cougars feed mainly on white-tailed deer, although they may also eat small mammals,
wild turkeys, and occasionally domestic livestock. It is estimated that a female cougar
can have a range of 5-20 square miles, and a male can have a range upwards of 25 square
miles.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Bald eagle Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can
be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of
Endangered
is

the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have
been reported from the project vicinity and no birds or nests were observed during the site
visit.
Name: Kemp's ridley sea turtle Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles in our area, weighing
36-50 kg. This turtle is unique in that its broad, heart-shaped carapace is gray, and there
is a secretory pore near the posterior edge of each scute forming the bridge between the
carapace and plastron.
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is found in shallow water, usually near coastal forests
of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Nearly the entire population nests on
approximately 24 km of beach in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Prefenred nesting
beaches are backed by large swamps or open water with nan ow ocean connections.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Wood stork Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Wood storks are large wading birds with long legs. They are approximately
1.27 m tall, with a wingspan of 1.52-1.65 m. Their plumage is mainly white, except for
black primaries and secondaries and a short black tail. The head and neck are
unfeathered, with dark gray skin; legs are dark, and the bill is black and slightly decurved.
Juveniles are grayish and have a yellow bill.
Nesting occurs in large colonies, primarily in cypress and mangrove swamps.
Favored feeding habitat includes freshwater marshes, tidal creeks, and tide pools,
especially pools in marshes or swamps where fish are concentrated by falling water
19

levels. The feeding grounds may be as far as 128 km from the nest location, as the storks
use thermals to soar great distances.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does exist within
the project vicinity for this species. However, only a few representatives of this species
have reached southeastern North Carolina, residing primarily in coastal South Carolina,
from near Georgetown southward (Potter 1980). There have been no populations of this
species reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are _>60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the
RCW is up to 500 acres (200 hectares). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12-100 feet (3.6-30.3 meters) above the ground and average 30-50 feet (9.1- 15.7
meters) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker was
last observed from the project vicinity in 1973. However, habitat suitable for this species
is no longer present in the project vicinity.
20

Name: West Indian Manatee
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Endangered
NO EFFECT
The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about 10
feet (3 m) long and weighing around l 000 pounds. The body of the manatee is nearly
hairless except for a muzzle covered with stiff "whiskers." The U.S. manatee population
was probably twice as abundant in the 1700's and early 1800's as at present. Initial
population decreases resulted from overharvesting for meat, oil, and leather. Today,
heavy mortality is attributed to accidental collisions with boats and barges, along with
loss of suitable habitat.
Manatees inhabit both salt and freshwater habitats of sufficient depth (greater than
1.5 m). They may be encountered in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine beaches, and salt
water bays. Observations of salt water populations indicate that they may require
freshwater for drinking purposes. Manatees also require warm water. When water
temperatures drop below 20 C, they begin to move into warmer water, often forming
large aggregations in natural springs and industrial outfalls during the winter.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of the West Indian
Manatee have been reported from the project vicinity. This species typically inhabits
more southern areas but has been observed on occasion in North Carolina's coastal waters
near South Port. Nevertheless, manatees are not likely to swim as far north as the NC 133
crossing of Town Creek.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a list of "Precautions for the
general construction in areas which may be used by the West Indian manatee in North
Carolina." These precautions will be considered in all aspects of project construction;
therefore, this project will not affect the West Indian manatee.
Name: Seabeach Amaranth
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Threatened
NO EFFECT
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps containing 5 to 20
branches and are often over a foot across. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or
reddish in color. Seabeach amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-
spatulate, emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach green in color, cluster
towards the end of a stem, and have winged petioles.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. Habitat for
Seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic
and natural manner. Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends
21

of islands and the lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary
populations often form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and beach
replenishment.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Roughed-leaved Loosestrife
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Endangered
NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved Loosestrife is endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills of North
Carolina and South Carolina.
Typical habitat for rough-leaved Loosestrife is the ecotone between high pocosin
and longleaf pine (or oak) savannas that contain sandy or peaty soils and full sunlight.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife sometimes occurs in low pocosin openings where light is
abundant at ground level. Other habitats where this species is found include ecotones of
stream-head pocosins in the Sandhills and Sandhill Seeps where wet sands are underlain
by clay, allowing water to seep to the surface along slopes.
Two populations ofrough-leaved Loosestrife occur along NCDOT rights-of--way
in Brunswick County.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife is a perennial herb growing from 30 - 60 cm (12 - 24 in)
tall. Its sessile leaves, in whorls of three to four, are broadest at the base and have three
prominent veins. The leaves are entire, slightly revolute (rolled under along the margins),
yellow-green or blue-green in color and lustrous. Rough-leaved Loosestrife flowers from
May to June.
Suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project area. During a
general survey of the area, the project area was also surveyed for this species by NCDOT
biologists on June 23, 1999. No individuals of this species were located in the project
area nor does the NCNHP database show in previous records of this species occurring in
the project area. Thus, construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
22

Name: Coole~~'s meadowrue Endangered
Best Search Time: mid June to early July
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in wet pine savannas, grass-sedge bogs and savanna
like areas, often at the border of intermittent drainages or swamp forests. This species is
usually found in areas that contain some type of disturbance such as clearings, burned
savanna edges, maintained roadsides and power line rights-of--ways. It is found on fine
sandy loam, circumneutral soils that are seasonally (winter) moist or saturated and only
slightly acidic (pH 5.8-6.6).
Cooley's meadowrue is a tall herb growing to 1 m or more when in flower. Its
slender stems are erect in sunny locations and lax or sprawling when shaded.
Suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project area. During a
general survey of the area, the project area was also surveyed for this species by NCDOT
biologists on June 23, 1999. No individuals of this species were located in the project
area nor does the NCNHP database show in previous records of this species occurring in
the project area. Thus, construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are thirty-seven federal species of concern listed by the FWS
for Brunswick County (Table 3). Federal species of concern are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. In addition, organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these
species (if afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat
in the project area for each species. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the protection status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
shows one occurrence of FSC species in the project study area. The
Northern pine snake has been observed within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
the project area.
23

Table 3. Federal species of concern for Brunswick County
-
Common Name Scientific Name NC Habitat
Status Present
Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestit.'alis SC No
Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SR No
Carolina Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T Yes
Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus SR* No
Mimic Glass Lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC/PT No
Eastern Painted Bunting Passerina ciris ciris SR Yes
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melano/eucus melanoleucus SC* Yes
Carolina,Gopher.Frog__.._..._.______..._. __......_Rana capito capito___._..._......_. _. _ SC/PT No
Buchholz's Dart Moth .
Agrotis buchholzi SR No
Arogos Skipper Atrytone arogos arogos 5R No
Waccamaw Spike Elliptio waccamawensis T No
Venus Flytrap Cutworm Moth Hemipachnobia subporphyrea subporphvrea SR No
Greenfield rams-horn Helisoma eucosmium SR N~~
Magnificent Rams-hem Planorbel/a magnifica E No
Rare Skipper Problema bulenta SR Yes
.Cape Fear Threetooth ___ _ Triode sis soelneri T Yes

Savanna Indigo-Bush
Amorpha georgiana var conjusa
T _
_
Yes
Honeycomb Head Balduina atropurpurea C* No
Chapman's Sedge Carex chapmanii W 1 * Yes
Venus Flytrap Dionaea muscipula C-SC No
Dwarf Burhead Echinodorus parvulus C Yes
Harper's Fimbry Fimbristylis perpusil/a T Yes
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C No
Carolina Bogmint Macbridea caroliniana T Yes
Loose Watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxum T No
Savanna Cowbane Oxypolis ternata W 1 No
Carolina Grass-Of-Parnassus Parnassia caroliniana E No
Pineland Plantain Plantago sparsiflora E No
Awned Meadow-Beauty Rhezia aristosa T* No
Swamp Forest Beaksedge Rhynchospora decurrens C Yes
Theme's Beaksedge Rhvnchospora thornei E No
Carolina Goldenrod Solidago pulchra E No
Spring-Flowering Goldenrod Solidago verna T No
Wireleaf Dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius sensus stricto T No
Carolina Asphodel Tofieldia glabra C No
Dune Bluecurls Trichostema sp 1 C No
Savanna campylopus Campvlopus carolinae C No
Note:
C A Candidate is any species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with I -20 populations in the state, genera lly substantially
reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence es a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
SC A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under regulations adopted under
the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservat ion Act (plants).
Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR A Significantly Rere species is not listed as "E", "T", or "SC", but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined to need monitoring.
T A Threatened species is any native or once native species which is likely to become an Endangered species within th e foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act.
W I A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which appears to be
relatively secure at this time.
/P_ denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered (PE), Threatened (PT), or Special Concern (PSC), but
has not yet completed the listing process.
' Historic record, the species was last observed prior to 1979.
24

VIII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On May 22, 2001 a citizens informational workshop was held in Brunswick
County for both this project and TIP Project B-3116. This workshop was held to obtain
comments and suggestions from the citizens in the project area. Approximately 25
persons attended this meeting. Most of the citizens in attendance opposed the road
closure to replace the two bridges. Some of the concerns with closing the road included
inconveniences to school buses, evacuation during hurricane season, emergency response
time and increased travel cost due to high gas prices. Most citizens, however, agreed the
bridge requires replacement.
With the option of closing NC 133 being the proposed recommendation, NCDOT
coordinated with Orton Plantation, a set of formal and informal gardens open to the
public to determine how this would affect their business. A spokesperson from Orton
Plantation was in favor of replacing the bridges and did not object to closing the road.
The let date was adjusted to allow construction to begin after mid-September to
accommodate Orton Plantation's schedule. This tourist attraction is open March through
November.
A meeting was held with natural resource agencies on June 14, 2001. The
purpose of this meeting was to discuss alternatives for TIP Projects B-3115 and B-3116
and to obtain concurrence on the recommended alternative for both projects. The result
of this meeting was a recommendation to replace Bridge No. 61 in its existing location
with a 300-foot (91 meter) bridge.
A meeting was held on July 9, 2001 with public officials in Brunswick County.
Representatives from Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Brunswick Nuclear
Plant and local emergency management officials had concerns with the road being closed
during hurricane season. They agreed however, the replacement of Bridge No. 61 along
with the adjacent bridge project were needed. CP&L and other officials did not object to
closing the road; however, they asked that NC 133 not be closed until after Labor Day, in
order to avoid the peak tourist season and reduce the amount of time the road will be
closed during hurricane season. NCDOT agreed to delay closing NC 133 until after
Labor Day. NCDOT will provide CP&L and the emergency management officials with
an estimate of the amount of time the road closure will add to evacuation times for the
plant.
A meeting was held on January 31, 2002 with representatives from emergency
: management and other local officials from Brunswick County, CP&L, citizens, State and
• Federal Resource Agencies, and NCDOT representatives. The purpose of this meeting
• was to discuss closing NC 133 to replace the two bridges. The meeting concluded with
NCDOT agreeing to gather information on cost and impacts for replacing the bridge on
new location to the east and making a decision after comparing all of the proposed
alternatives. NCDOT also agreed to leave Bridge No. 56 open while Bridge No. 61 is
being replaced.
25

A meeting was held on March 8, 2002 with NCDOT officials at the existing
bridge location. After consideration with the Board of Transportation Member for
Division 3 and the Division Construction Engineer it was decided to replace the bridge on
existing location with road closure and an offsite detour.
IX. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
26

FIGURES

` m~ "..
• 4•~: N
' ' l li« y~,'1~y .
~.~~:.
• v. ~,......~;.
_ B R U N S W 1: ~"" C
~~
y+r- .. 1M~i....: .:
4 i= ~_~
.~....
--
i..»;w. ::kn ~ k, k:,~, ~.
~~; .
~. ~,
.», -
.\

~ `'
~ }~',
`-.1."~
CAMPBELL
ISLAND `
~.
~a~"0"'" North Carolina Department of
Transportation
.,
~ Division of Highways
~,
'''~ ~~ Planning & Environmental Branch
Brunswick County
Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
B-3115
Figure One

~;=.
r.
LOOKING NORTH FROM THE SOUTH END OF $RIDGE

~ FIGURE 3
..
LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE NORTH END OF BRIDGE

• ,
. , I~
.I
-,
i
/.
t..
J ~1 X07
a

.,
., , - ,
, .
!

I t::
~
I
~ ~
: ,
-== ~~
~y,
--,
,,
.-

\ bMJO tMtMO'.
\ wvs
~
,
r ,
v
.~~
\ ~`
^
~
;
/
\ I~ i
\

'
.
!~
~~~I
~ ,•,
i
6.. ~ ~-~-.._
asP.n
ROM ~ ~~~
ror, of $
k
~I ~~
`\~
4
Rl~ N
~iJl -.+Zj~- -
,~
. v ~
~ ~\
.~, ~ ~
~,.._,.
~~
_ f~~f.
r
z
O
m
CAAt•9Ell ~) ~~ J ~,
Kl A1U /
~ I
~', / ~~ o
..~ ,. ,~ c
!
~ ,. i _
~t z
1
Bridge No. 5G
~..
..~' ~•~,Il ~ ;ill
1~1r°cfljp~~~~Ci~
~~.~~~
~c>
1 -~ ~ sutra
!sL~ ,~' 1
~ --. ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~` ~~ ~ 1 ° 1 ~ ~ ~ emu
1 ,Az~ O _ 0.7 ___ 1 MIL[
Ai TEftr NOTEt MAP INCLUDES ONLY STATE M4INTA INED lrDADS T
lSLAfO OR IMPORTANT NDN-SY57EM RDADS.
~. ~~
O~\\ ~ ~ ~ ~. orfr MILEAGE NOf SHOwN ON FRONTAGE RUapS.
~ i/ (4 ~S % r~ I ROADS SHDWN AS OF JAtI. I . I9gg
. ~ ref
sfmKMC
aLrtrlD '~ =~
fSSEUB f~G OutW ~. IIAR ~ f
IC~~ C®l~N
NORTH CA(tOLINA -~
rlGVr~ a
:_ •. ., n

i t
~~0~=
15.dr n
8
~ f
• +
•
..
s •
m°rn °m
0
z m mm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
O
D z
Z 13 Z .~-. ~
~ o r F,
~ ~ m
m v _ -,
~~-. Z Z W O
D N ~
Z m ~
O O c
~ n
i
~i
~.a C, ~
a \ ~:\ Tj~
,,~o ~
`'f
~` + \ \ w
\\
\~
...C
n
x
A
~,

ci
N
fl
n
1
+t
~x
o
4

m
N
m
m
N
7C
m
m

N

O

r
1

m

m
-~
~ ~
ro D
~~ ~
-r~ om°~<
m
N

0 ~o..~Z
w
= ~

~ omr
vc
~o
Z
~~'Tl D
Q
~' Z
~
A ~
~ o c~
c-~
'
~m=c=
r^ fTl - '"' Z z
C ~` Z ~ -C -C
r Z ~ N
('") .~
ao w
O
w
s
D
>:
~,

H/~7/99

t~/ ~i
cz
~ t
~ ~ 1 1•
tT
+ y u -I r
o ~ _ht
sa
m ' p. i
r '
U ^ +T
of
n
~(D
a
o ,,
~~ ~~ g r
~Qr

~
- N

'1'
Lh

~ os
~
~1
t 'S.
I~

~
e
V i
b ,~
`" ~'~'
ro + '~
r. ~
-~ O O Fh tJt
m
Q - ~ I-- -1,=:
S-

~' S s 1' o ~ 5~ i
O
~ J
° ~
v -
r ~ - f)
~

Ir
N
~
r~ ~•
to
~ ~
i y ~
=y0
r O 3 .~ ~-attl
U ~ n
_~
,t , n
~ a
~rr_
m
S ~ Ul ~ T°

L c mAtA
to
o ~ O
~_ ;
W %
~
; Pt
o
1 m
LO] ~ V
` -1
in r '0 „ n ~

O ~~~ ~
1 _~ .^ ~ w
r,
U .t y
v
t ~
m~ ' ~ ~ ,r
~..
C., e 4 <
~ ~ z \ = n v't
,Tc ,y
~` ~ - I ~ ~ ~
a;, ati
lll~~•iii -~ M.6S
N
~ ~ ~~ ~~
` ~
~ H
~ ~ ~ ~ /
~ _ _.I E ~~ 'Et"o 8 /.
M
... ~„
t ~
1
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~=
_ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
;~ ~ 4 `' bg

11 d~ N~^. ~ q ~ R ~
1
v t
l
-D `D (r~'' .11 t -,
Q
am ~ ~~ ~~~"'~~ni~
~~ -X- ~ 4 ~ ~~~
~~ ~ ~ \
,'
• /
\ ~ /
y
Ro
~ 1
~ ' ~
I o
,1~ ' ~ ~ Q1
_

T I~ ~
I

~ ~1 .~_
a ~ ~ ~ y
I
~~
A

~' ~-° -
-1
~ v
~
~ I ~
~ ; 1 ~ e
~ ~
I ~
,~~ ~ ..
„ ~~P _
w
N
~
•
' p
p
N 12

I i='~ ~
`
~
r- I
N~
~~P~ -
• m
, u
u-
~~~' g

~
~
I !
~ ~ ~
\ em
j ~ i
1
w~~ ~
\ia
{ ~T{
x
\ ~
Y ~
t I

\ I' t I
4 T 1
Y; } ~
• ~
. 1
~
X
~ ~
r? ~ ~
~ It
~\ ~ I a ~ ~~ ~ `\ ~~
T~f2
c'QF
F~

~ Y
Q ~
'`la ~
s
r
r l
7/ `y~ a
A ~
~~ ~
~~= o
j~l
>,~ ~~
~~ ~
~- ~ I ~ u1
~; Il ca t~
v
r
~_ ti
~ _W,~ A
~~~ = o \
I ~ f'1
~ ~~ ~ ~ \
JJ}^y~ O N 2
~" Vt
f
d` © `~
Ifl"MP
f a coat to t`'~~-`
U
~~.- _` ~.
~ ~ t-----------~
(r ~~
,A ~ ~ ~- ~
o a~ <
/ o o
,-
a ~: .r! P y A
s a" r.. .~ ~ 'n ,.,
r ;.a ~ + ~
s ,
. g
I t /cam
,~ - ~ _ u
~~ ~-
i ~
~3
-,mow
o a
i'^•r
\ a
,s
P
\~z1
~_
~~
~~~
z~
r~~~
1 1 ' ~
~/~
=--i
z_
} ~'
~~f~,
~~ ~
. ~ o
i
m
u

5.drn

f ~
•
i ~
• !
•
• •
~'-'
t-,i m m
D Z Z
~o 0
.-r -1 m -~I
GZ7 (n ~ (n
D
Z n Or
~= r
mD
-' z
r~
D N
O O
Cn
IJ vJ. ~
~~•.~.. ~T~f
\`
°s
Eo O
0
s
0
y~
TF
+ ry"s'~e cPF
.S. p I -f
~ A
4l
\.
~ ~,
_ ~;o,
I a
:O
N
Z
Q
.'.~
m
N
m
m
N
Z
m
m
"~
N
0
f•"
t
'D
O
r
m

r
r
A
x
T
A
f-
m
ru ~'
r~
D
~
o
n
om°W<
I0~ m~ncin
~~~NZ z

Q' D ••
-IG7W~
-{~ ~ o m ~v c-~ 0 O
~ zZ~~ O
~ O .ice n = -I
~ ~ 61'- C S
m m-^Z~
~ ~Z~~~
- ~ z~ N
~ ~~
co w
0
w

r
r ~~~
N~
I y~~
~/
I
_,
~\ ~,7 '
~.
T~1~
C',p~
Fy
,r
t R.[VIAONS
~ ~
I ~ '~~
~ ~ £ ~ la :~ ~ 1~~
a ~ ~ e
t
~}' x ~
9 I .. I ~ac>> : ~N
9~
w
~ ~ ~~
I~ ~ ~ ~
~ {1{ . ~-';
' IG 3=~ '
~ V'~~ Z
# 1`'
t l 11''i~4 ,T
: 1 `~ J
`, f ''~ •'li' ~

~bvl ~iS ~ \
~QUI ~ t
~r ~ L
t, [~I ~.
~~ u ~ A~ j
bd ~ ~ in
'~'•\
3 °'
~` _ -
~ ? ,~ ~ ;
~ ~:
N 1I
-. ~ '~ ~A
O ~'J I l~ •
'~ \ ~~
~~ .-~
r c
r
~ ~ r'n
t• s ~
L_ v _
.A
I ' O

//
\ ~/

4'
ilyi~
~l~
1`~~~~
r } ,r
N ~~ ~
3 ~~~ ~
ice/
r
`~ ~ t J
~~,~~ 1 ~ ~ ,1.~F
~~
fry I
~ ~~
C
`~
O T
~' ~
r~
~, ~ ~~

7/99
4~`
~
~ ~
~ °e ; h ;. r
°~
r
r
.
-~
n
.., Grp

..~
~ ((
n ~ tt~ omi'
~
L ~
0 .
~ fi ,V f'1~
~
N
r Q ~'
V [s1 .i ° ri
-t-
`~ ~ ~,
~ ~ U o ~
~
i m o 0
!0 .j~ iri
, ~
..~ °ul ~.~.......
o o U b~

<. ,
,
y~o
1 N
~~~° --
-i
U _. ° I~._ u n
~n
N ~-f <

~ e
a,~
_Q~
~
8 ~ ;
a _
; ~~
~, ~ o T P 5
~
~, ~
~
,
v
r $ ~>
r:

Ir
N

~
t+n
~ r
y q ~ 1..4, r_ Q
l ~
r
{ O Gq
pO
0 +~tll
~~
: y Ji ...t
U ~ ~~j~
I
D
~
_, _ ~
,.
n

.~ ~rl^
~
~
+ .
Ym
w ~ s o
y R

r'
O
Q
U ,
i
Ra ~i
C i ^ ` ~

'
' m
~?m v o
in r a ~~ n ~
I .e N .. s
'~ O nn n '
rt
v :•
r
-~
A
v
/~
ny
a~'
~~
~/1L
* ,~II

$ ' c ~~~r
i ~ ~ r, ``
~~ ';~
~ti
F ~ ~ ~ ~ A
KS'G o } fi n ~ ~~~A~irOD o
~~ ~~,. r ow°~ ey
,~ ~, ~ ~•' ~•= NgOtn~v~l~ntn~ t
~ ~ v,( r•
_ cv v -l. l
~~~ i ~ ~ b~3e ~iOOlt~
---Xi 4t Q CO
< ~ `
~ ~_- \\
- r tt--..
~(ni[ n €' ~ ~i
()~~ l~ ~ ~ C7 0
{ l ~E_ { N v
G
~- U
~ .W
~~ ~R~ s o \
I -i ~ \
/~' n h ,. \
N ~ ~_
t ® (~,.
i7 • MP t p \
~'-~~~ ~USE~INI
Nm ~ Q
G O _ Is
l o `~' o ~ :~~„~
a N
`^ ~~ t1~ \
~~ ~ rp
r -~ ~ - ~ ~ `rE.\
u,
(/1=
~~n
~-,~
~o
~~
'r ~
v
~~
~_
cn
I'~ ~ f V Ip
5' ~ ~
-. `~ U
~~
~~ ~
4

i~
O p
O~O
+__
ti -
- ii u
n
J U
0- W >
0
0
r~
a
0
m
Q
J
N
U7
D ~
W In
~ v
o p
o
J ~p
~~
p a~ ~o
N _ N ON
Lf'1 ~ Z -
.>a~.~
awcnw
F- J ~G
In W Ln N
c~
o
p 'r'
ou,o~
N - cD ~
+ N N p
~~ ~~
~~ J U
aw>

w
0
a
0
w
N
O
d
O
°I
I } _J F- '
$ U
I ~O~ ~ N ~
~ \ I z I-
~ ~ , a~
I wJ ' ' ~ ~
~w ~ ~ o = O
I ~ ~ '~ `~ w zo
{ pr ~ ~ °
i =~
~ , 'ICI `, N a ~ ~
.. I \`~~~ a ~ °z ~
I III '~~__
I 'I I I
" o
I ~ ~ o
I „ - --- --~~ .o
I III ~\
I I i ~~
III ~
I I
I ~~I---!-~---------------~
I ~ ~ ~I ry
„ ~_
III o, ,
I ~ ~ I ~I ~ /
I Il r--~; Q --------- ~'~
I III °~ +
I - ~ ~
I III w~
I ; ; I ~-I ~ ~ ~'
I Il f---r..,
I ~ ~ I zl -~
,~
I --,
I ~ ,,
.. I
I ill---' oc
"I
I III ~
I
L ~
I
I 2.~ ~
I -a~
Nei
f
I a ~~~
~ ~
I ~ i
I
I z
F-
N O
X
W
O
r
O O
N
H
a

~11~~~~~10 JL ~y ®V'V' ~~S ~11~,~
1~'AMES AI~TD ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
2 T. F. HOLDINGS
1 ~ TOWN CRESS
TIMBER COMPANY
3 ~ DAVID R. HARLESS
~ ~, J. CLARg HIPP
\..
~ `~ W.C. WARWICS,, III
1202 EASTWOOD RD.
WILMINGTON, NC 2803
P.O. BOX ~Q886
WILMINGTON, NC 2&Q06
2765 RIVER RD.5E
WINNABOW, NC 2879
50~ DOCg ST.
WILMINGTON, NC 3801
9165 RIVER OAgS LANE SE
WINNABOW, NC 28J79

r

z
O ~.
_ N
~
N
44 (/~ "
~
Q
m

O
~
U~
~
x
U
~
~'
o
O
o
O
3
m
Hz
w~ zH o
~~ ~w A
~~
~O
Q
a
W
Q ~
U
z

W
o ~-
a~
w w
~ ~
~
H
U ~
~
~
Q
o~
w
w
Q
O LL
~ ~
a~
o
w
' J
Q
O LL
LL }
~ ~
W
~
t
Q
W
~
W
O
o
W Z ~
Q ~ m
Y
N Z O
H ~ ~
a
~
3
3Z
~
QLL
g
lai LL 2 p
'
d
} ?R1
N Q W A
~
Z ~ ~
E
LL

LL ~ ~
~ W
z~a

m
d c
Z (/) ~
i

j
i ~~ i ,I i
I
i l l ~ ~~
! I
~ I i
~ i i ~! i ~

j I; R i

o
i ~ i I I
I
~ yy~
C I i f ~ ~ I
I~ ~ ~ ~
~
i l I I I
V
C
U
~ I I
!
I I I I I I I I
j
I~ I~ I l
I I I
I I
o
U
a w
E i
~
~ ~ i~ ~ I I I
~ i i~ i~ l
~ ~
~
w _
iL3
-
o
V ~ i !

I ~ i
~ ~~ j
I ~~
I I
l
~
i i

~ i j
w ~ ~ ~
I ~ ~ ~ ,
U I I I I
~
~
~^ I
I
v~ ~ ~ ~ O
~
~~~

c ~ ~ °
o
v I o
ii ?

~ ~ '~ ~
~ .. 0
0 0
0
N ~
~
H
V
~
~
~ ~
~~~ o
4S
~
Z
[i
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
e o
3
~~
5
~ 0 0
,y
~
~ ~
'
' 0 0
u
.

H ~

[~ ~ _
d'
m
O O
J J
O

~ v O
+ }
+
f

f0 Z
~ J
~
O

~F W A T En
_~
>_
rvii~haei F. Easley, Governor
G William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
~ North Carolina Department of Em~ironment and Natural Resources
"• Flan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
`~ Division of Water Quality
V~lilmington Regional Office
August 6, ?002
Mr. Andrew Nottingham, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Hydraulics Unit, 1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1590 =:,;,_
Subject:
Dear Mr. Nottingham:
Management Permit Regulations
NCDOT Project Number 8.1231401 (B-3115)
Stormwater Project No. S W8 020803
Bridge No. 61 over Town Creek on NC 133
Brunswick County
n c
(~ ~ UG 0 u 2002
DIVi5(0~! OF HiGH6V,
EXEMPTION from Stormwater HYG~~~IDS'UNI~
The Wilmington Regional Office received a copy of a Stormwater Management Permit
Application Form for the NCDOT Public Road or Bridge project known as Bridge. No. 61 over
Town Creek on NC 133. Staff of the Wilmington Regional Office have reviewed the application
for the applicability of the Stormwater Management rules to the proposed activity at this project.
Based on our review, the proposed development activity at this site is not subject to the
stormwater requirements as provided for in 15A NCAC 2H.1000.~ Please be advised that other
regulations may potentially apply to the proposed activities.
If your project disturbs five acres or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater
runoff, then it is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
stormwater discharge requirements. You are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater
discharge from projects meeting these criteria.
This exemption applies only to the Coastal Stormwater Management Permit for the
currently proposed activity. If at any time in the future, development of any part of this site is
planned, as defined in NCAC 2H.1000, or if the proposed activities differ in any manner from
what is shown on the plans on file with the Division, you must submit the project for review of
the .applicability of the stormwater management rules. If you have any questions concerning this
matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (9~ 0) 395-3900.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Rick Shiver
Water Quality Regional Super<-isor
RSS/arl: S:\WQS\STORMWAT\EXEMPT\020803.Aug
cc: Delaney Aycock, Brunswick County Building Inspections
Linda Lewts
Wilmington Regional Office
Central Files

~.
~~~~
w
NCDEM1R
u. urvision or vva~er uuaury ru ~arainai unve Extension Wilmington, N.C. 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service
a00-623-774&

~.-n~tec ~tdtes I~e~3~I"tl:Ie~It 0f tic ~r~.te~-~~t-
_~ 1u1S1{ .4!!D VVILllLIINE SER~'1C1;
- italcigh [~icld OCfw
Past Office Brix 33726
Kalciei~. North Caailint, 27636-i%2r~,
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), also known as the Florida manatee, is
a Federally-listed endangered aquatic mammal protected under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C 1461 et seq.). The manatee is also listed as endangered
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act of 1987 (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of
the General Statutes). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead Federal
agency responsible for the protection and recovery of the West Indian manatee under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Adult manatees average 10 feet long and weigh about 2,200 pounds, although some
individuals have been recorded at lengths greater than 13 feet and weighing as much as
3,500 pounds. Manatees are commonly found in fresh, brackish, or marine water habitats,
including shallow coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and inland rivers of varying salinity
extremes. Manatees spend much of their time underwater or partly submerged, making
them difficult to detect even in shallow water. While the manatee's principal stronghold in
the United States is Florida, the species is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North
Carolina with most occurrences reported from June through October.
To protect manatees in North Carolina, the Service's Raleigh Field Office has prepared
precautionary measures for general construction activities in waters used by the species.
Implementation of these measure will allow in-water projects which do not reQUire blasting
to proceed without adverse impacts to manatees. In addition, inclusion of these guidelines
as conservation measures in a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, or as part
of the determination of impacts on the manatee in an environmental document prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, will expedite the Service's review of the
document for the fulfillment of requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. These measures include:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the
project that manatees may be present in the project area, and the need to avoid any harm
to these endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all construction
personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about
completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be
informed that they are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence
of manatees.
2. The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that

there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction and/or dredging
operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions will be implemented to ensure
protection of the manatee. These precautions will include the immediate shutdown of
moving equipment if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operational area of the
equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee has departed the project area on
its own volition (i.e., it may not be herded or harassed from the area).
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report
mus# be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.$56.4520 ext. 16), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (ph. 252.448.1546).
5. A sign will be posted in all vessels assoaated with the project where it is clearly visible
to the vessel operator. The sign should state:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occur in these waters during the warmer
months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if operating
this vessel in shallowwater during these months. All equipment must be shut down
if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the vessel or operating equipment. A collision
with and/or injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (919-856-4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252.448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and/or injuries to
manatees during project activities. Upon completion of the action, the project managerwill
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees encountered and submit
the report to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake/idle° speeds
at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four foot
clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers will be: (a) made of
material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in a manner that they
cannot break free and entangle manatees; and, (c) regularly monitored to ensure that
manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to allow
manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
Prepared by (rev. 06/2003):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
919/856-4520

Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Caralina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.
s.. w ~t__.~-
r'-~ ..
•- '. ~+
l
+s'-----Y-- ..
_ ~~ -~~
~~
r~~ `~~'
,. ~ `~r

Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source: Clark, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rana Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-
3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.

_;.~ ~ ~ ~ Q
~'' U
-- ~
~ •~--,~ -
M ^ M
~~~ U
,~.. mmm o
'W ~ O
a +a
r r ~- N
{'7
Y 'V' ~ ,.
a _~; _ _ _ .. __ .____
~Q
;;%'
c ~~'
~; ~
U
1 ~ ~ ^'1~
r ~-
~~ ~ ~ 4
-•-1 C!i
P
~a ~ , 1 t9
-1 r ~~::
p .: 1 Q1
1....1 :.J ~ Q ~ E~ w
~ ~_-! -1
1 ~ ~ II
P'=1 rY~ ~ / ~--
~ ~~ C _: ~ ~ ~r Ga~E~
r ,, ~ Q V~ ~ ~~~ \
r~ /
,r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
.~ R '.'1 ~ \y~y
r~!~a ~ ,~
--~ .~
_~ ~' ~ ~~ ~
- ~ ~
m
J
_i
ra~a ~ o
s~
~_
z
j ~ "'3' , raj
r ~~ .. ~ °.. -a-~`~'~ ~'~`~ mac, ~ aq
< ~ ; '
1 $
v) ~ ~j , ,( 1 ~ ~ ~a, ~ 't~ ~ ~ ~ _ ''A`te : 11 ~ ,~ t'
h; t
~ P ~ ~ ~ ~
~' ,
,~
~, i i
,~ ~ ,~.-
~J j_, _
~~
~~ ~

a

W

~ z
a
v
^ g o
h "`r r~
~
~~
~x ~
~ 4
a
°m
~
~ N
N
M N
A ~ J ~"
~ ~
n
R

~ ~~
N
~
G p
u
u
~ u
~ ~
~

~ G {y~~!~
"7 W
~
H ~
O F F ~
a
~ 3 2 0
G

o ~
~ ~

~ ~ o
aR aR aR ~ ~
A M t~l ~ ~ of ~ C
w, u u u u n u ~
R~ N N ~
q ~~
r
r

~ ~ o
h ~
V
o ~ 0

«srr£-s ~s~aloua azs cssooz~ -s~r~xsxo~
•(

i. i •

IO
N Ii
~~./eJ 1T. ~. ~.
1 b' .
~ a ,,
C/
'~
~ \' ,/
W
\\
\~\\
~. ~~
~v
I ~~4
u1°
rn
n~cn
^o
"vvi
ti~
o °~
-~
m
N
m
m
N
x
m
rn
0
r
-o
a
r
m
~~~ ~ :~
,_~
g~
r ~ '_ O
y ~w~
a~
__ N 53'I11' OJ' F LO'pS
~ / R
/ i I
~f~
~~~ i
_ ~ ~~~^'~
~ ~,
i J~\ ~ A
5g~
~~
~ ~_ -=lco9_.....
.. M.f ,.11 .2b `:
~A~` i
`-~
,~
.~
c,
U
ii r
G.
'`~ ,rl
„ ;~~
1~
l5
C`~O
~l~
1~' C))
e~
~"
~ ~ ~ ,,
IS 'L

~ ~.
~ ~ ~
1 .
O~
t ;' u n
d~ ^
'1 m p
'~
±^ m
~
o ~~ ~
jl,~ ~ ~ -~
~ ~ r
~
~ ~
~~ ~~>
V (A1 ri ~
ti Cl
~. ;
I
~ I
~ o .r.
A ~ ~ ~ r

~ ~
o
~ ~~~
+ ~p
f
h
~ o Fs Fn in
~
I o
~
~r
:, ~_ -.....
~_
p * Bon
.fA
V
' ' " ~
~ R
~

P
z
~
>
?
~ {l

_
~
~~„
iti n b 6
..
1
N .
o $+
~j
1 l ~
~nrJ
m
w
,~ y g~ O ~~ Cm
~~ ~ -.~
1~
° ~- 2;
---- ~ ~~_~
°'
r "" ~.
; ob
m ..wm
~
~° m n ~ R,
~ p
~~
ht ~...
r
,' i .~
~~,,,
'~ ~ ~~~o~~op ~
°~'° ~'h"pu'
a " ui83°
Q ~ ~~_
~' `1\ \
ci \
f~ ~~ \
ri ~ n O
n iii
N y~
T ^ `~ i~
\ s
~/tl tl ~_
S
_... .-..N.~0 ,14
_ ..._. .- M.1
-...M -... _.. .. -
n
~y .,~
_~ r P
~_ ~ .~. .
~ ~~~~
~.~,,:
y ;~
h
Cb
j I
~n
.~~
V

20\\~ Fk 11-20041 ~0 /:.15
~~:WxA ~ t 1 _ x~ 1. R15~ 934 05

. . _ ~ . _

-
-
- _ ,
- -- - ~ - - - -

-

-

-
-

-

--

-

- - -

- -

_ -

.
- - -

-
-

-

_

. -
-
-

_.

_ _

- _

_

. _

_ _ _
-

-

-
_

-

-
-

-

-
-

-

-

-

_

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1
_
_ _ ~ - -
- _
_
- -
_

_

_

_

_ _ .

-

_ __

_ _

..
_ _

-

-

-
__
_
_

-

-

_

_
_
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

,

f

-

-
-

~

~

~~I
_ .. -

_ _ _ . _ _
-
.-
__
.

_ .
-
--

-

-

--
-
-

~.. -
--
- - _
_

- - -

- - - __ . I _

-
- - -
-
-
-
- _.
~

_.. _ . . _ _ _. - -a
- - - _
- - _. _

_
..
_
_ _ -- - -
_ - - -

'

W

.

-
-_
-
-
- - _
-

.
W
_

-
_
..
.-
-
-
_ _

-

-

Z
- - .. .. - _.. .. .. C h m
_ _

.
__

_ .

..

..
Z
_ .. _ _ O
_. _

,. . . .
`
~ Z

a ' ~
.. ~ I • ,
20-F CD 7004 07:3h ,
fil\xsc V..xp~•~~~ll"'__ c,n

t ~ ~~~
~~~~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Apri16, 2004
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Mr. John R. Dorney
Environmental Biological Supervisor
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: NC Department of Transportation
Project Location: Brunswick County: Bridge # 61, on NC 133 over Town Creek
~Np'5~4~~
CROUP
A~p~ ~~ ~ ~~~~4
~TERQI/q[l
~SEOT/ON
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to replace the existing 300' timber, concrete, and steel
bridge over Town Creek with a 300' cored slab concrete bridge spanning Town
Creek and the adjacent Coastal Wetlands.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
Apri127, 2004. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Bill Arrington at
[phone]. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment~onithe~proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED '
r~~~~DATE
151-B Hwy. 24, Hestron Plaza II, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement,net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

Development Type FEE DCM °/.
(14300 1601 435100093 1625 62531 OWt]
(24300 1602 435100095 2341)
I. Private, non-commercial
development that does not involve 5250 100% (5250) 0% (SO)
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
II. Public or commercial development ~~
that does not involve the filling or 8400 100% (5400) 0% (50)
excavation of any wetlands or open
water areas:
III. For development that involves the
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A, B, C, or D
below applies:

III(A). For Private, non-commercial i
development, If General water Quality 5250 100% (5250) 0°6 (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(B): For public or commercial
development, if General water Quality 5.:00 100°6 (5400) 0°6 (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water ~ualih/
Certification No. 3301 (see attached)
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional review and 500 60% (5240) 40°0 (5160)
written DWQ concurence is needed
because of concerns related to water
quality or aquatic life:

III(D), ((General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) 5400 60% (5240) 40 % (5160)
can not be applied:
IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more 5475 60% (5285) 40°6 (5190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:

n "~ SfAtE
e ~o~
~~~ ~ ~
.~ ~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL P. EASLEY
GOVIIRNOR
April 2, 2004
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attention: Mr. Bill Arrington
District Manager
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SI'C'RI' I r\Rl'
Subject: Amendment to Application for CAMA Major Development Permit for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 61 on NC 133 over Town Creek in Brunswick
County, NCDO'I' Division 3. Federal Project No. BRSTP-133(1), State Project No.
8.1231401, WBS Element: 32874.1.1,'I'IP No. B-3115
Please see the following amended items for the permit application sent March 12, 2004.
Bridue Demolition (Page 2
The Final 1999 NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
states that "If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any components ofa bridge into the
water will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA."
'Therefore, language in the permit application for bridge demolition will charge to the
following:
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 61 is 300 feet long and 26.4 feet wide. It has a reinforced
concrete deck on steel I-beams with concrete caps on timber piles. Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, which dictates that all existing structures
over water be removed by non-shattering methods, will be followed during demolition and
construction. Bridge Nn. GI wrl! be removed wit/rout dropping ar{v components into the
stn,~uce tivntc~s. /f during cons'h•uction it is detcrminc~! that this is not feasrhk~, tltcn ern
alternate hridge demolition plan will he coordinated with t{le Division o~~C'oastul
Manage rrlent. ' ' ,
- a <' - s'~ ~ ~ *'~° ~ °+°r. Turbidity curtains shall be installed along the banks
of Town Creek to help prevent components of the existing bridge from entering the
watercourse. NCDO"C will adhere to a moratorium allowing no work in water during the
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLB SuITe 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RA~eicN NC 27699-1598

2
period of February I through June 15 to protect the shorinose sturgeon and other
anadromous fish.
Piles and Bents (Include new information with PROPOSED IMPACTS `I'O WATERS Oh 'fHl?
UNITED STATES section on page 2)
Pile Installation
The bridge will have pre-stressed concrete driven piles. Since the piles will not be jetted
and therefore cannot be driven as deep, they will be in a braced A-frame form. The square
piles will be 65 feet by 20 square feet. Subsequently, the bents are located in the water at
four locations across the creek.
Page 4. Mitigation Options. The statement concerning supporting structures will be removed.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMII_ATION: Specific avoidance and minimization measures for
this project include using a maximum slope of 3: I and replacing the existing bridge in its
CUrI'Cnt OCatloll wlth all o11-S1tC detclln•. ^ na, ii%~V v, iug~,
r.. 1, :, 1, ~ ,1 ~ ..,:„.. ~,....,.,....,,,, ~,,.u,,,, . , ,1,,, . ,.,.,.- The tidal freshwater
~ i%%n vruu iwii% ~,~ ui
marsh will not be impacted because the new bridge will span this conunupity as well.
Thank you tilt your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Carla Dagnino at [phone].
Sincerely
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management I)ircctor, PDL'A
cc:
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM Mr. Dave "I'impy, USAC1~., Wilmington
Mr. Bill Biddlecomb, USACE, Washington Mr. John I Icnnessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMhS Mr. Ari McMillan, P.I?., [lighway Design
Mr. Mike Street, NCDMF Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and "1'll' Mr. David Chang, P.I~:., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. IL Allen Pope, PE; Division 3 I:ngincer Mr. Mason llerndon, DIV 3 DE.O

B-31 I S Permit app Amendment
Subject: B-3115 Permit app Amendment
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:18:55 -0500
From: "Carla S. Dagnino" <cdagnino~dot.state.nc.us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: [e-mail]
Hi Bill,
Please take a look at the attached amendment to the permit application.
1 checked with Joe Blair from the Division and he said that he would like to leave the .07 acre of Mech.
clearing as is (permanent). He said that possibly it will be just mowing, but there may be some other
clearing and he would rather be on the conservative side and not get a modification later.
I addressed the other issues
• Bridge demolition
• Pile Installation
• Bents in the water.
Please let me now what you think and I will send out to the other agencies.
Thanks.
Carla
Name: B-3l 15 LAMA Permit
Atmmendment.doc
~~B-31 15 CAMA Permit Ammendment.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
.. ~~-

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT' SI"I'E: Bridge No. 61, on NC 133 over Town Creek in
Brunswick County
Photo Index - 2000: No Photo 1995: No Photo
State Plane Coordinates: x: 2306425 y: 142276 GPS: Rover File # X032917A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: LAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDtRE: Dates cif Site Visit - 12/8/03 & 3/29/2004
Was Agent Present -Yes on 12/8/03
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received as Complete- 4/2/2004
Office -Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan -Brunswick County
Land Classification from Lt1P -Rural & Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: CW, PTA and PTS
(C) Water Dependent: Yes ~~
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - NC 133 and 300-t<~ot long by 27-toot wide bridge
Planned - NC 133 and 300-fioot long by 36-toot wide bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A Source: N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
F,xcavated Filled Other
- _
(A) 404 Type Wetlands __
0.10 acres (Permanent)
0.07 acres Mechanized
<0.01 acres (Temp.) Clearing
(B) Coastal Wetlands

(C) Public Trust Area -Shallow is any 2
~ ~tn~nal 10 sq. ft.
Bottom Shading 2070 sd. ft.
(D)Other -High Ground 0.85 acres (In roadway
and shoulders)
(D) Total LAMA AEC Disturbed: approx. 0.27 acres Shading anti Buffer Impacts
(E) Total area disturbed by project: 2.5 acres
(F) Primary Nursery Area: No
(G) Water Classification: C-SW
(H) Open for Shellfishing: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The N.C. Department of Transportation is proposing to replace the
existing 300-foot long timber, concrete and steel hridge over Town Creek with a 300-foot long
cored slab concrete hridge spanning Town Creek and the adjacent Coastal Wetlands.

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3115, Bridge No. 61 over Town Creek, Brunswick Count~~
PAGE 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site of this proposal is Bridge No. 6I on NC 133, 1.1 miles north of Pinelevel at the crossing
of Town Creek, in Brunswick County. The general purpose of the project is to replace the
deteriorated 300-toot long by 27-toot wide timber, steel and concrete bridge with an 300- toot
long by 36-foot wide concrete cored slab bridge Spanning Town Creek and the adjacent Coastal
Wetlands to allow safer driving conditions for the traveling public.
Bridge No. 61 crosses Town Creek 2 miles west of its confluence with the Cape Fear River. 1'he
bridge crossing Town Creek is tlanked with Coastal Wetlands and 404 type wetlands. Creek width
at the crossing is approximately 120 feet. Bridge No. 61 crosses 't'own Creek at approximately a
45-degree angle. Vertical clearance between the water and bridge bottom is approximately 6 feet.
An approximately 500-foot long by 60-foot wide causeway was constructed through wetlands on
Chowan silt loam soils when the bridge was constructed. The Coastal Wetland area exists
immediately adjacent to Town Creek and consists of Cladium and Spartina cynosuroi des. 1'he 404
type wetlands between the coastal wetlands and the high ground is vegetated with Red Cedar and
Baccaris halimifolia, Pine, Maple, Gum, Honeysuckle, Myrtle, Cypress and Carex. Soils on this
site are mainly Chowan silt loam with Baymeade tine sand and Blanton tine sand in the upper
elevations farthest from the bridge, as classified by the NC Soil Conservation Service.
Approximate elevations on the site range between 0 feet and 10 feet above Normal Iligh Water
(NHW). No evidence of SAV beds was noted. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
classifies waters of Town Creek as C-SW at the project site. 'Town Creek is not classified as
Primary Nursery Area, as designated by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, at this
site. The project area is within LAMA Areas of Environmental Concern and is designated as
Rural and Conservation by the Brunswick County Land Use Plan.
The proposal is to replace the existing 300-foot long by 27-foot wide timber, steel and concrete
bridge with a 300-toot long by 36-toot wide cored slab concrete bridge on the existing alignment.
The proposed bridge would have a vertical clearance ±_ 2 feet greater than the existing bridge
(approximately 8 feet). The bridge is being widened from 27 feet to 36 feet to more c lonely
correspond to the 12 foot paved travel lanes and 8 foot grassed shoulders of NC 133. At each end
bent, a work platform approximately 39-feet wide by 60-feet long will be installed from high-
ground, upland of the end bent, towards the first bent water-ward of the end bent. An additional
20-foot wide work platform will he installed in the northwest quadrant from the high -ground
behind the north end bent to approximately 20 feet into the water o1'Town Creek. NC DOT Best
Management Practices would he used for Bridge Demolition and Design Standards for Sensitive
Watersheds would be used for Erosion control. NC DOT has committed to no in -water work
from February 1 through June 15 of each year, due to the Shorhx>se Sturgeon and anadromous
fish moratoriums.

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-3115, Bridge No. 61 over Town Creek, Brunswick Count~~
PAGE 3
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
As proposed, the constn~ction of the bridge approaches with 3:1 slopes would require the tilling of
approximately 0.10 acres of 404 type wetlands and approximately 2 acres of impacts to high
ground. To allow room for installation of erosion control measures, approximately 0.07 acres (10
feet outside construction limits) of 404 type Wetlands would be disturbed adjacent to the road
shoulders. Installation of the pilings for the three work platforms would temporarily fill less than
0.01 acres of 404 type wetlands and open water. The additional width of the bridge would cause
approximately 2070 square feet of additional shading impacts to Public Trust Waters AEC. A
minimal disturbance of the creek bottom is expected when driving the pre-stressed concrete piles
for the 4 bents in the stream. _
NC DOT has reduced the fill in wetlands that would have occurred in raising the c auseway and
widening the bridge by using 3: l approach shoulder slopes. NC DOT has committed to dropping
no materials from the bridge demolition in the water and to using top down construction and an
off-site detour to minimize impacts. Due to the presence of Shortnose Sturgeon and anadromous
fish in Town Creek, NC DOT has committed to an in-water work moratorium from February 1 to
June 15. The NC DOT has proposed to use Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds BMP's to
minimize the impacts of erosion.
NC DOT would be impacting approximately 0.17 acres of 404 type wetlands caused by the
permanent bridge in this proposal and requests to debit the EEP to offset these impacts. No
mitigation is proposed for the < 0.01 acres of temporary impacts that may he caused during the
installation of the work platform pilings.
The collective disturbance area for the project is 2.5 acres.
Bill Arrington
April 5, 2004
Morehead City

~~~d~
z~,~ ~-~'
3
~ ~,
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 12, 2004
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
151-B Hwy 24
Hestron Plaza II
Morehead City, NC 28557
Attention: Mr. Bill Arrington
District Manager
Dear Sir:
Subject: Application for CAMA Major Development Permit for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 61 on NC 133 over Town Creek in Brunswick
County, NCDOT Division 3. Federal Project No. BRSTP-133(1), State
Project No. 8.1231401, WBS Element: 32874.1.1, TIP No. B-3115
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
61 over Town Creek on NC133. Bridge No. 61 will be replaced on the existing alignment
with a new bridge approximately 300 feet in length and a with cleared roadway width of 32
feet. The approaches will include two 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders. Permanent
impacts to non coastal wetlands associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 61 will
include 0.10 acre of permanent fill and 0.07 acre of mechanized clearing. The traffic will be
detoured to NC 87 during bridge construction.
Please find enclosed copies of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit
application (MP1 and MPS), Categorical Exclusion (CE), permit drawings, half size plans, a
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stormwater Exemption letter, Guidelines for
Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee, an EEP Request Letter, green cards from the
Adjacent Riparian Land Owners and a method of debiting $400 to be submitted to the DCM
for processing the CAMA permit.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
TELEPHONE: [phone]$00
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 188
RALEIGH NC 27604

3
Schedule for Construction:
construction of the proposed
availability for the project.
availability of August 25, 2004
It is assumed that the Contractor will begin
temporary work bridge shortly after the date of
The Let date is July 20, 2004 with a date of
Restoration Plan: Following the construction of the temporary work bridge, the
construction of the permanent bridge will be completed. Once the temporary
work bridge is no longer needed, all material used in the construction of the
temporary work bridge will be removed. The temporary impact area associated
with the work bridge is expected to recover naturally. Restoration of the project
area will take place immediately following project completion and prior to traffic
flow to the new bridge.
Removal and Disposal Plan: After the temporary work bridge is no longer
needed, all temporary work bridge material will become the property of the
contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation;plan for the
removal and disposal of all work bridge material and demolished bridge material
to an off-site upland location.
Utility Relocation: There are four utility lines located at the project site. NCDOT's Utility-
Right-of--Way (Unit 3) has provided relocation plans for two utilities (Bell South and
AT&T). Preliminary relocation plans were also provided for Brunswick EMC and Time
Warner. At this time our data indicate that there will be no CAMA or Section 404
jurisdictional resources impacted. If final plans result in 404 and/or CAMA impacts,
NCDOT will apply for a Nationwide 12 Permit.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Threatened and Endangered Species: Plants and animals with federal classification of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of January 29, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 14
federally protected species for Brunswick County. In August 1999 a survey for the federally
protected species found that habitat does exist for the endangered woodstork (Mycteria
americana), roughed-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), Cooley's Meadowrue
(Thalictrun cooleyi) and the threatened bald eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus) species.
Currently these species receive biological conclusions of "Unresolved". However, another
survey will be conducted for each of these species in May of 2004, prior to construction.
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" for each of the remaining species are valid and are
presented in the attached CE.
• West Indian Manatee: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a list
of "Precautions for the general construction in areas which may be used by the

Section 404 compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in
Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during the Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) transition
period which ends on July 1, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 1 the necessary compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water
Act will be provided by the EEP (see attached letter to EEP). The offsetting mitigation will
derive from an inventory of assets already in existence within the same Ecoregion and the
same 8-digit cataloguing unit. We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional
resources to the greatest extent possible as described above. The remaining, unavoidable
impacts to 0.17 acre of jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation
provided by the EEP program.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area Iv~anagement
Act Major Development Permit. NCDOT will also be applying for issuance of ~ United
States Army Corps of Engineers NWP 23 and NWP 33 and a section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality under a separate cover.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Carla Dagnino at [phone].
Sincerely
~_--
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Biddlecomb, USACE, Washington
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Mike Street, NCDMF
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. H. Allen Pope, PE; Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mason Herndon, DIV 3 DEO

Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 2.5 acres
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or NWL.
0 = 10 feet
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Chowan silt loam (ch); Baymeade Fine Sand
~BaB)
e. Vegetation on tract: Tidal FreshwaterBrackish
Marsh; Bottomland Hardwood Forest; Upland
Pine Forest
f. Man-made features now on tract existing bride,
roadway, and utilities
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land classification
of the Site? (Consult the focal land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
Zoned for some commercial, some residential,
see Tax maQ#86
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, ijapplicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? Yes X No
-f yes, by whom?
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) X Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? YES
(Attach documentation, if available)
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters of
the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial efFluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
surface runoff
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) o
other instrument under which the applicant claims titl
to the affected properties. If the applicant is nc
claiming to be the owner of said property, then forwar
a copy of the deed or other instrument under which th
owner claims title, plus written permission from th
owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan vies
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in blac
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to Coast.
Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a detaile
description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred ar
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-lir
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if
adequate number of quality copies are provided I
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Enginee
regarding that agency's use of larger drawings.) A si
or location map is a part of plat requirements and
must be sufficiently detailed to guide agency personn
unfamiliar with the area to the site. Include highway
secondary road (SR) numbers, landmarks, and the like

Form DCM-MP-_5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for LAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-I. Be sure to complete all other
sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
g. Length of proposed bridge 300 ft
h. Width of proposed bridge 36 ft
i. Height of proposed bridge 8bove wetlands
10 ft
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
concrete -cored slab
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Town Creek
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at ML,W or
NWL 30 Feet
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
Ifyes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 300 ft
(2) Width of existing bridge 24.0 ft
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge 6.0 ft
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) all of the existing bridge
will be removed.
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
Ifyes,
(1) Length of existing culvert N/A
(2) Width of existing culvert N/A
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL N/A
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain) N/A
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water tlow?
X Yes No
Ifyes, explain The low chord on the proposed bridge
is 2 ft +/- higher than that of the existing structure.
Therefore there is more flow area under the
bride
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
8,0_ f_t____
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? X Yes _No
Ifyes, explain The low chord on the proposed bridge
is 2 ft +/-higher than that of the existing structure.
Therefore there is more area to navigate under
the bridge
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes X No
if yes, explain
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard concerning
their approval?
Yes X No
Ifyes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-Ml'-5
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below
the MtIW orNWL? Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below MHW
or NWL? _ Yes X No '
Ifyes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
Ifyes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 320 ft
(2) Width of area to be filled 15 ft (avg.) _
(3) Purpose of fill roadway embankment
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
highground? X Yes No
Ifyes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 930 ft +/-
(2) Width of area to be filled 70 ft +/-
(3) Purpose of fill roadway embankment
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
Ifyes, explain in detail For 0.17 acres impact in wetland
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? Yes No
Ifyes, explain in detail
d. Will the proposed project require any work channels?
Yes X No
Ifyes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Design Standards for
Sensitive Watersheds will be used.
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe or hydraulic dredge)?
Standard bride and roadway construction
equipment.
g. Will wetlands be crossed tin transporting equipment
to project site? X Yes No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts. Work bridges will be used
to minimize impacts
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culven
require any shoreline stabilization?
Yes X No
Ifyes, explain in detail

A plicant or Project Name
~ ~
Signat-ur~
zj5 ~ b`~
Date
c. Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
Ifyes, explain in detail
Revised 03/95

}
The project is located in the Southern Outer Coastal Plain in Brunswick County in the Cape
Fear River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03030005.
The wetland impacts, summarized in Table 1, totals 0.17 acre ofnon-riverine bottomland
wetlands. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the wetland impacts by using
the EEP for the 0.17 acres of impacts. '
Table 1: Summ of Jurisdictional Im acts
Section Permanent Wetlands ac Streams ft
Riverine Non riverine
R/W 13+70-L-
To 16 + 70-L- 0.17
Please send the letter of confirmation to Dave Timpy (USAGE Coordinator) at U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers Division 3 Regulatory Field Office, (P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC
28402-1890). Mr. Timpy's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date fbr the project is
July 20, 2004 for which the let review date is (June 1, 2004).
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
(North Carolina Division of Water Quality) requires a formal letter from EEP indicating their
willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT
requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with
copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Carla Dagnino at
[phone]
Sincerely,
~~ ~~~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Ms. Cathy Brittingham, NCDCM
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Mike Street, NCDMF
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. David Chang, P.E. ,Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mason Herndon, DIV 3 DEO
Mr. Dave Timpy, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. H. Allen Pope, PE; Division 3 Engineer

~~~~ ~~~

O
O
~OQ+
.~ = O
r..--
- „ ~~
~~
J ~--~
n- W >
O O O m~ N
'- j .J p I
J F--
~ U
I ~o~ ~ N ~
~ . ~ ~
00~ ~ ~ ~--
a v,
NW ~ 1 p = O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~c ~ +
~ ` '
~ W z ~
~ 1
i O
r p O
1 1
O
~
1 tl.
~~I ` ~ ~n a
I W ~
~-- O
, ,
I ,~
\~
a~ °~
I
,~
I - ~
~
I I I i
\
~
I ~~ I I
~ o
I

-
--
-~
- o

iii
~
~ r
I
I I
~~I \
~
I
I !II -~-o-----
I ---- ------ \
I ~I ry
I III o
I ml °~
~
.~~
I ~;-,----
Ilr-- _ O ---- --
I I
I ~~ o
~
I I I ~' ~` 0
~
:

i ,
---
Il
--
-~
i
w ~
I
I I I I W. i
I .. I of ~
~~
I ~
I l r ~ ~-.''7

O
O
M
I
Q
O
m
a
p tD
w .r,
~ v
0 O
N v
i p
J ~p
O ~ ~o
N _ ~ O
Ln ~ Z N
. ~ ~ ~
Q W In W
F-- J ~G
N W Ln N
o
o "'
o~o~
N-~.0~
+ N N p
LI')
u n t
J (~
~ W

l
w
0
a
C.7
W
N
O
d.
O
O
~--
III
.. I
III
,~ I
I
I~
I p
a
C~
I z
1-
x
W
N
2~
-~~
~~i
N ~
JAI
U tY ~
I
I
I
O I O
1
O
N
O
O
+
~'
O
A~
t-`i

~~~~~~~ 11 ®~l~l ~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
2 ~ ~ T. F. HOLDINGS 1202 EASTWOOD RD.
WILMINGTON, NC 28~d03
1 ~,~ TOWN CREEg P.O. BOX 4886
TIMBER COMPANY WILMINGTON, NC 2806
3 ~' DAVID R. HARLESS 2765 RIVER RD. SE
WINNABOW, NC 28(79
~ J. CLARg HIPP 50~ DOCg ST.
WILMINGTON, NC 38~(Ol
t
~ ~ W.C. WARWICS,, III 9165 RIVER OAg5 LANE SE
WINNABOW, NC 2879

,~,'' ,. ~tau~~j ~yyD`y~~'(`~~ S7.A~,C~.r'Y~~ `:'1.'ft~''~".~tl.{
J

z
i i ~ ~ I O
m E o
rn ~ ~' I i I F" ~
~
1
Z fn ~ ~~ W ~ "~ N
ri
a¢ F~
~ ~ ~ x
~
; I ~ z
~~~
^
- ~ o d C7
."
o

~ c m w
a m o..~
I U
R: '~ O
F
x
U w U E
I x~
C
~.
U~ .'
a Op
~
= I , ~,z 3m
~
~
Q
a~ ~
o
~I
° zo
o
~~ ~U
~~- v ~~
~
W ~ ~O
() ~ Q
F
~ ~
~
~
~ cn ~ ~
o o m I o O
U
.a ' z
LL
~
j ~
j O
O O
p
Z V
Il ~..
Q .~~` C
C 'C ~ p ^ ~
O
~ L d .'C.. ~
` O
p O
~ ~U~
N ~ w
~
U
~ v

o
c D F=-
Z

O
~ ~
U > ~ ~ ~ Q
w w
_
~ a ~ ~ v ? o
~ ~ - U ~
~ 0 ~ ~
z
a
~
w
Q LL N
av~
° ~ Q
~~
5 ~ d ~ v ° ~ W
~_ ~a
W
~'
O
-
~ a ~
c ~
_ ~o ~ o o
'- w N
_ ?

O u.
LL
}
W Q
d'
a O
w a
W
~,
w
~ H
w
f-
~ ~ Q ~
fl [
m ¢
(~ ~ m
Q
N Y
~

'' ~ z O
g
W
~
Q w ~
~ ~
' ~
w
_ O I ?
U ~
C ~
~ ~ ~
J -
O ~ LL 11 ~
~ } ~
:~ O O^ + N ~ W
N ~ M ~ ? ~
H
J ~ ~
J
LL
O
J
Q W
~ ~ W

~z
~ J
z
z
-a
-

Brunswick County
Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-133 (1)
State Project 8.1231401
TIP No. B-3115
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
~ t G L ~ ~-
Date Robert P. Hanson, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
_ ,
Date ~icholas Graf, P. E.
Dwtston Admmtstrator, FHWA

Brunswick County
Bridge No. 6 ] on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-133 (1)
State Project 8.1231401
TIP No. B-31 15
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
~1 ~ o~ - ~-n ~U~-
a e Beverly G. R son
Project Development Engineer
~/i/oz ~-
Date J mes A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
Project Development, Unit Head .
~l Z Q 2
Dat Robert P. Hanson, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~~ ~ ~ CAROB( j"''•,•.
'~~ f~~ESS1pNq'~ ~'•
~a~ g~a1. l~
' 2C7t~1
.~
~~ • ~
~~ h'G'I NE .•••c~•
'•. A. M 1N
~.l.oZ

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 1
II. HISTORY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................... 2
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS .................................................... 2
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...
...
. 2
.
...
.................................................................
V. STUDIED ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 3
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................ 4
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............
.. 4
..
...................................................
A. General Project Information ............................................................... 4
B. Air and Noise ..................................................................................... 5
C. Land Use & Farmland Effects ............................................................ 5
D. Historical Effects & Archaeological Effects ...................................... 6
E. Natural Resources .............................................................................. 6
1. Soils ....................................................................................... 6
2. Water Resources .................................................................... 6
a. Best Usage Classification ........................................... 7
,~ b. Stream Characteristics ............................................... 7
c. Water Quality ............................................................. 7
d. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network........... 8
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................... 8
3. Biotic Resources .................................................................... 9
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................ 9
b. Aquatic Community ................................................... 1 ]
4. Wildlife .................................................................................. i 1
a. Terrestrial Impacts ..................................................... 11
b. Aquatic Impacts ......................................................... 12

5. Jurisdictional Topics .............................................................. 12
a. Waters of the United States ........................................ 12
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....... 13
c. Permits ....................................................................... 13
d. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ........................ 14
6. Bridge Demolition ................................................................. 14
7. Rare and Protected Species .................................................... 14
a. Federally-Protected Species ....................................... 14
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species 23
VIII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.......... 25
IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 26
TABLES
Table 1 Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .................................. 12
Table 2 Federally Protected Species for Brunswick County ........................... I S
Table 3 Federal Species of Concern for Brunswick County ........................... 24
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Snapshots of Bridge
Figure 4 Proposed Detour Route
APPENDIX

PROJECT COMMITMENTS ~ ~ - ~ _ r; ~ ~ ,
TIP PROJECT B-3115, Brunswick County
Bridge No. 61, on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-133(1)
State Project 8.1231401
1. Structure Design Unit, Division 3:
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 61 is 300 feet (91.4 meters) long and 26.4 feet
(8.04 meters) wide. It has a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams with concrete caps
on timber piles. Thus, there is a potential for components of the bridge to be dropped
into Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the bridge will be as much as approximately 158.9 cubic yards. This
calculation was based on the entire length of the bridge extending over surface waters as
well as jurisdictional wetlands. All deposited components will be removed from the
Waters of the U.S. as quickly as possible. During construction, Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed. To ensure the project
will not adversely affect the endangered shortnose sturgeon, explosives will not be used
in the bridge demolition.
2. Hydraulics Unit, Structure Design Unit, Division 3:
Stream Crossing Guidelines: NCDOT's "Stream Crossing Guidelines. for
Anadromous Fish Passage" will be followed in the design & construction phases.
3. Division 3: `1
Construction Moratorium: There will be no in-water or in-marsh activity from
Febnruary 1 through June 15. This is considered the in-migration, spawning, and out-
migration period for the endangered shortnose sturgeon and another anadromous fish.
All measures should be taken to prevent sedimentation in Town Creek during '
construction.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a list of "Precautions for the
general construction in areas which may be used by the West Indian manatee in North.
Carolina." These precautions will be considered in all aspects of project construction;
therefore, this project will not affect the West Indian manatee.
NCDOT has agreed to delay closing NC 133 until after Labor Day.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
June 2002

4. Roadside Environmental Unit:
Design Standazds in Sensitive Watersheds: To ensure the project will not
adversely affect the endangered shortnose sturgeon, Design Standards for Sensitive
Watersheds (formerly High Quality Water Guidelines) will be used.
5. Roadway Design Unit:
Fill slope in wetland areas: To minimize wetland impacts and provide for slope
stability, the maximum fill slope of 3:1 will be used in wetland areas.
6. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Division 3:
1) NCDOT will investigate whether any necessary improvements aze needed for NC 87
to be used as a detour route, including the need for additional traffic signals and
resurfacing.
2) NCDOT will provide Cazolina Power and Light Company and Brunswick County
Emergency Management Officials with an estimate of the amount of time the closure
of NC 133 will add to evacuation times for the Brunswick Nuclear Plant.
3) In response to local government requests, NCDOT will provide further public
notification regarding this bridge replacement, road closure and detour route. This
will be coordinated with Brunswick County Emergency Management.
.~
Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2
June 2002

Brunswick County
Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-133 (1)
State Project 8.1231401
TIP No. B-3115
Bridge No. 61 carries NC 133 over Town Creek in Brunswick County. TIP
Project B-3115 proposes to replace this bridge, and is programmed in the Draft 2004-
2010Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NC 87
will be used as a detour route during the replacement of Bridge No. 61 and will be
patched and resurfaced as a part of this project. This project is part of the Federal
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been
classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are
expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 61 will be replaced in its existing location on NC 133 over Town
Creek (see Figure 2). The new bridge will be approximately 300 feet (91 meters) in
length and placed at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will
be detoured onto NC 87 (See Figure 4).
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 32 feet (9.6 meters),
which will provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) offsets. The
approaches will include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4 meter) shoulders
with 4-foot (1.2 meter) full depth paved shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the
design speed should be approximately 60 mph (100 km/h).
NC 87 will be used as the detour route during the replacement of Bridge No. 61.
NC 87 will be patched and resurfaced from the southern city limits of Boiling Spring
Lakes to the northern city limits of Boiling Spring Lakes.
The proposed project is included in the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The current schedule includes right of way acquisition in
July 2003 and construction in July 2004.
The estimated cost of the project is $1,905,000 including $1,400,000 in
construction costs, $5,000 in right of way costs and $500,000 for patching and resurfacing
NC 87. The estimated cost shown in the Draft 2004-2010 TIP is $1,935,000 which
includes $235,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,700,000 for construction.

II. HISTORY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
A Categorical Exclusion was approved for this project on May 23, 2000 by
NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. In the approved Categorical
Exclusion, the recommended alternative would replace Bridge No. 61 on new location
west of the existing bridge. The existing bridge would be utilized as a detour structure.
After further investigation, it was determined the proposed horizontal alignment would be
worse than the existing horizontal alignment. It was determined replacing the bridge on
existing alignment with an offsite detour would be the best alternative for this project and
reduce the project cost. Because this alternative was not discussed in the May 2000
categorical exclusion, this new document has been prepared.
A second bridge project is located along NC 133 in the area. TIP Project B-3116
will replace Bridge Number 56 carrying NC 133 over Allen Creek. This bridge is located
approximately 4.5 miles (7.24 kilometers) south of Bridge Number 61. NC 133 will be
closed and NC 87 used as a detour for this project also. Right of way acquisition for
Project B-3116 is scheduled for federal fiscal year 2002 and construction is scheduled for
federal fiscal year 2003.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be required.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 133 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Currently (2001) the traffic volume is 12,000 vehicles per day
(VPD). By the year 2025, the traffic volume is projected to increase to 25,000 vpd. Single
unit trucks and tractor-trailers make up three percent and two percent of these volumes,
respectively. NC 133 has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour.
The existing bridge was built in 1955. It has a reinforced concrete deck on steel
I-beams and the substructure is concrete caps on timber piles. The deck is 300 feet
(91 meters) long and 26 feet (7.8 meters) wide. There is approximately 26 feet
(7.8 meters) of vertical clearance between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and the
streambed. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 35 tons (31751.5
kilograms) for single vehicles and the legal load limit for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The
sufficiency rating is 27.9. This structure is functionally obsolete and the substructure is
becoming structurally deficient.

Vertical alignment is good with a slight upgrade on the north side of the bridge.
There is a slight curve in the horizontal alignment, which begins approximately 150 feet
(45.7 meters) from the north end of the bridge. The approach pavement width is 19 feet
(5.8 meters) with acceptable width grass shoulders.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates l4 accidents were reported between
April 1998 through March 2001 from SR 1518 (Daws Creek Road) to SR 1555 (Mellaney
Lane).
Four school buses cross over the studied bridge with 2 trips per day.
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are underground phone cables
on both sides of NC 133 going aerial across the creek. There is also a fiber optic cable
underground along the east side of NC 133. Also along the east side of NC 133, there are
overhead power lines that cross over to the west side just south of the bridge.
V. STUDIED ALTERNATIVES
The four "build" options considered for this project are as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 61 in place with a temporary detour bridge located to
the west during construction. The estimated cost for Alternate 1 is
$2,110,000 to include $1,875,000 for construction and $235,000 for right
of way acquisition.
Alternate 2) Replace bridge No. 61 on new alignment to the west of the existing bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
estimated cost for Alternate 2 is $1,935,000 to include $1,700,000 for
construction and $235,000 for right of way acquisition.
Alternate 3) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 61 in place with a new bridge.
Traffic will be detoured onto NC 87 during construction. The estimated
cost for Alternate 3 is $1,405,000 to include $1,400,000 for construction
and $5,000 for right of way acquisition.
Alternate 4) Replace Bridge No. 61 on new alignment to the east of the existing bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
estimated cost for Alternate 4 is $3,425,000 to include $2,475,000 for
construction and $950,000 for right of way acquisition.
"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.
3

Alternates 1 and 3 both replace the existing structure in the same location with a
bridge approximately 300 feet (91 meters) in length and maintain a design speed of 60
mph (100 km/h). Alternate 3 is recommended because there i~- no onsite detour.
Although Alternate 2 offers the same benefits; but, this alignment would require an on-
site detour. Alternate 4 would increase the impacts to the project area. The Division
concurs in the recommendation.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 61 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a new bridge
in the same location. The new bridge will be approximately 300 feet (91 meters) in
length and placed at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will
be detoured onto NC 87 during construction (See Figure 4).
NC 87 will be patched and resurfaced from the southern city limits of Boiling
Spring Lakes to the northern city limits of Boiling Spring Lakes as a part of this project
(see Figure 5).
The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 32 feet (9.6 meters),
which will provide two 12-foot (3.6 meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2 meter) offsets. The
approaches will include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders
with 4-foot (1.2-meter) full depth paved shoulders. Approach work will extend
approximately 600 feet (180 meters) to either side of the new bridge. Based on
preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 60 mph (100 km/h).
NC 133 will be closed during replacement of Bridge No. 61.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of
the human or natural environment with implementation of the environmental
commitments listed in the project commitments section of this document and 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 known hazardous waste impacts.
No significant adverse effects on families or communities are anticipated. Right-
of-way acquisition will be very minimal.
No significant 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.
Closing NC 133 to construct Bridge No. 61 will require 18.6 miles (29.9
kilometers) of additional travel for residents traveling from south of Bridge No. 61 to
US 17. Road user cost for this additional travel will be approximately $300,000.
Additional time will be required for school bus services and other public services. The
public officials in charge of administering these services have been consulted and do not
object to the recommended alternative.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Brunswick County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
This project will impact no soils considered to be prime or important farmland.

D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates they "are aware of no
historic structures within the area of potential effect." Therefore, the SHPO
recommended no historic architectural surveys be conducted (see appendix).
The SHPO knows of no archaeological sites within the proposed project area. It is
unlikely that any archaeological resources, which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction.
Therefore, the SHPO recommended that no archaeological investigations be conducted in
connection with this project (see appendix).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
Soils
There are two soil types located in the project area. A brief description of
each soil type is provided.
Chowan silt loam (CHI is nearly level, poorly drained soil found on
floodplains of the Cape Fear River and its tributaries. It has a
surface layer of dark grayish-brown silt loam, underlain by grayish-
brown silty clay loam. It has slow surface runoff, moderately slow
permeability, and is flooded for six months of most years. The
main limitations of this soil are wetness and flooding. The
Capability Unit is VIIw. This soil is listed as hydric for Brunswick
County.
,!
~ Bavmeade fine sand (BaBI is awell-drained soil found on low ridges
and convex divides. The surface layer is dark gray fine sand,
underlain with a light gray fine sand. Surface runoff is slow,
permeability is moderately rapid, and the available water capacity
is low. The seasonal high water table is four to five feet below the
surface. The Capability Unit is IIIs.
2. Water Resources
There is one water resource in the project study area. NC 133 crosses one
perennial stream, Town Creek (also known as Rattlesnake Branch).

a. Best Usage Classification
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the
Lower Cape Fear River, Coastal Watershed (Subbasin 03-06-17), and
Hydrologic Unit 03030005 of the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) which reflects water quality conditions
and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same
classification as the streams to which they flow. The classification for
Town Creek [DEM Index No. 18-18, 9/1/74] is CSw. Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. The Sw (Swamp Waters)
subclassification is a supplemental classification intended to recognize
those waters having naturally occurring low velocities, low pH, and low
dissolved oxygen. Town Creek is also classified as an Anadromous Fish
Stream.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
b. Stream Characteristics
The headwaters of Town Creek are approximately 23.3 kilometers
(14.5 miles) west-northwest of Bridge No. 61. The creek flows east
southeastward under the project bridge and outfalls into the Cape Fear
River approximately 3.1 kilometers (1.9 miles) east of the project study
area.
Town Creek, at NC 133, is approximately 80.0 feet (24.4 meter)
wide and ranges in depth from 6.0 to 8.0 feet (1.8 to 2.4 meter). The
substrate in the study area is most likely composed of organic muck. The
creek is tidal, occasionally bringing brackish water into what would
otherwise be a freshwater marsh.
c. Water Quality
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a
pipe, ditch, or other defined points of discharge. Point source dischargers
located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no NPDES sites
located within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area.

Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. Excluding road runoff,
there were no identifiable non-point sources that could be observed during
the site visit. Due to the potential of impacts from deck drains, every effort
will be made not to discharge the bridge deck drains directly into the
stream, if possible.
d. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this
goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical and physical data that can be
used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed
every 5 years. An assessment of water quality data indicates that the
Lower Cape Fear River and Coastal Watershed generally has good to
excellent water quality due largely to good tidal flushing (NCDEHNR
1995a).
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water
quality management, DWQ's Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network assessed water quality by sampling for Benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There are no
BMAN sampling stations in the project vicinity (NCDEHNR 1995a).
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result
from activities associated with project construction, such as clearing and
grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction,
fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation.
Th~ following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from
the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the
crossing and increased erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to
vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway
runoff.

Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel
and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes
in surface and groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the
project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of
the project. The short-nosed sturgeon may inhabit the project study area.
Accordingly, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (formerly High
Quality Water Guidelines) will be enforced during the construction phase
of the project. The project study area is located within the coastal plain
and crosses a perennial stream. NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage (see Appendix) will be adhered to during the
life of the project. To further insure water quality suitable for the
shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous fish, a moratorium on in-stream
work will be enforced from February 1 through June 15 All measures
should be taken to prevent sedimentation in Town Creek during
construction.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an
asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
`I Much of the flora and fauna described from biotic communities
utilize resources from different communities, making boundaries between
contiguous communities difficult to define. There are four communities
located in the project area to the west of NC 133 (impact area). While not
lying within the project area boundaries, the adjacent cypress-gum swamps
are nevertheless noteworthy. The communities contained within the
project area are discussed below.
Tidal Freshwater/ Brackish Marsh
Tidal freshwater (brackish influenced) marsh, oligohaline variant,
is found to the north and south of Town Creek. This variant occurs in
areas with slight salt influence. Salt levels may be higher during rare high
tide events. Although these marshes form upstream of the mouth of the
creek, they are still tidally influenced. Tidal flooding brings in nutrients
derived from seawater and varying amounts of sediment to the community.

Much of the tidal freshwater marsh community is unusual in appearing to
have recently replaced tidal cypress-gum swamp. Numerous dead trees
and some live trees remain in the marsh. It is uncertain what caused the
shift. Possibilities include storm-driven salt-water intrusion or rising sea
level. It is presumed to be a natural process. In contrast to brackish and
saltwater marshes, tidal freshwater marshes are very diverse. The Town
Creek site is dominated by common cattail, wax myrtle, black willow,
Arrow arrum, and beakrush.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community exists in what appears to bean old borrow pit,
which originates from the southern edge of the marsh community and
roughly parallels NC 133 to the southwest of the bridge. It was most
likely formed when the road was constructed. It is approximately 30 feet
(9.1 meters) wide and 5 feet (1.5 meters) deep. The soils here are
composed of highly organic mucks and there is evidence of frequent
flooding, presumably overflow from Town Creek. The overstory is
dominated by bald cypress, swamp tupelo, red maple, and sweet gum.
Dominant herbs and vine include: netted chain fern, arrow arum, catbrier,
rush, royal fern, Virginia chain fern, and poison ivy.
Upland Pine Forest
This strip of woods borders the west side of the "borrow pit".
Mature loblolly pine and sweet gum dominate this community. The
understory consists primarily of red bay, water oak, southern magnolia,
sassafras, and mockernut hickory. Other species present include
muscadine, honeysuckle, wax myrtle, and poison ivy.
Disturbed Roadside
This upland community is located to the north and south of the
marsh community on both sides of NC 133. It encompasses two types of
habitats that have recently been or are currently impacted by human
disturbance: maintained roadside shoulder and disturbed fringe. Because
of mowing and the use of herbicides, this community is kept in a constant
state of early succession. Roadside shoulder is a regularly maintained
habitat that is kept in aloes-growing, early successional state. Herbs,
grasses, and vines located here include: goldenrod, morning glory, pepper
vine, ragweed, Japanese honeysuckle, common plantain, winged sumac,
muscadine grape, and catbrier.
Disturbed fringe is comprised of shrubs and sapling sized trees that
exist in the roadside shoulder/ freshwater marsh ecotone. Species
~o

observed here include: wax myrtle, red maple, sweet gum, and black
will~~w.
b. Aquatic Community
The Natural Heritage Program lists the area east of Town Creek as
a priority Aquatic Habitat and the area west of Town Creek as priority
Tidal Wetlands.
4. Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich
ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common
mammals and birds associated with ecotones and upland forests are woodchuck,
least shrew, southern short-tailed shrew, hispid cottonrat, eastern cottontail
rabbits, ruby crowned kinglet, Carolina chickadee, bluebird, downy woodpecker
and white-breasted nuthatch. The ground beetle and bessbug were also found in
this community, feeding under logs.
The adjacent cypress-gum swamp provides habitat for an assortment of
birds and mammals. Birds often associated with swamp communities include red-
winged blackbird, white-throated sparrow, song sparrow, and northern cardinal.
Yellow-rumped warblers and common yellow throat may also be found in this
community. Yellow warbler, red-eyed vireo, Carolina wren and mourning dove
may also frequent this area.
Mammals that may frequent the swamp community include white-footed
mouse and raccoon. In addition, white-tailed deer* and gray squirrel may also forage
in or near this community. Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant
in the riparian edge. Spring peeper* and northern cricket frog* breed in semi-
permanent pools during the spring. Rat snake, worm snake, ring-necked snake and
queen snake may be found here as well. The box turtle may also be found in the
swamp community.
a. TerrestrialImpacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction. Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities
resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived based on a
project length of 1,000 feet (304.8 meters), and the entire proposed right of
way width of 60 feet (18.3 meters). However, project construction often does
not require the entire right-of--way; therefore, actual impacts may be less.

Table 1. Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Impacted Area ac (ha)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4
Communi
ty Existing
Location
Permanent
Existing
Permanent

TemPo~Y Realignment Location Realignment

detour West Road Closure East
Tidal Freshwater Marsh 0.16ac/o./2 ac 0.16 ac 0.16 ac 0.90 ac
(wetland) (0.07 ha)(o.os ha) (0.07 ha) (0.07 ha) (0.36 ha)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.12ac/o.1 o ac 0.12 ac 0.12 ac 0.25 ac
(wetland) (0.05 ha)(o.o4 ha) (0.05 ha) (0.05 ha) (0.10 ha)
Pine Forest 0.29 ac/o.21 ac 0.29 ac 0.29 ac 0.29 ac
(upland) (0.12 ha)(o.o9 ha) (0.12 ha) (0.12 ha) (0.12 ha)
Disturbed Roadside 1.12 ac/o.83 ac 1.12 ac 1.12 ac 1.12 ac
(upland) (0.44 ha)/(o.33 ha) (0.44 ha) (0.44 ha) (0.44 ha)
Total Impacts 1.69 ac/1.26 ac 1.69 ac 1.69 ac 2.56 ac
(0.68 ha)(o.S1 ha) (0.68 ha) (0.68 ha) (1.02 ha)
Note: Detour impacts are based on a right of way width of 80 feet ( 24.4 meters).
Temporary detour impacts are shown in italics.
b. Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Town Creek will result from
the replacement of Bridge No. 61. Impacts are likely to result from the
physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality).
Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic
community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall
quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can
result in the following impacts to aquatic communities.
• ~ Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting
from an increased sediment load.
5. Jurisdictional Topics
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge
or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
12

b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
There are wetlands in the project area in the form of tidal
freshwater marshes. Vegetation includes common cattail, wax myrtle,
Arrow arrum, and beakrush. Permanent and temporary impacts are as
follows:
Alternate 1 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of the
bridge on the same alignment are approximately 0.28 acres (0.12
hectares). Temporary impacts for the construction of a temporary
detour to the west of the existing bridge are 0.22 acres (0.09
hectares).
Alternate 2 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of
the bridge to the west of the existing bridge with a new bridge are
approximately 0.28 acres (0.12 hectares).
Alternate 3 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of the
bridge on the same alignment are approximately 0.28 acres (0.12
hectares).
Alternate 4 -Permanent wetland impacts for the replacement of
the bridge to the east of the existing bridge with a new bridge are
approximately 1.15 acres (0.46 hectares).
There will be no impacts to jurisdictional surface waters because
the new bridge will span the entire width of Town Creek.
c. Permits
The subject project is located within a county that is under the
jurisdiction of Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA is
administered by the N. C. Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to
identify and designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) in which
uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to property,
public health and natural environment. A CAMA permit from the
NCDCM is required if the project meets all of the following conditions:
a) Located in one of the twenty counties covered by CAMA;
b) Located in or affects an AEC designated by the CRC;
c) Considered to be "development" under CAMA; and,
d) Not qualify for an exemption as identified by CAMA or the CRC.
13

The project fulfills all of the above statements. More specifically,
the project will require a CAMA major development permit.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification
from the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide Permit.
The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance
of a Section 404 permit or LAMA permit.
The FHWA has determined a US Coast Guard permit will not be
required for construction of this project.
d. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Specific avoidance and minimization measures for this project
include: using a maximum slope of 3:1, and replacing the existing bridge
in its current location with an off-site detour. Final design will reveal final
impacts. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest on the Corps of
Engineers.
6. Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 61 is 300 feet (91 meters) long and 26.4 feet (8.04 meters)
wide. It has a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams with concrete caps on
timber piles. There is potential for some components of the bridge to be dropped
into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the reinforced concrete floor would be a maximum of 158.9 cubic
yards (121.5 cubic meters). This calculation was based on the entire length of the
bridge extending over surface waters as well as jurisdictional wetlands. All
deposited components will be removed from the Waters of the U.S. as quickly as
possible. ,
Bridge removal for this project is classified as Case 2 for bridge removal
which allows no work at all in water through a moratorium period of February 1
through June 15.
7. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 7, 2002, the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists fifteen federally protected
species for Brunswick County. Biological Conclusions of "No Effect"
14

were found for all federally protected species, except the shortnose
sturgeon. Although no populations of this species have been reported from
the project vicinity, favorable habitat does exist for this species. Based on
concurrence of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a biological
conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" has been determined for
the shortnose sturgeon.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
shows two occurrences of federally protected species in the project study
area. The American alligator and the red-cockaded woodpecker (last
observed in 1973) have been observed within 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) of the
project area.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Brunswick County.
Common Name. - ;: ' ~, .:'Scientific Name ~ Status° `
shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
American Alligator
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Piping Plover
Greet Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Eastern Cougar
Alligator mississippiensis
Caretta caretta
Charadrius melodus
Chelonia mydas
Dermochelys coriacea
Fells concolor couguar
Halieetus leucocephalus
Lepidochelys kempii
Mvcteria americans
Picoides borealis
Trichechus manatus
Amaranthus pumilus
Threatened,
due to similarity of appearance
Threatened
Threatened
Bald Eagle
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Wood Stork
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
West Indian Manatee
Seabeach Amaranth
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Rough-Leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
Note: "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Descriptions of Federally Protected Species found in Brunswick County, NC
Name: Shortnose sturgeon
Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small (1 meter in length) species offish that occurs
in the lower sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John
River, Canada to the Indian River, Florida. It can be differentiated from the Atlantic
15

sturgeon because of its shorter snout, wider mouth, and the pattern of its preanal shields
(the short-nose having one row and the Atlantic that has two).
The short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with salinity less than seawater.
It feeds benthicly on invertebrates and plant material and is most active at night. It is an
anadrornous species that spawns upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within
close proximity of the rivers mouth. At least two entirely freshwater populations have
been recorded, in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by
dams or pollutants to reproduce successfully.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique
habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity. However, favorable habitat does exist for this species.
Based on a conversation with the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Service on December 3,
1999, a moratorium is recommended to avoid in-water activity from February 1 through
June 15. The National Marine Fisheries Services concurs with the recommendation of
North Carolina Marine Fisheries, and has issued a finding of "Not likely to Adversely
Affect" for the impacts of the shortnose sturgeon (see letter in Appendix). This is
dependent on the commitments found on the Project Commitment Green Sheet.
Name: American alligator Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is
therefore not protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in
order to control the illegal trade of other protected crocodilians such as the American
crocodile, federal tlegulations (such as hide tagging) are maintained on the commercial
trade of alligators. No survey is required for this species. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on
September 12, 2001. There has been a sighting of this species within 1.0 km (0.6 milel ~f
the project area.
Name: Loggerhead sea turtle
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Threatened
NO EFFECT
The loggerhead sea turtle is found in a wide variety of habitats, including the open ocean,
bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and large river mouths. Hatchlings are
often seen in association with floating sargassum seaweed. The diet includes sponges,
jellyfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and fish. Loggerheads often forage in coral reefs, rocky
areas, and shipwrecks.
16

' The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species end
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have
been reported from the project vicinity. There are no suitable beach or marine habitats
located in the project study area. Additionally, the project study area does not exhibit the
salinity necessary to support this species. Therefore, no effects to this species will occur
from the construction of this project.
Name: Piping plover Threatened
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The piping plover has a breeding range including the Great Lakes region and the
Atlantic Coast between Newfoundland and Cape Lookout, NC. Populations in the Great
Lakes region are listed as Endangered; populations elsewhere in the range are listed as
Threatened. This species winters on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts from North
Carolina to Mexico, and the Bahamas and West Indies. Preferred habitat consists of large
sandflats or mudflats for foraging in close proximity to a sandy beach for roosting and
nesting.
Piping plovers nest on sandy or gravelly beaches in sparsely vegetated areas that
are slightly higher in elevation than the surrounding beach
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have
been reported from the project vicinity. Suitable habitat does not exist within the project
vicinity for this species.
Name: Green sea turtle Threatened
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The green sea turtle can be found in tropical and temperate waters from
Massachusetts to Mexico on the east coast of North America, and British Columbia to
Baja California on the west coast, as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Most nesting in the United States takes place on the eastern coast of Florida between
Volusia and Dade Counties, though some nests have been observed in Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands as well
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
17

Name: Leatherback sea turtle
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of the turtles, weighing 295-680 kg with a
length of 1.2-1.8 m. This turtle is unique in that its carapace is not composed of hard
scutes, but is rubbery with small bones embedded in it. Preferred nesting beaches are
usually isolated, with close proximity to deep water, bordered by vegetation, and steep
enough so that dry sand is not too far from the water.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Eastern cougar Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The eastern cougar is a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat weighing between 68 and
91 kg. The cougar's body and legs are a uniform tawny color, although the belly is a pale
reddish color, and the backs of the ears, tip of the tail, and sides of the muzzle are black.
Habitat requirements consist primarily of large tracts of wilderness and adequate
prey, and this species can live in coastal swamps as well as mountainous regions.
Cougars feed mainly on white-tailed deer, although they may also eat small mammals,
wild turkeys, and occasionally domestic livestock. It is estimated that a female cougar
can have a range of 5-20 square miles, and a male can have a range upwards of 25 square
miles.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Bald eagle Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can
be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of
Endangered
~s

the~surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of this species have
been reported from the project vicinity and no birds or nests were observed during the site
visit.
Name: Kernp 's ridlev sea turtle Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles in our area, weighing
36-50 kg. This turtle is unique in that its broad, heart-shaped carapace is gray, and there
is a secretory pore near the posterior edge of each scute forming the bridge between the
carapace and plastron.
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is found in shallow water, usually near coastal forests
of red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Nearly the entire population nests on
approximately 24 km of beach in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Preferred nesting
beaches are backed by large swamps or open water with narrow ocean connections.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Wood stork Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Wood storks are large wading birds with long legs. They are approximately
1.27 m tall, with a wingspan of 1.52-1.65 m. Their plumage is mainly white, except for
black primaries and secondaries and a short black tail. The head and neck are
unfeathered, with dark gray skin; legs are dark, and the bill is black and slightly decurved.
Juveniles are grayish and have a yellow bill.
Nesting occurs in large colonies, primarily in cypress and mangrove swamps.
Favored feeding habitat includes freshwater marshes, tidal creeks, and tide pools,
especially pools in marshes or swamps where fish are concentrated by falling water
19

levels. The feeding grounds may be as far as 128 km from the nest location, as the storks
use thermals to soar great distances.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does exist within
the project vicinity for this species. However, only a few representatives of this species
have reached southeastern North Carolina, residing primarily in coastal South Carolina,
from near Georgetown southward (Potter 1980). There have been no populations of this
species reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the
RCW is up to 500 acres (200 hectares). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with tl~e fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12-100 feet (3.6-30.3 meters) above the ground and average 30-50 feet (9.1- 15.7
meters) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker was
last observed from the project vicinity in 1973. However, habitat suitable for this species
is no longer present in the project vicinity.
zo

Na~•me: West Indian Manatee
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Endangered
NO EFFECT
The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about 10
feet (3 m) long and weighing around 1000 pounds. The body of the manatee is nearly
hairless except for a muzzle covered with stiff "whiskers." The U.S. manatee population
was probably twice as abundant in the 1700's and early 1800's as at present. Initial
population decreases resulted from overharvesting for meat, oil, and leather. Today,
heavy mortality is attributed to accidental collisions with boats and barges, along with
loss of suitable habitat.
Manatees inhabit both salt and freshwater habitats of sufficient depth (greater than
l .5 m). They may be encountered in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine beaches, and salt
water bays. Observations of salt water populations indicate that they may require
freshwater for drinking purposes. Manatees also require warm water. When water
temperatures drop below 20 C, they begin to move into warmer water, often forming
large aggregations in natural springs and industrial outfalls during the winter.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. No populations of the West Indian
Manatee have been reported from the project vicinity. This species typically inhabits
more southern areas but has been observed on occasion in North Carolina's coastal waters
near South Port. Nevertheless, manatees are not likely to swim as far north as the NC 133
crossing of Town Creek.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a list of "Precautions for the
general construction in areas which may be used by the West Indian manatee in North
Carolina." These precautions will be considered in all aspects of project construction;
therefore, this project will not affect the West Indian manatee.
Name: Seabeach Amaranth
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Threatened
NO EFFECT
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in clumps containing 5 to 20
branches and are often over a foot across. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or
reddish in color. Seabeach amaranth has thick, fleshy leaves that are small, ovate-
spatulate, emarginate and rounded. The leaves are usually spinach green in color, cluster
towards the end of a stem, and have winged petioles.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. Habitat for
Seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic
and natural manner. Seabeach amaranth grows well in overwash flats at the accreting ends
21

of islands and the lower foredunes and upper strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary
populations often form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and beach
replenishment.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on September 12, 2001. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the project vicinity for this species and no populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity.
Name: Roughed-leaved Loosestrife
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Endangered
NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved Loosestrife is endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills of North
Carolina and South Carolina.
Typical habitat for rough-leaved Loosestrife is the ecotone between high pocosin
and longleaf pine (or oak) savannas that contain sandy or peaty soils and full sunlight.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife sometimes occurs in low pocosin openings where light is
abundant at ground level. Other habitats where this species is found include ecotones of
stream-head pocosins in the Sandhills and Sandhill Seeps where wet sands are underlain
by clay, allowing water to seep to the surface along slopes.
Two populations of rough-leaved Loosestrife occur along NCDOT rights-of--way
in Brunswick County.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife is a perennial herb growing from 30 - 60 cm (12 - 24 in)
tall. Its sessile leaves, in whorls of three to four, are broadest at the base and have three
prominent veins. The leaves are entire, slightly revolute (rolled under along the margins),
yellow-green or blue-green in color and lustrous. Rough-leaved Loosestrife flowers from
May to June. '
Suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project area. During a
general survey of the area, the project area was also surveyed for this species by NCDOT
biologists on June 23, 1999. No individuals of this species were located in the project
area nor does the NCNHP database show in previous records of this species occurring in
the project area. Thus, construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
22

Name: Coole~~'s meadox~rue Endangered _
Best Search Time: mid June to early July
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in wet pine savannas, grass-sedge bogs and savanna
like areas, often at the border of intermittent drainages or swamp forests. This species is
usually found in areas that contain some type of disturbance such as clearings, burned
savanna edges, maintained roadsides and power line rights-of--ways. It is found on fine
sandy loam, circumneutral soils that are seasonally (winter) moist or saturated and only
slightly acidic (pH 5.8-6.6).
Cooley's meadowrue is a tall herb growing to 1 m or more when in flower. Its
slender stems are erect in sunny locations and lax or sprawling when shaded.
Suitable habitat for this species does not occur in the project area. During a
general survey of the area, the project area was also surveyed for this species by NCDOT
biologists on June 23, 1999. No individuals of this species were located in the project
area nor does the NCNHP database show in previous records of this species occurring in
the project area. Thus, construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
b. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are thirty-seven federal species of concern listed by the FWS
for Brunswick County (Table 3). Federal species of concern are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. In addition, organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(S~) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these
species (if afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat
in the project area for each species. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the protection status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
shows one occurrence of FSC species in the project study area. The
Northern pine snake has been observed within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
the project area.
23

Table 3. Federal species of concern for Brunswick Countv
Common Name Scientific Name NC Habitat

Bachman's Sparrow
Aimophila aestivalis Status
SC Present
No
Henslow's Spatrow Ammodramus hertslotvii SR No
Carolina Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma boeltlkei T Yes
Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus SR* No
Mimic Glass Lizard Ophisaurus minticus SC/PT No
Eastern Painted Bunting Passerina ciris ciris SR Yes
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC* Yes
Carolina Gopher Frog__ ____ __Rana c~ito capito SC/PT No
Buchholz's Dart Moth _.._ .._

Agrotis uchholzi _..._._

SR
...............
_. - ---..._.
No
Arogos Skipper Atrytorte arogos arogos SR No
Waccamaw Spike Elliptio waccamawensis T No
Venus Flytrap Cutworm Moth Nemipachnobia subporphyrea subporPhyrea SR No
Greenfield rams-horn Helisoma eucosmium SR No
Magnificent Rams-hom Planorbella magnifica E No
Rare Skipper Problema bulenta SR Yes
_Cape Fear Threetooth _~ Triodopsis soelneri _ T Yes
Savanna Indigo-Bush Amorpha georgiana var confusa T Yes
Honeycomb Head Balduina atropurpurea C* No
Chapman's Sedge Carex chapmanii W 1 * Yes
Venus Flytrap Dionaea muscipula C-SC No
Dwarf Burhead Echinodorus parvulus C Yes
Harper's Fimbry Fimbristylis perpusilla T Yes
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C No
Carolina Bogmint Macbridea caroliniana T Yes
Loose Watetmilfoil Myriophyllum laxum T No
Savanna Cowbane Ozypolis ternata W 1 No
Carolina Grass-Of-Parnassus Parnassia caroliniana E No
Pineland Plantain Plantago sparsiflora E No
Awned Meadow-Beauty Rhexia aristosa T* No
Swamp Forest Beaksedge Rhynchospora decurrens C Yes
Thorne's Beaksedge Rhvnchospora thornei E . No
Carolina Goldenrod Solidago pulchra E No
Spring-Flowering Goldenrod Solidago verna T No'
Wireleaf Dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius sensus stricto T No
Carolina Asphodel Tofieldia glabra C No
Dune Bluecurls Trichostema sp 1 C No
Savanna campylopus Campvlopus carolinae C No
Note:
C A Candidate is any species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with I-20 populations in the state, generally substantially
reduced in numbers by habitat des truction.
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is det ermined to be in jeopardy.
SC A Special Concem species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or wllected and sold under regulations adopted under
the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection end Conservation Act (plants).
Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR A Significantly Rare species is not listed as "E", "T", or "SC", but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined to need monitoring.
T A Threatened specics is any native or once native species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act.
W I A Watch Category I specics is a ra re species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which appears to be
relatively secure at this time.
/P_ denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered (PEI, Threatened (PT), or S pecial Conc ern (PSC), but
has not yet completed the listing process.
Historic record, the species was last observed prior to 1979.
24

VIII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On May 22, 2001 a citizens informational workshop was held in Brunswick
County for both this project and TIP Project B-3116. This workshop was held to obtain
comments and suggestions from the citizens in the project area. Approximately 25
persons attended this meeting. Most of the citizens in attendance opposed the road
closure to replace the two bridges. Some of the concerns with closing the road included
inconveniences to school buses, evacuation during hurricane season, emergency response
time and increased travel cost due to high gas prices. Most citizens, however, agreed the
bridge requires replacement.
With the option of closing NC 133 being the proposed recommendation, NCDOT
coordinated with Orton Plantation, a set of formal and informal gardens open to the
public to determine how this would affect their business. A spokesperson from Orton
Plantation was in favor of replacing the bridges and did not object to closing the road.
The let date was adjusted to allow construction to begin after mid-September to
accommodate Orton Plantation's schedule. This tourist attraction is open March through
November.
A meeting was held with natural resource agencies on June 14, 2001. The
purpose of this meeting was to discuss alternatives for TIP Projects B-3115 and B-3116
and to obtain concurrence on the recommended alternative for both projects. The result
of this meeting was a recommendation to replace Bridge No. 61 in its existing location
with a 300-foot (91 meter) bridge.
A meeting was held on July 9, 2001 with public officials in Brunswick County.
Representatives from Carolina Power and Light Company's (CP&L) Brunswick Nuclear
Plant and local emergency management officials had concerns with the road being closed
during hurricane season. They agreed however, the replacement of Bridge No. 61 along
with the adjacent bridge project were needed. CP&L and other officials did not object to
closing the road; however, they asked that NC 133 not be closed until after Labor Day, in
order to avoid the peak tourist season and reduce the amount of time the road will be
closed during hurricane season. NCDOT agreed to delay closing NC 133 until after
Labor Day. NCDOT will provide CP&L and the emergency management officials with
an estimate of the amount of time the road closure will add to evacuation times for the
plant.
A meeting was held on January 31, 2002 with representatives from emergency
management and other local officials from Brunswick County, CP&L, citizens, State and
Federal Resource Agencies, and NCDOT representatives. The purpose of this meeting
was to discuss closing NC 133 to replace the two bridges. The meeting concluded with
NCDOT agreeing to gather information on cost and impacts for replacing the bridge on
new location to the east and making a decision after comparing all of the proposed
alternatives. NCDOT also agreed to leave Bridge No. 56 open while Bridge No. 61 is
being replaced.
25

A meeting was held on March 8, 2002 with NCDOT officials at the existing
bridge location. After consideration with the Board of Transportation Member for
Division 3 and the Division Construction Engineer it was decided to replace the bridge on
existing location with road closure and an offsite detour.
IX. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
26

FIGURES

N

~
•,
'
~ N J: N
'' ~
Id:~~~
.~~
r.
.
~~
,,., ~,,.
B R U N S W I:L~C y,

~ rr ~
1.
'W i•l '~•'"5'~
~~.i ' w

-~. --
.\
r
~I ~~
1
~ J ~ }~1
.;
J
CAMPBELL
ISLAND

~ ~.
~~a~ "°"'"~,,; North Carolina Department of
4+~ Transportation
,.
~, ~; Division of Highways
~~~ ,df~~ Planning & Environmental Branch
Brunswick County
Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 133
Over Town Creek
B-3115
Fi~,ure Onr

__'~__ Nort_h_ Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
i 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch , NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C m for - /~ /
Habitat Conservation Progr
DATE: December 5, 1997
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements, Brunswick, Onslow, Wayne, Cumberland,
Richmond, Wilson, Lenoir, and Northampton counties, North Carolina,
TIP Nos. B-3115, B-3116, B-3358, B-3379, B-3322, B-3365, B-2110, B-
3267, B-3200, B-1303.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
conducted site visits as need and have the following preliminary comments on the subject
projects. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows: '~
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 5, 1997
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. $f multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be

Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 5, 1997

designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3115 -The potential ins high for anadromous fish usage at this site.
Therefore, the guidelines apply (See Item 9 above).
2. B-3116 -The potential is high for anadromous fish usage at this site.
Therefore, the guidelines apply (See Item 9 above).
3. B-3358 -This bridge is surrounded by swamp. We request that NCDOT
minimize wetland impacts.
4. B-3379 -This site has a high potential for wetlands adjacent to the bridge.
This are is classified as nutrient sensitive waters so we request that
sedimentation and erosion controls for high quality waters be followed.
5. B-3322 - No specific concerns.
6. B-3365 - No specific concerns.
7. B-2110 -High potential for wetland impacts. NCDOT should minimize
wetland impacts.
8. B-3267 - No specific concerns.
9. B-3200 - Anadromous fish are known to us this area so the guidelines apply
(See Item 9 above). There is a high potential for wetland involvement.
10. B-1303 - Anadromous fish are known to use this area so the guidelines apply
(See Item 9 above).
We request that NCDOT routinely _~,inimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildltfe passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

STREAM CROSSING GUIDELINES
FOR ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE
Anadromous Fish are a valuable resource and their migration
must not be adversely impacted. The purpose of this document
is to provide guidance to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to ensure that replacement of existing and new
highway stream crossing structures will not impede the
movement of Anadromous Fish.
Applicable When:
o Project is in the coastal plain defined by the
"Fall Line" as the approximate western limit
(see attached figure).
o For perennial and intermittent streams delineated
on most recent USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps.
General Guidelines:
o Design and scheduling of projects should avoid the
necessity of instream activities during the spring
migration period. For the purposes of these
guidelines "Spring" is considered to fall between
February 15 and June 15. (In areas where the
shortnose sturgeon may be present, .the Cape Fear,
Brunswick and Waccamaw Rivers, spring shall be
defined as February 1 to June 15).
oridges and other channel spanning structures
are preferred where practical.
Technical Guidelines:
o In all cases, the width, height and gradient of
the proposed opening shall be such as to pass
the average historical spring flow without
adversely altering flow velocity. Spring flow
should be determined from gage data if available.
In the absence of this data, bankfull flow can be
used as a comparative level. (Reference, "Fisheries
Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological
Criteria", Bell 1973, for fish swimming
limitations.)
o The invert of culverts shall be set at least one
foot below the natural stream bed.

Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage
Page -2-
o Crossings of perennial streams serving watersheds
greater than one square mile shall provide a
minimum of four (4) feet of additional opening
width (measured at spring flow elevation) to allow
for terrestrial wildlife passage.
o In stream footings for bridges will be set one foot
below the natural stream bed when practical.
For crossing sites which require permit review the following
information will be provided as a minimum to facilitate
resource agency review.
o Plan and profile views showing the existing and
proposed crossing structures in relation to the
stream bank and bed.
o Average historical spring flow (or bankfull flow)
for the site.
o How the proposed structure will affect the velocity
and stage of the spring flow (bankfull).
o Justification for any variance from the guideline
recommendations.

a .--_.- - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMN
~`-T- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis
°_• - -- -_
.,~, °~'' S~~utl~cast Rc~~ional Ofl ice `^
9 ~ ~ I Executive Center Drip c 1\'orth
St. P~tursbur~,. F1. 3371 ~
(7~~) 370-531'; Fax X70-~>17
A?A ~ ~ i:J:'~ F'SER3:JLL
qtr. Gregon~ Blakeney
Project Development and Em•ironmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 2201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Ivlr. Blakeney:
This letter responds to your March 31, ?000 letter regarding nyo proposed bridge replacement projects in
Bruns~yick Count,•. Both bridges to be demolished are made out of concrete and will be replaced ~yitl~
reinforced concrete and steel or concrete Birders. Bridge No. 61 on NC 133 over Toa•n Creek (State
Project No.8.1231401, TIP No. B-3110 is approximately 300 feet long and 26 feet ~yide and ~yill be
replaced ~yitlt a bridge 300 feet lone and 32 feet wide. Bridge No. 56 on NC 133 Dyer Allen Creek (Sate
Project No. 8.1231501, TIP NO. B-3116) is approximately 61 feet long and 2~ feet ~yide and ~yill be
replaced with an 80 feet long and 32 feet wide bridle. Explosives will not be used in the demolitions.
Allen Creek and Town Creek are tributaries to the lower Cape Fear River. Shortnose sturgeon, protected
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), are rare but do occur in tl~e Cape Fear River. There are no
known occurrences of the shortnose sturgeon within these creeks, but potential Habitat is present. No in-
stream construction in Town Creek or Allen Creek will occur during the months of January, February,
IVtarch, or April, when shortnose sturgeon could potentially be present. The NCDOT will abide by tl~e
Best Management Practices For Bridge Demolition and Removal policy. Higlt Qualitt• Waters (HQW)
Erosion Control Guidelines will also be adhered to throughout construction. Based on this information,
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurs with your conclusion that the proposed projects
are not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon.
This concludes the consultation responsibilities under section 7 of tl~e ESA for the proposed action for
Federally-listed species, and their critical habitat, under NMFS purview. Consultation should be
reinitiated if new information reveals impacts of the proposed action that may affect listed species or
their critical habitat, a ne~v species is listed, the identified action is subsequently modified, or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the proposed activity.
if you have any questions, please call Jennifer Lee, Fishery Biologist, of my Protected Resources staff.
Sincerely,
• ~ ~~.
~~~ William T. Hogarth, Ph. D.
Regional AdminisU'ator
cr. F/PR3
1514-?? L ~®

ti
~.r ~ yTA rte(' .y'#
t.Sr,t-J~ Z.-
:~ A~
~`'~ '~ ;;r~j
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 16, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #61 on NC 133 over Town Creek,
Brunswick County, B-31 15, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-133(1), State Project 8.1231401, ER 98-
7931
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
kffrcy 1. Crow, Director
On December 10, 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, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with- Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina ?7601-2807 ']~

Nicholas L. Graf
December 16, 1997, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environr
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
~~
,,

OF TR
~.~ ~S'~°9, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~~ ~ FEDERAL HIGH\\'A 1' AD~IINISTR.4TION
Q 310 New Bern A~~enue. Suite 410
`~ ~R~ Raleigh, Nor[h Carolo a ?7601
'~grES ~ Ma~~ 5, ?00
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E.
Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina

IN REPLY REFER TO
HO-NC
Subject: Federal-aid Project BRSTP-133(1), State No. 8.1231401, B-
3115, Brunswick County Determination of Need-for a Coast
Guard Permit
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
As requested by Mr. Gregory Blakeney, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWR) has reviewed the information submitted on the
subject project relative to the type and size of vessels that
utilize Town Creek in the vicinity of the proposed project.
In accordance with 23 CFR 650.805(b), the FHWA has determined that
the proposed project is over water that is not used or is not
susceptible to use in its natural condition or by reasonable
improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Although this waterway is tidal, the only vessels that use the
stream are recreational, fishing or other small boats less than 6.4
meters (21 feet) in length. Accordingly, a US Coast Guard permit
is not required for construction of this project.
Sincerely yours,
C
F Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator

~O~
~~
O
U`
. `'v
^QG
V ~
r
V ~
Michael F, Easley, C
Norlh Carolina Department of Environmlllen and Natur IrRe;
•-- ~ Alan W. Klimek, P.E.,
Division of Water
N/ilmington Region
--=.._
August 6, 2002
Mr. Andrew Nottingham, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Hydraulics Unit, 1590 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1590 ;_r
oivis
Subject: EXEMPTION from Stormwater HYI
Management Permit Regulations
NCDOT Project Number 8.1231401 (B-3115'
Stormwater Project No. SW8 020803
Bridge No. 61 over Town Creek on NC 133
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Nottingham:
"the Wilmington Regional Office received a copy of a Stormwater Management Per
Application Form for the NCDOT Public Road or Bridge project known as Bridge No. 61 c
Town Creek on NC 133. Staff of the Wilmington Regional Office have reviewed the applic
for the applicability of the Stormwater Management rules to the proposed activity at this pr.
Based on our review, the proposed development activity at this site is not subject to the
stormwater requirements as provided for in 1 SA NCAC 2H.1000. Please be advised that otl
regulations may potentially apply to the proposed activities.
If your project disturbs five acres or more and has a point source discharge of storm
runoff, then it is subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
storn~vvater discharge requirements. You are required to have an NPDES permit for stormw
discharge from projects meeting these criteria.
This exemption applies only to the Coastal Stormwater Management Permit for the
currently proposed activity. If at any time in the future, development of any part of this site i
planned, as defined in NCAC 2I-i.lOt)U, or if the proposed activities differ in any manner fro
what is shown on the plans on file with the Division, you must submit the project for review
the .applicability of the stormvvater management rules. If yott have any questions conceminQ
matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (9I 0) 395-3900.
Sincerely,

Rick Shiver
Water Quality Regional Supen~i~
RSS/arl: S:\1VQS\STORM~~':~T\E\Eit~IPT\020803.Au~
ce: Delaney Aycock, Brunswick Count Buildin~>
Linda Lewis y ~ Inspections
Wllnlington Regional Office
Central Files
N C. Division of Water Cluality 127 Cardinal Dm:e Extension Wilmington, N.L. 23-105
[phone]
Fax [phone] Cr

'~Q~`"~~'~;,; ;raFZ United States Department of the Interior
~ FISIi AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Offioc
Yost OtTicc Box 33726
'M'ARCH s.'D~9 Raleigh, Notch Carolina 27636-3726
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), also known as the Florida manatee, is
a Federally-listed endangered aquatic mammal protected under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C 1461 et seq.). The manatee is also listed as endangered
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act of 1987 (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of
the General Statutes). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead Federal
agency responsible for the protection and recovery of the West Indian manatee under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Adult manatees average 10 feet long and weigh about 2,200 pounds, although some
individuals have been recorded at lengths greater than 13 feet and weighing as much as
3,500 pounds. Manatees are commonly found in fresh, brackish, or marine water habitats,
including shallow coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and inland rivers of varying salinity
extremes. Manatees spend much of their time underwater or partly submerged, making
them difficult to detect even in shallow water. While the manatee's principal stronghold in
the United States is Florida, the species is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North
Carolina with most occurrences reported from June through October.
To protect manatees in North Carolina, the Service's Raleigh Field Office has prepared
precautionary measures for general construction activities in waters used by the species.
Implementation of these measure will allow in-water projects which do not require blasting
to proceed without adverse impacts to manatees. In addition, inclusion of these guidelines
as conservation measures in a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, or as part
of the determination of impacts on the manatee in an environmental document prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, will expedite the Service's review of the
document for the fulfillment of requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Speaes
Act. These measures include:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the
project that manatees may be present in the project area, and the need to avoid any harm
to these endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all construction
personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about
completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be
informed that they are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence
of manatees.
2. The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that

there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which a
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction and/or dredgii
operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions will be implemented to ensu
protection of the manatee. These precautions will include the immediate shutdown
moving equipment if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operational area of tl
equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee has departed the project area ~
its own volition (i.e., it may not be herded or harassed from the area).
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The reps
must be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.856.4520 ext. 16), tl
National Marine Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildll
Resources Commission (ph. 252.448.1546).
5. A sign will be posted in all vessels assocated with the project where it is clearly visit
to the vessel operator. The sign should state:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occurin these waters during the warmer
months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if operating
this vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down
if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the vessel or operating equipment. A collision
with and/or injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (919-856-4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252.448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and/or injuries
manatees during project activities. Upon completion of the action, the project managerv~
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees encountered and subn
the report to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
~,
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake/idle" spee~
at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four fc
clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possibl
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers will be: (a) made
material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in a manner that the
cannot break free and entangle manatees; and, (c) regularly monitored to ensure th
manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to allc
manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
Prepared by (rev. 06/2003):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
919/856-0520

Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.

bra '}
Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source: Clark, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-
3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.

^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
^ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
T. F. Holdings
1202 Eastwood Roati
Wilmington, NC 284(13
A. Signature
~ ~~ op
B. Received by Pri ed Name) C. D e o
~f'ica ~ ~ 9
D. Is delivery address different from item 17 ^ ti
If YES, enter delivery address below: ^ ~
3. Se ice lj~pe
Certified Mail ^ Express Mail
^ Registered ^ Return Receipt for Mei
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ^ ~
2. Article Number
(transfer /rom service label) ~OVO `~'~D D ~ ~ Z~gV 85Cio~
PS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt X0259
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature
item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. X
^ Pint your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. eived
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the frontrf space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
Mr. David R. Harless
2765 Rivcr Road, SE
Winnabow, NC 28479
^ Ag
~ ^ Ad
C. Date of I
7.7~
D. Is delivery address different from kem 17 ^ Ye:
If YES, enter delivery address below: ^ No
3. erv a Type
rtified Mail ^ Express Mall
^ egistered ^ Return Receipt for Mercl
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Feel ^ Yes
2. Article Number /~~ ~-j~ J~
(transfer from service IabeQ ~~ ~~ 1 ~~O 003 2~ S~ u~iV
PS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Retum Receipt 102595-(

Q.
'<
z
_~
o~
f
\ ~q \
sd
u ~ ~
.~ , w
K
2
fd 00'
w•p0- \ ~
0
a
1 6-~ s ~, -__- ---
\ ~~
am
.~
q~
5 ~~~ p0,
JO 00 -_
~~
\ .N < N
2 \ N
W
\ O
M s
\ o
a
a
\ ~ ~
C
~~8 ~
~~~~~~ T~
.~ N
a QOJI~~VWi~ x
y7
k
M

/ s„„
~~(.~ h~ o° 60.9
C, ~C/ 0 ~ti' ~ k
/ a\ / ~
yJ h p
^,~ i ~
i
+K
~ i ~q
e 4
J
_ ~~K
^~
n

u
3 „
s
~ o v mg
~ m .T

~

mm .~' ~
•W 5 +

m
~ r
J
J
~
~
~
~
~~
. m sfi~ ~
W~
pp o
J J +

U
y
° r
= ~
~O ~ pp
1(~
~
'^ b
~ 8 d
~ ~
ua
y-
~
~~ +
r
7
~
Jb-r7,
a~'up
~J o
O
gg
CR F
~~~ 8
vjrRolS
~f~6,
o v m nK s
I ~
~ ~ b

b- _1= ~~ m
vt~ ~
,~ g O
gym:
W t•o f ~~ $
QWi V
~ ~ +
r
J

/Gi/H
L
2
O r
u
Z
a
H

~~ ~

/ ~ ~9 ~ ~
a as ,
~~ r
' ~~/
~ d~ ~
s

~~~ ~
---' ti--~- N a
^• X I
'~
_ _ hm
isa
r or` `a a,a.of
dN ,
~, ®II
aj ~ ~ DII
^ ~ ~I
~;~ ~
. "~ ~ ~~
b I. ~~~
p/ k _.. ~~~ L w!. ell I~~
\ IIII^`\
~I" \,
m~ ~
+~~ w~ ~
o ~ ~
a ~
~ 4
- ~ I
u ~~ ,
~ ~ ^~
o ~'
~~. ~
(1
~ O
t
r<
Y

4\I
x r
m
o~ ~
W ~
p a
h ~4 x ~
d
NI
a

.I~
~^'S s~
I
I
I / \
,
a / ~

I '

//
~sl,99 ,ic46
50.01'~3.f0 ,1y,(S N
I ~ ~
a ~-+
I.` i f~F
N ~
J /V
N ~ / ~
YW1 a
J
1
"5:
I
~_ i

` II ~~
1 ~~
~g~
I
ft
~~N
d~~ ~ ~1<
k ~ '
~ ~ ~
.~
J
~I ~ .

~ \

~ ~

I u
~

j
~ ~
\
i
g~N
M

t
I :mFF I
d~YJ m
~~
/
I
/
,
I '
I'` I
3 I
~ ~ r
: ~~~~:
I~l~
I
~
r
~~~
bJ
ti~
o' ~ ~
~~
~.. J
I
M
M ~
M ~

Lfl Z
r I
~>-~Z~ o
3Zm~w w
_~ ;tD~ ~

,--- C' O U
~ ~

~ ,~ ~ z
~Yao 3
~
~
I
~ O
M
O _
~
Q~
ZN " ~

z -
oz~~~ q

~N~w°°> ~l
L.1..
m Q W Q

Q
°~
s
~
~ ~~~
\\
\.~
~~~ ~
bJ
ti
~~ ~~
/, 'l -~
~ ~ X
> ~.
~ ~,
'~
< ~~
~ O O
~ W Z
? Z F-
~ ~ J
'' Q W
= 3
z ~Z ~ Z
3
cn ~ cn c~
WW W Z
~.' 3 ~ .-~
Z Z¢
~ O -~
• e
•
~ ~
r"
..
a
a
s
v
a
a
J
J
3
R~
4
a
VI
W
U
'~~.\
~N
W
J
li
0
a
J
0
1L
W
W
2
Vi
W
W
N
W
H
O
2

u~P'611~~01

SH1061A311

~~,
~~S
5.drn

Z
-i
m
N
m
m
N
Z
m
m
--1
rn
0
r
v
r
m

~ ~
N
i «
•
..
~ •
mo 0
D Z Z
70 O O
~ ~~
z rn mm
G7 Ul ~ (n
D
z rn z~
~ or
~ = r
mD
'~ Z Z
D N
~ ~
7~.
~~J- ~
'O?11~~~f
~~
~~
~~
n ~
n I
A
I
o ~.'
m °=,
4
f
m
S
~O
O
C
v
z
r
/~/
I ~
I\ ~
pp ~ P
of ~ " I o t ' °' I~---"J
V4
1~
i ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ y
~ 1 1~ y y~ v
~ ~~
~ Q ~ _
. ~ IO
I N ~ s` ~ w
\\
0
Z \ I
N
~-
~ t
A : ~
~ ~ ei,i
w ~5!~~
T~
cps
C~,f-
s
r
n
i
A
r~l l.(
~~
e
o~ ~
~ ~~
,T
`' ~
`~
1 o I ~
`(~ "~ s
o N
q~~
~~ol
rr
f=- ~~ w
-( z
.~ $
, '~ ~

H

m r
>
~
m r
~ ~ r
yi
gym
a
~
4>
~~ f
~ b
~ ~ a;
~°
~
~
a
s l
~ S
n ~ p
m
~
+ ~ ~ 'NO L6 iw
m
-i
Q o ~ r
-1
p yr y
N o4
4
c ~ g p µ ~
p V r ~ ~

1
N
g
c +
N
O m - `4
~ °
~0
~>
6-
1 ~ $3g ~
O ~_ ~
~ o .~~
sD
_~ n y+rr
O° ~
y i v
~
o o o~ a
~
C° m
z

~ O m
~m O p
~ q
y
v
+
L
V

O ~- N ,~~
~oL1 ~ g~
~ ~ 8 _
-1
Z.
rn
/ I
g ~:
I I
;s.~ ~i
l \
I
I`
.ti'
.~
/5
y
~ C,`Zn
,~ ~ w . ~a~
6'09 ~~
„ Y
~~
s
'~ \~ Y
°
a
n N
x +~
'- . ~n
5

~'
~ ~
S ~
-T0
N
om°~<
mW~c~
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ Q ~• ~ Z ^
4 .~ omNno
,~ o .rte n _ -i
t<c ~ ~m=co°=

~ m-^z~
T
~p°

° f
l
-ID
~ZW-~-~
~ Z ~ N
~~
0o w
O
W
ti
I ~~---"-
I~ ~ $
s
~ g ~~
° Xb = ~rn~~i~o~
~ \ ~ ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~?
I~ b m J • YQ~~14w~~ r
-x
i~ G
~ ~ h ti
-+ I R W
c I ~ ~
_ _
~~~ I x S \ \
o \
n
<_
F p
A
~m_ m ~~
ii r , F~ .o
II ® '~
4
~ ' MP ~`
-(--___
~ _ 60'RiR 80.10 (~5(MCMt k _-
m' _ O/L` _ 5 K ~~ oC
II1' I ~ - ._T S 9~ w I,b9. 80' /~V ~0~ ~1C 5
`U O Z
Y p tP .n
~ J ~ ~~
LLL-CCC.••fff
~o
~~ -1- ''"ti~'^t i t x 'oo'a
O O n oa ~a \
~ / a a~ ~ A ~ ~ \ _
Y/ ~ ~ \ n 6
vl
s~
~~ ,~ .
~,
w
~` ~
r _ m
~ ~ ~ ~;

0
E
a

tl5prm.dgn
~ I
~O
r
O
e __
1 -
~ -
_. ~
~ ~1'h ~.
~~ ~~
~~ ~~.
n ~~'
N ~
h~.
~ ~~_ a.
'C y
~ ~~
II pll ~~....
w ~ ~
~~
-4
A
N
O~
V
r
r
~O
N
O
N
r
~~~~~~~~
~~~~ b ~ m '~'iQ
~~"~~ ~~~"^~ M~Z C
~~
- - ~ ~ O
- - - ~~m
- - M n~ n i e n r'u
- b8~~$$~~~ o
~~~~~~~~~ A'
~nr~
MnuV
t~i ~' ~~
cn
~n~~
~ 1 k
~ ~
~ ~ ~`
~ ~
_~
... ~

r ^~; ~ , .
~' ~
Y _
LOQI~?~TG NORTH : RO~~F 'rN~. SCE:.?'G'Is ?~~ ~~' 3~.I~~E
I t I I I. I
i,; - .
~" ~_ I~TU jam:`. ..~
a~,
ti "~-.
,. „ t

ti ~xn~l_~
\1 \110 r 11\` Y'~'II `~ ' _
I ~ ~'' Wl1 ~O(Y 1519 ~ ``~ t ~ r ~ TRrh
~~i- ~oW>twts ~~r. ~~
V661 ~ I '^IVf aU Sv NMUNS SUVOU ____ I / 1 \ ~/~~~~
'SOVOU 3`JV INUUi NU NMONS IUrI 30v3"IIH "fir, - ~ ~~~~1 ((1~.~/ ~f \~ ~ '
'SUVOtl Iv 31SA$-NON 1NV Itl0.lIYI tlll I V / Olr 1S' ~~'--`_~'~ I~~``~~ •
/...
SUvUU ~i 3NIVlNI vn 31v15 a1N0 53Un l7Nl dan ~310N ~ _ ~ ~ Atl311~ / !_ ~ y
J
illrv I . e =L__L-~=~~---~T_-~ ~lri I ~~~~ ~ / ln~~ A.I ~ M
[ I o I / \~~f/ aa!sl - 1
vSr~c ~ i ~ / ~` ----
1 ~ONr ISI +
~,
/ I~
C
-nr
)~ ~~
;;
1 ~ _.
~ I
r
J
i
~ ~:
I
,r. ..,
_- __,,
~~J
~.
.1+I
~~110~
xt~o~aQ
p~sodo.zd
} 11~T~~~ll~ , ~_
~~S ~~I~I`a~pl.~g
z c~~
.~
~ i,, y
o ~~
r ~ _,
~ cr+risl
1_~ ( 1138drr3
~ ~
r- -
~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ I
h,,,~~«
19 •o~a~ipt.~~,
u
uA
Z
a
1' ~~ -
1Pi1
z
r~ ;.
J,
,~

~~ r', ,C `ma....
~..,w`:
a~~~
_yD, ; h :
._t _
/r,'
~~J
~~
~.
-} ..3 t
...~~ t
- Rf{".L
wxi,
uNnx cni ucn
•,
-~ t
i

~ b1~i1
~ i
.
Wll '

-- ~ r~.
,~
,. ..
~ ' ~esr art,
. ~.' ~ ~ k
... ~:_
~~ r-- n-y
4 i > •
L
,~
..~- yt
i~
...y..... •" ic~r .
"L' I"T~~~,.`
3vl t.
~ioci
~r
fiif iiti ,iYI ~'
7 r11 .t..?...
,y'`~
IrI - i• ,-~..
-'~i ...... "
~.
~~`~
>r.; Y
II
'ffl
A •1

~~

3 Z
~ °
~~ ,-~ o

~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

r ~

~
~ _
ry _
~
p m m m
e CU t ' ~ ~
r
~~
G ~~~ ~ ,
~~/
~ ~
a
o ~^
:~ y
~ ~
~ ~ A
~ ~
h a~
~~
V ~ ~~
~ e ~~
////~ ~
~~
- W v
T ~ rVli
°"I
O
0 ry
O
VO
~~ W
W3!
`YL O O C~
~ GJ ` .
~~ y •~ • C
~~ ~~ n~ p 1.~~1~'m ~~
x
'~~
>b/BPI: b0

J
~ aEE~ r
~~~
~~
~~ ~
J
y16
J
a ~
~ J
1
M
2
0
ti
1
~~'S11 9
40 b~0~

`~
~~~
m ~ ~
~ W ~
~~
'~' '
~
"
~ . r
~
i°as , )D
J
~1
Qoo
.o~~ ~ - ,
'
~' ~ ~; s .. Q ~O 1
~
'~ > o z i
° _
~
`
Jq \ _ -__ _ _
~
o`

~

e~
5 ~1. ~
~~ 00
---«
41~W /~,~~_ ~~_" ~_
X
~~ ___
~yp~'6~1`M.60, i v
yi ~~- - 1 S
1
-~- _. ____ _ 35
_ )) OtoY 4itl.of
~'G ___

~.

\ r
t~
~
0
~'
q 5 /
d
m
~Z N
w~ o ~ I
\
r ~
6N ~'~
"' _ ~
O a w
N~_
I

\
~~=
~~
o

g
f- ~
I ~

I ~
~
} 1
I ~ 1
~~~ ~
J +~~ $~
~~~~ ~°
~~~~~~
a 4a,,tiavWi~
i /
~ ~ i-
/ ~~
`c;'
j sr ^;`'
r ,~;~,.
z
~ ~~

LL
e
°

N ~~

~' n
~ )no
~ ~ g .-
J ~~N
„ ~~ ..1~

a ;, oama Zo

vWi ,,
y g ~ i m g s
n
mmO . m r
J
~XQ ~
¢
Fa-W' Im mf U O s ~ ,-
W)-~
p
Q ~~
~ u
s~ J
0

J
~
~
c
g
~
~
+ 4
~;!

n
_
u
~
h ° ^

1

u OO
~ N
~
~' c ~
'~
r rii Ua~

,J y4 0
r
a~~ _
o p
W ~

a~ ~ t ~ r
pa~ pp

~~00
~

~ O

~/
ovmno2 ~ y~ j
r~$ a $ ~ ~
a I~ ~~ m
< ~
m' f ~ m~

o~~
s ~~
., o
m
~
_
.~
a
J °
Q o
y
5
~ f
~~
g _..., ~'
1 ~'~ ~
~~
~/
i
x ° a
~~~
~~ I \
~~ \
ggn
8~~
I° ~~~ ~
I
1'959+
~i J
'`~
~'~ .
X j`4 .if9
f~
•F~
^
1
1 ~
W
I J
La.
O

n.
J

O
L~
tI)
F-
W
W
2
N
W
W
N
W
H
b
J Z

s a'te'

~;'a~
3
Wm
m
i
¢~jZ
x
~,
\ \~
~1
-~'. ~
">d~
~. ~~
[I~tA
~3J-~~

vC~~o huu~97~~n;

S£~LU 6UCi~-N3J GZ

`,~
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G, Ross Jr., Secretary
May 19, 2004
Mr. David Timpy
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Timpy:
e~
~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Project:
DOT ID #:
County:
WET~ANQS 1401 CROl.1P
Plt;/1, ~ ;~ /U(I~i

Bridge Replacement over Town Creek, NC 133
B-3115
Brunswick Co., Southern Inner Coastal Plain Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide wetland mitigation for the 0.17 acres of unavoidable non-riverine wetland
impacts associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003; however, EEP intends to provide non-riverine wetland restoration
mitigation.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, P.E., Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3115
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

ti
~~
~~~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
May 19, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Project: Bridge 61 over Town Creek, NC 133
TIP Number: B-3115, Brunswick County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by
you in a letter dated March 5, 2004, the impacts are located in CU 03030005 of the Cape Fear
River Basin in the Southern Outer Coastal Plain Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Wetland Impacts: 0.17 acre
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The ecosystem enhancement for the subject project
will be provided in accordance with this agreement
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely
CL: ,
,.~~ C~<c- ~~
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: David Timpy, USACE-Raleigh
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3115
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NO hCa1'o/l/ina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr,state.nc.us/wrp/ atura[`~

~I
n,~ ~ ~
~,~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T~ZANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT J R.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 276]1-5201
November 7, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
F?EG'EIVF(~
NOi~` r u' 1997
~NVIRONA,t~NrAL SCIENCES
GARLAND B. ~GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.LP. County Bridge No. State~Route Planning Engineer
B-3112 Bladen No. 59 NC 11 Jeff Ingham,/
B-3115 Brunswick No. 61 NC 133 Bill Goodwinl/
B-3116 Brunswick No. 56 NC 133 Bill Goodwin,/~
B-3312 Burke No. 347 SR 1984 John Williams
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
December 10, 1997 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 2:00 P. M. in the order shown
above. These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project, so all attendees should plan to
arrive at the beginning of the 2:00 P. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg
Attachments