20040421 Ver 1_Complete File_20040317

~..
_ _
~~ r ,
... ~~ ~o ~~-~~
5.9 Ecologica9 Resources ~' ~~~
Ecological resources in the project area are described in Section 3.11. They were identified .~ t~1i!u'/'QG
through field inspection. Figures 3-21. ~ -22, and 3-? ~ in Chapter ~ 5how the general jo~htiori$~of
these resources. Resources identified include wetlands, streams, protected species~and-piant--~-~_ '~~°
communities. The water resources, including streams, wetlands, and floodplains, are shown on
the resource mapping in Volume 2 of this DEIS. Consultation with representatives of the
............_ ......................
resource agencies during scoping solicited comments on key,issues of concern. (See Chapter 8'.)
Participating resource agencies were the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ), the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the NC Natural Heritage Program. (NHP).
The four general plant communities within the Regional Rail project's construction limits are
dominated by the urban-disturbed community. Of the approximately 540 acres that would be
within the construction limits between Duke Medical Center in Durham and Durant Road in
Raleigh, over 80 percent is urban-disturbed. Impacts to the pine community and the pine-
hardwood community would total 48 acres and 40 acres, respectively. Up to 4 acres of the
hardwood community would be affected. NQ special or unique habitats are in the project area.
There are few wildlife corridors within the construction limits of the Regional Rail project.
,~~ The Regional Rail project is within the Cape Fear and Neuse River drainage basins. The project
~,.s `s ~` from Duke Medical Center to Durant Road would affect perennial streams at up to 281ocations
~~` ;r s` ` and intermittent streams at up to ten locations. The existing railroad tracks already cross most of
,~+ ^ these streams. Up to 5,765 feet of perennial streams and 1,300 feet of intermittent streams would
be affected. The addition of a yard and shop site would affect 1,565 feet of perennial streams
with the Ellis Road Alternative and 900 feet with the Wrenn Road Alternative.
Approximately 15 wetlands were identified within the construction limits of the various Regional
Rail alternatives, totaling 6.6 acres. The maximum total area of wetlands that would be within
the construction limits of any particular alternative would be between 3.6 and 4.4 acres: The
Wrenn Road Yard and Shop site would affect an additional 2.3 acres. These impacts were based
on a wetlands determination rather than a delineation.
The extent of floodplain encroachment would depend upon the amount of fill required to add the
Regional Rail tracks to the existing railroad right-of--way. The maximum area of impact would be
between approximately 2.4 and 3.5 acres, depending upon which alternative is chosen.
Construction ofthe.Regional Rail project would not result in any substantial adverse impact on
natural and beneficial floodplain values of the floodplains.
No federally-listed protected species were identified during the field investigation, although
potential habitat for two of the federally-listed protected species (smooth coneflower and
Michaux's sumac) was identified within approximately 19 percent of the construction limits.
The No-Build Alternative would not impact ecological resources. Natural resource impacts of
Regional Rail are discussed from the perspective low-income and minority communities in
Section 5.3.3 under "Human Health Issues" and "Environmental Issues -Destruction of Natural
Resources."
5.9.1 Terrestrial Resources
Regional Rail impacts to plant communities by type and unique natural areas and wildlife
corridors in the project area are addressed in this section. The No-Build Alternative would not
impact plant communities, unique natural areas, or wildlife corridors.
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

e
E ~
Plant Communities
The four general plant communities found within the Regional Rail corridor were defined in
Section 3'.10: Impacts on these vegetative communities are listed in Table 5-43. The acres shown
are those that are contained within the construction limits of the alternatives, inclusive of
potential station areas. Plant community use is similar for all alternatives but, in general, plant
community use would be less for Alternative A and then B 1, B2 and C. Longer alignments
would affect more plant communities.
Impacts on vegetation habitat described asurban-disturbed would range from 333 acres for
Alternative A to 420 acres for Alternative C for a project built from 9th Street/Duke East to Spring
Forest Road. Adding the Duke Medical Center Station to complete the Phase I project would add
an additional 7 to 8 acres; extending to Durant Road would add 33 to 35 acres. Ending Regional
Rail in downtown Raleigh (the minimum operable segment) would reduce the use of urban
disturbed vegetation by 73 to 89 acres. This vegetative community has been substantially altered
from the natural condition and includes residential and business areas, maintainedrights-of--way,
roads, and roadside margins as well as the downtown azeas of Durham, Cary, and Raleigh.
Approximately 40 acres of pine community would. be affected by all alternatives between Duke
Medical Center or 9th StreetlDuke East and Spring Forest Road. An extension to Durant Road
would add approximately 7 acres.
Impacts on vegetation habitat described aspire-hardwood would range from 27 acres for
Alternative A to 34 acres for Alternative C between Duke Medical Center or 9th Street/Duke East
and Spring Forest Road. Extending to Durant Road would add about 6 acres. Within this
community, both pine trees and hardwood tree species are found throughout the canopy, with
pine dominating most of the canopy.
Impacts on the hardwood vegetation habitat would range from 3 acres for Alternatives A and B 1
to 3.9 acres for Alternatives B2 and C for all alternatives and project lengths.
The Ellis Road Yazd and Shop alternative would have the greatest impact on the pine-hardwood
community. The Wrenn Road Yard and Shop alternative would have .the least impact on plant
communities that aze not urbanized.
The No-Build Alternative would not impact plant communities.
Special or Unique Habitat
No special or unique habitats were identified in the project area by the NC Natural Heritage
Program. No special or unique habitats were identified during field inspections along the
Regional Rail corridor, at station site alternatives, or at yard and shop alternatives.
Wildlife-Corridors
Wildlife corridors within the construction limits of Regional Rail are few because of the highly
fragmented forest communities adjacent to the Regional Rail corridor. No significant wildlife
corridors were identified that connected two natural communities. The project area does intersect
transmission line rights-of--way and streams that may be potential wildlife corridors. Portions of
the project area through RTP, Morrisville, and North Raleigh would have a greater likelihood for
higher quality wildlife corridors than other portions of the project area because there are more
undeveloped lands in these areas.
Mitigation
Mitigation for adverse impacts to terrestrial resources from this project would not be required.
The substantial portion of land within the construction limit that is classified as urban disturbed
and the large-scale fragmentation of habitat along the Regional Rail corridor minimizes the
potential for adverse impacts to terrestrial resources.
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-99 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

N
~.y+
U
.~
H
.:~
Q
U
a
~~1
F
_ _ O~ O~ O~ 01 O~ ~ 4\ Q\ Q\ 01 M v1 O
M M M M M M M M M M B O O
y
-. ~
v O l~ 01 N
~~ M M M M V M d' M N
u
~
G O M
d• d• d' 'Ch V d• ~ d' M M
u

~ o 00 0 ~ rn ~ rn ~ ,-• oo ~ ~ o
, e' o ~c ~ M ~ .--~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ N
' N N
' h ~ ~ ~ M N
~
~~ *
`_.. ~ d ~h d V ~ ~h ~ M M
r I ~ a\ O~ ~ O~ O~ O\ O\ O~ Q~ O~ M v~ O
I r
S M M M M M M M M M M ••-~ O O
~' a+

~ ~ O ~ Q\ N
N ~+ M M M M ~' M ~' M N
~' '.,..

I : C O l~ 00 l~ 00 ~C ~O C M ~-•~
C •ch ~• 7 ~' d• ~ d• •a' M M
L
':a~

'
~ oo ~D oo M l~ v'~ l~ N O ~ r ~ G
~ ' C M O O t~ 00 v-i v1 N l~ ~ O~ ~O [~
_ _
rJ d' V 7 ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ M M

~ 0
M 0
M O
M O
M 0
M 0
M
~ O
M O
M
~ O
M O
M 0
C 0
O 0
O
^
~.
s.
v
~
h
~;
~
d•
O~
~O
Q\
~
N
~
a
00
~
~ W D\ 00 V'1 !{ Vj 7 ~ ~ ~ O M
,r ~,: N N N N M M M M N N
6a
'~
M
~O
M
~D
O
M
O
M
[~
~
O
00
O
~ ~ ~ O N O
`~' " M M M M t}• ~ ~ ~ M M

d ;;
'

~' I~ V7 l~ 00 .-~ O\ .-•• N l~ M l~ ~O ~O
~ Q v'j O~ (~I l~ O~ cV ~D M 00 V1 \C Oi
,•`

X 0 0 0 0 0

~ 3
V ~ M ~ M 00 V1 ~r 00 h S N ~O O\ 00 eY
.~...
' x..
: ~
N ~
N r
N ~G
N M
M N
M +'
~ M
M lV
M ~
O ~
N ~O
N d'

.-. C M.
~. ~
:
7 Q
?
w..
~ 00
Qi .-~
C 00
a; .-•
O
` h
~ 00
~ Q
~ ~
ICJ ao
~C ~ ~
' et
~O O
C o0
V O
O
p M d" M ~' •d' ~ cC ~ 'ti' y
c~ V
M M (
l
..
as .... ~ W
0 ~D N 00 O O G ; ~ l~ ~ ~
~ ~. 0
N
~O vv
~~
ca
O~ ~
eh N
~D
O
~ N
M M
00 ~
~ O
Q\ D
M
h O
~ O
Q\
~ '' ~" M M Q.. M M M M U M M A N N
~ ^ N
~ ~
~ ~
N p ~ ~
O 'i
LL •-+ N ~ •--~ N ~ ~--~ N N •--~ N O~ •--~ N
~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 i•' O O ~ O O v 0 0

tL ~ c ~ ~ e c ~ ° c ~ ~ c c
~ ~ ~ ° 9 ~' o ~ :a a ~
' o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 °' o o ° o ° r o o v
• o • o o v
~ U U ~ U U [ U U c U U p U U -
w a a
U ~ ^ ~? a c s ~
o
o d
~ o o o o k o o k o o ~ ~„ o ~'
I ~
I Ca v~ v~ ~o v~ v~ ~ v~ v~ ~ rn ~n r~ v~ ~ ~ c
C
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 o 3 ~
,x X ~ •~ - w
'~ A a'°, ate., ~ ~
rn
Phase I Regional Rail System
C
Qi
vi
Q
O
CC
F ~
a ~,
U
a~ c°
U
W
y y
LL O
~ O
~ U
m R
7.. C
C
O
'O .~
N N
.•~-. Q
N b
N ~
O
~ O
> ~
•iQ
U
cd ~
~ •O
y
a.
U F"
O
:O
~ y
o .fl i
N •~ :^
~ C.
U
O1 £i
a 4 V
~ y Vp
'~ cC
ova
~ ~ ~
~, a
O ~ •~
^ O ~
~ •~ C ~
Q ~ ~ p •
~a.~~cxo
~•o ~-flU a 3
~ o •v
•~co~efy~
~:"oz°a.px
~~a~Qn u
H ~~~aax
N H1
5-100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5.9.2 Streams
Impacts
Streams within the project corridor that would be potentially affected by Regional Rail are listed
in Table 5-44; these are shown in the resource maps contained in Volume 2 of this DEIS. The
No-Build Alternative would not impact streams. Regional Rail impacts to intermittent and
perennial streams were determined by estimating the number of crossings and the total length of
stream crossings for each alternative. Table 5-45 summarizes these impacts. All alternatives
would have nine to ten crossings of intermittent streams, affecting from 800 to 1,300 total feet of
stream. The number of perennial streams crossed would range from 11 for the Minimum
Operable Segment to 28 for the Phase I project with extensions. This would affect from 2,786 to
5,765 feet of stream, respectively. The Ellis Road Yard and Shop option would affect an
additiona1500 feet for Alternatives A and B 1 and 1,565 feet for Alternative B2 and C.
Most of the streams within the construction limits affected by the project have culverts that extend
under the existing railroad tracks. These culverts would be extended to limit the impacts to the
streams. One stream within the project area would require relocation. Approximately 2,150 feet of
Stirrup Iron Creek near the North RTP - TW Alexander Drive Station site would require relocation, ~ ~'`~`~
as it would be affected by new trackwork. The relocation would be 1,490 feet (Alternative A) to Sf ~~ d~s~
1,650 feet (Alternatives B1, B2, and C) with a North RTP -IBM Southeast Gate Station site.
Mitigation ,
During preparation of the FEIS, the TTA would continue coordination with the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality and the US Army
Corps of Engineers to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for those streams within the right-
of-way that would require relocation.
~,~,,~11} + ~ The heavily urbanized nature of the project corridor limits mitigation options for these stream
~ s,~c, `~ channel impacts. One option would be to identify and enhance a degraded stream channel ~ej .~~,~
~-~' ~S elsewhere within the corridor. A second option is the Wetlands Restoration Fund in which a fee ~" z cy~
~t~ °r of $125 per linear foot of stream channel impact would be assessed. Although there are many
~.~f' ~~ stream channels in the Durham and Raleigh area, urban development around these streams would
~Q~la limit mitigation opportunities.
State Neuse River Basin and Local Buffer Requirements
Section 3.10 in Chapter 3 describes the Neuse River buffer rules adopted by the NC
Environmental Management Commission. This rule establishes buffer requirements adjacent to
water bodies in the basin to preserve and maintain sheet flow and nutrient removal. The majority
of the streams that would be crossed by Regional Rail are within the Neuse River Basin and are
subject to the buffer rules. These rules designate a 50-foot-wide riparian buffer directly adjacent
to the banks of the surface waters in the Neuse River drainage basin. The rules require energy
dissipaters and level spreaders to be placed prior to entering the buffer with a railroad or road
crossing to ensure that stormwater flow is diffused as it passes through the buffer. Railroad
drainage ditches cannot drain directly into tributaries of the Neuse River.
The existing railroad tracks parallel Stirrup Iron Creek. The steam lies in a narrow space between
a warehouse development and the railroad. It was relocated to its current location to
accommodate the warehouse development. At several points, the development comes almost to
the railroad right-of--way line. The Regional Rail project would widen the railroad embankment
by 40 feet and necessitate a second relocation of the stream.~No space exists to accommodate a
50-foot buffer on either side of Stirrup Iron Creek. Since a new land use is not being created and .,,E ~ ~ c7
the amount of impervious surface near the stream would not be substantially increased, it is '-'`~'C° "~
expected that the buffer requirement would not be applicable in this location The stream ~ utt ~ ~ ~.
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-101 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

'c'able 5-44. Stream Resources Potentially Affected

~ Impact (linear lenp;th in
Stream Name

t I Type of
Shect
Type ~
w
'
I
t
~ feet),:
effected By
ream no.)
s o. ~
mpac l B1 ~BZ ~. C
UT of Third Fork. ENV-11 Perennial CE 0 0 0 50 Trackwork
Creek (PS 29)
UT of Northeast ENV-15 Perennial CE 50 80 150 150 Trackwork
Creek (PS1)
UT of Northeast ENV-16 Perennial CE 55 90 100 100 Trackwork
Creek (PS2)
UT of Northeast ENV-17 Perennial CE 100 100 150 150 Trackwork with North RTP -
Creek (PS 3) TW Alexander
Stirrup Iron Creek
ENV-17
Perennial
R
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600 Trackwork with North RTP -
(PS4) TW Alexander
Stirrup Iron Creek ENV-17 Perennial R 1 490 1 650 1 650 1
650 Trackwork with North RTP -
(PS4) , IBM Southeast Gate
Stirrup Iron Creek ENV-18 Perennial R 550 550 550 550 Trackwork with North RTP -
(PSS) TW Alexander
UT of Kit Creek (IS1) ENV-27 Intermittent CE 90 90 95 95 Trackwork
UT of Kit Creek (IS2) ENV-27 Intermittent CE 60 60 65 90 Trackwork
UT of Burdens Creek ENV-23 Perennial CE 70 70 70 70 Central (South) RTP - NC
(PS24) 54/S. Miami Boulevard
UT of Crabtree (IS13) ENV-29 Intermittent CE 60 70 70 100 Trackwork
UT of Crabtree (IS4) ENV-30 Intermittent CE 50 50 50 50 Trackwork
UT of Crabtree (PS6) ENV-31 Perennial CE 80 80 80 105 Trackwork
Crabtree Creek (PS26) ENV-32 Perennial B 66 66 66 80 Trackwork
UT of Crabtree Creek ENV-33 Perennial CE 85 60 140 140 Trackwork
(PS7)
UT of Crabtree Creek ENV-34 Perennial CE 100 100 110 110 Trackwork
(PS8)
UT of Coles Branch ENV-34 Perennial CE 80 60 100 100 Trackwork
(PS9)
UT of Coles Branch ENV-35 Intermittent CE 80 80 120 120 Trackwork
(ISS)
UT of Coles Branch ENV-35 Intermittent CE 100 100 100 100 Trackwork
(IS6)
UT of Coles Branch ENV-35 Intermittent CE 60 160 110 110 Trackwork
(IS7)
UT of Coles Branch ENV-35 Perennial CE 60 70 140 140 Trackwork
(PS10) -
UT of Coles Branch ENV-36 Perennial CE 90 90 120 120 Trackwork
(PS11) ~
UT of Crabtree Creek ENV-33 Intermittent CE 260 260 260 260 Morrisville -Morrisville
(IS12) Parkway
UT of Coles Branch ENV-37 Perennial CE 160 160 200 110 Trackwork
(PS 12)
UT of Coles Branch ENV-38 Perennial CE 380 400 400 400 Trackwork
(PS13)
UT of Walnut Creek ENV-44 Perennial CE 55 90 90 80 Trackwork
(PS27)
UT of Walnut Creek ENV-44 Perennial CE 245 245 245 245 West Raleigh
(PS27)
UT of Rocky Branch ENV-52 Intermittent CE 40 100 150 60 Trackwork
(IS 10)
UT of Rocky Branch ENV-53 Perennial CE 100 100 150 150 Trackwork
(PS 14)
Cemetery Branch ENV-57 Perennial CE 25 25 170 185 Trackwork
(PS28)
Pigeon House Branch ENV-58 Perennial CE 60 60 60 60 Trackwork
(PS 16)
UT of Pigeon House ENV-59 Perennial CE 70 70 70 160 Trackwork with Six Forks -
Branch (PS30) Highwoods
Phase I Regional Rail System
5-102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-44. Stream itesources Potentially Affected
~
Stream ~sme ~
~ Sheet ~ Impact (linear length in
Type of

(stream ao.) i Type
~ No.` ; feet)
[mpact~ :effected (iy
~ Bl ~ B2 C
T of Pigeon House ENV-59 Perennial CE 70 70 70 160 Trackwork with Six Forks -
Branch (PS30) Whitaker Mill
Crabtree Creek (PS 18) ENV-b0 Perennial B 60 60 60 60 Trackwork with Six Forks -
Whitaker Mill
Crabtree Creek (PS 18) ENV-60 Perennial B 40 60 60 60 Trackwork with Six Forks -
Highwoods
UT of Marsh Creek ENV-63 Perennial CE 70 80 120 120 Trackwork with Millbrook -
(PS19) Pacific Avenue Extension
UT of Marsh Creek ENV-64 Perennial CE 80 80 150 150 Trackwork with Millbrook -
(PS20) Pacific Avenue Extension
Marsh Creek (PS25) ENV-65 Perennial CE 70 80 200 200 Trackwork with Millbrook -
Pacific Avenue Extension
UT of Marsh Creek ENV-63 Perennial CE 80 80 120 120 Trackwork with Millbrook-
(PS 19) New Hope Church Road
UT of Marsh Creek ENV-64 Perennial CE 80 80 150 150 Trackwork with Millbrook -
(PS20) New Hope Church Road.
Marsh Creek (PS25) ENV-65 Perennial CE 90 90 200 200 Trackwork with Millbrook -
New Hope Church Road
Perry Creek (PS22) ENV-69 Perennial CE 150 150 150 200 Trackwork
UT of Perry Creek

(PS23) ENV-71 Perennial CE 180 180 180 180 Trackwork
UT of Neuse River

(IS11) ENV-72 Intermittent CE 280 280 280 280 Durant Road
UT of Northeast

Creek (PS1) ENV-16 Perennial CE 0 0 165 165 Ellis Road Yard and Shop
UT of Northeast
Creek (PS2) ENV-16 Perennial CE 100 100 1,000 1,000 Ellis Road Yard and Shop
UT of Northeast
Creek (PS3) ENV-17 Perennial CE 400 400 400 400 Ellis Road Yard and Shop
UT of Northeast
Creek (PS 1) ENV-16 Perennial CE 0 0 900 900 Wrenn Road Yard and Shop
~ UT =unnamed tributary
z Sheet numbers for water resource maps contained in Volume 2 of this DEIS
s CE=culvert extension, R=stream relocation, B=bridge
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-103 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

N
U
GL
U
.~
a_
~•
a
0
b0
a
w
C~
V7
N
d
H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n ~n ~n o o
N ~ N t` 00 M o0 M a\ 'ct ~O O
~~3a~~ IB~O
L [~ M [~ M M O M O O l~
' N DA
, In ~p V7 ~O ~O [~ ~O [~ eh ~ •--~

'~
~ O
~ O
~ 0
v 0
v 0
~r 0
~t O
rr O
~ O O
~r O O O
- (~Ja31 Pa: pug v

eR i
i U1BJJ j5
-
..
s:C O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0
s,
:y
(~jaa31 lU E3J15 ~n
~ ~n
,~ 'n
~p ~n
,.. ~n
~p ~ v~
~p ~ v'[
~p
pa1Ha01J?j ^' N .-.. N ^' ly ^" N N
O O O O O O O O V7 ~ O O O
(~'a3
) UO[S Ua~Y'~ ~~ ~ ~
} ~ O ~ O N r ~ ~ ~

I JJ3AJ[I~ M d' M d' V' ~ et ~F N N

' v1 O O
~ ~ ~D ~
L
laa~~ IE~n
( ~ M M N ~ N ~ N o
0 v
i
.
.
N ~ ~D ~O ~O ~O ~D ~O ~O ~D ~D ~D O O O
Pa ~ (~aa~~ pai plJg N
rr N
•--~ N
rr N
•--~ N
~ N
•--i N
ti N
~ N
•--~ N
~--i
~
~•
• UIEa.lly

°S
C O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(~aa}}
u[naJ15 ~ ~n ~ v~ ~ v~ ~ v~ ~ ~n
,
Pa1g~0~821: •--~ N •--~ N r+ N -~ N •-+ N

~A V1 h ~ ~ v1 Vy v') ~ ~ v1 O O
(;aa~) UO[SIIO~J.".j oo m oo M 4v ~ ov ~ ~ O ~ O
00 O 00 O •ct ~O eh ~O ~ ~O to Q1
11a1T[I?`-. M ~t M 'd' 'd• ~t rt '~t N N •--~

~~aa3~ IE10
L k ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ O ~ O O ~ h
_
' '~t ~/1 7 47 h ~ ~ ~ V 'd'
I

~ ---
(~aa~) ~Bul)IJ8 ~j ~O
N ~D
N ~O
N ~D
N ~O
N ~O
N ~O
N ~O
N ~O
N ~O
N O O O
,~
~>
w uleaJ~S i
~I i o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(aaa,}) tnraJaS 9 ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~
n ~ ~n
" _
' ~ Pa1~0Ia2I~;. .-. N .~. N .-. ly .-. lj .-. nj

~) UUIS^a~Y~
~JJ O
~D O
t` O
~ O
[~ O
~ O
OO O
(` O
00
~ v7
N v7
M O O O
111111 .
~J a:11 T[~ O
cri •--~
M O
M ~
M ~O
c+1 [~
M ~O
M (w
M s~
•~ N
N M
N

~
~
~
~
~
o
~
o ~
a ~
~ ~
~ o
o 0 0
3) I ~ J. d: ~ ~ ~ d' vi V' "' ~ ri d'
C o
~
(j7Jf~ (Jau[l lJg ~o
N ~o
~ ~a
N ~o
N ~
N ~
N ~
N ~
N ~
~ ~
~ ~
N 0 0 0

[ultaJlS _ f ~ ~
A
O
~
Q ' O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O
,~ ~l iE1P.a.l~~
E~aa ~ ~ DA h 41 h ~ v1 ~ o1
.
LK ' IIa~B'JQIJN •'" N ~ r. N ^ N .~ N ~ ^" N
_l ~ ..~e

~]aa}~ UOIS Ua~S~ ~ ~n
~ ~n ~
^~ ~n
~ ~n ~n
~ ~n
N vT
t~ vT
N °
A 0
[~ 0
N 0
O 0 0

iJa:ll lL' y N N +.., N N M M ~ M M ~ ~ N
f ~
w o ~ ~

c
~ o
~ ~
~ o,
w
o
+~

a a o c a a a o :~ c cn c c
•O O ~ •O O ° O O L •O O ~ •O O ~

`^G ~ ~
U ~ ~ .fl ~ .O ~ cC .fl p Q
~ Ir ~".' ~.' SC. C ~" ~" U ~. ~.. ~ ~" ~" ¢. ~ y
A o
U o
U ~ o
U o
U ..
~ o
U o
U ~
~ o 0
U
~' 0 0 0 -o o •--
o ,~ A
' U U U ~ o R; •y
~
o a
o ^o
~ o
o c
o ~ a
0 ~
0 ~ ^
0 c
0
~ ~
o ^
o p,. c
~ ~
•
h • ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ • : - w 3 ~
~ ~ • v~ vs v~ v~ ,~ [n v~ ~ [
~ v~ a

7,
C
Qi
O
cC
G
U ¢'
~ U
m Y
fl. O
~ ~
~, O
C•
U
~~.. 'O
a••'r
b .~
A
~~
l~.
> "O
N ~~„
,~ G
O
S
~ ~
~ o
•~ ~
~ ~
O
U
O ~!
~ NU
N
.~
o
~ y
vi
N • ~ ~'
~ ~
3 ~
o•°-~
~ ~ ~.
O ~ •~
•C ~
•in '^
o ~ o
~ k 3
a a~ a~
o ~ .~
.~ ~ E
K ~ y
N ti
~ O Q
.a
~ ^ ...
a o ~
o•~~
•Y c o
N :n Z
~ ~ ~
E-' v E•~
N
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

relocation is, however, a substantial stream impact and its design would be coordinated with state
and federal resource agencies. It and other stream impacts would require a Corps of Engineers'
dredge and fill permit (see Section 5.9.3 under "Permits").
Section 3'.14 iu Chapter 3 also describes stream buffer rules adopted by the County and City of
Durham and by the Town of Cary. The Regional Rail project. does~not, fall in any of the
Watershed Protection Districts of the City/County of Durham. Five of the six Watershed
Protection Districts are north of Angier Avenue and Main Street, while the other district is
southwest of Cornwallis Road. Culverts would be extended for two streams in Cary. (See Table
5-44, streams PS 12 and PS 13) ]:n general, the extensions would be over 150 feet. Crossings for
railroads are allowed within the stream buffers, however the same restrictions apply in Cary, as
with the Neuse River Rules, any impacts over 150 linear feet are allowable with mitigation.
Stormwater Management During Construction
Stormwater management during construction would include management practices to eliminate or
reduce the exposure of construction materials and processes to stormwater. Contractors would use
traditional best management practices (BMPs) during the construction of Regional Rail, including
vegetative buffers, grass swales, catch basins, energy dissipaters, level spreaders and infiltration
devices. Measures that could be employed to help reduce stormwater pollution during construction
include: 1) roofs and decks to protect material loading and unloading areas; 2) grading practices
that divert stormwater away from the loading and unloading areas; 3) sweeping of streets, paved
yards, and parking lots; and 4) roofs over onsite waste piles (North Carolina. Department of the
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 1994).
Sediment and Erosion Control
Sedimentation and erosion control practices would be used during the construction of Regional
Rail. Several best management practices exist for the elimination or reduction of sediment during
construction. Methods that may be employed during construction would be silt fences, temporary
seeding, temporary diversions, sediment traps, and temporary stream crossings. Silt fences would
be used to capture sediment from sheet flow by reducing the velocity of flow, allowing sediment
deposition. Temporary seeding would be used to stabilize denuded areas that would not be
brought to their final grade for several weeks or months. Temporary diversions would be used
above disturbed slopes to prevent flow across unprotected slopes and to divert excess runoff away
from level areas. Temporary sediment traps would be constructed at various points along the
project to prevent sedimentation runoff during rain events. Temporary stream crossings could be
built to allow some construction traffic to cross streams during the construction of the rail system,
thereby reducing the potential for erosion.
5.9.3 Wetlands
Section 3:10.2 describes the wetland resources that occur within the proposed Regional Rail
construction limits. Their location is illustrated on the resource maps contained in Volume 2 of
this DEIS. The No-Build Alternative would not impact wetlands. Impacts on wetland resources
by Regional Rail were evaluated based on a wetlands determination, rather than wetlands
delineation. Regional Rail would affect from 3.6 to 6.7 acres of wetlands taking into account the
rail line, station alternatives, and yard and shop alternatives.
Wetland Impacts
Table 5-46 shows the wetland resources potentially affected and Regional Rail element that
would create the impact. Table 5-47 lists project impacts by alternative. Most of the wetland
impacts would occur within the RTP area and the West Raleigh Station site.
Excluding the yard and shop alternatives, there are only minor differences in wetland impacts
between the Regional Rail alternatives. Alternative A would have the least impact, affecting up
to 3.7 acres; while Alternative C would have the most at 4.4 acres. Building the Regional Rail
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-105 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-46. Wetland Resources Potentially Affected
i~Vetland
i = ~ i
Nlap ~~10. rlternative
Classification
' _ Alternafive
- I a,Iternuffie Alternative
.affected Bp
No. A,(acres) ' Bl (acres);; I32 (acres) i C(acres)
W3 ENV-15 Headwater 0.08 0.14 0.23 0.23 Trackwork
W4 ENV-17 Pine/Hardwood 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Trackwork with North
RTP - TW Alexander
Drive
WS ENV-17 Pine/Hardwood 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.29 Trackwork with North
RTP - TW Alexander
Drive
W4 ENV-17 Pine/Hardwood 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.31 Trackwork with North
RTP -IBM Southeast
Gate Station
WS ENV-17 Pine/Hardwood 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Trackwork with North
RTP -IBM Southeast
Gate
W9 ENV-19 Other 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 ~ Trackwork with North
RTP - TW Alexander
Drive
W 10 ENV-19 Other 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.13 Trackwork with North
RTP - TW Alexander
Drive
W9 ENV-19 Other 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 Trackwork with North
RTP -IBM Southeast
Gate
W 10 ENV-19 Other 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 Trackwork with North
RTP -IBM Southeast
Gate
W30 ENV-20 Ponded 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.30 North RTP -IBM
Depression Southeast Gate (Option A)
W12 ENV-21 Hardwood 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Trackwork'
Depression
W14 ENV-23 Ponded 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 Trackwork
Depression
W36 ENV-23 Depression 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Centrai(South)Park-NC
54/S. Miami Boulevard
W16 ENV-27 Depression 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.15 Trackwork
W19 ENV-31 Bottomland 0.06 0.06 0.06 0 Trackwork
Hardwood
W20 ENV-32 Ponded 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.18 Trackwork
Depression
W21 ENV-34 Pine/Hardwood 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Trackwork
W22 ENV-45 Depression 0 0.19 0.19 0.19 Trackwork
W28 ENV-69 Lacustrine 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Trackwork
W31 ENV-44 Forested 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 West Raleigh
Depression
W32 ENV-44 Depression 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 West Raleigh
W33 ENV-16 Forested 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Ellis Road Yard and Shop
Depression
W34 ENV-IS Floodplain 0 0 1.81 1.81 Wrenn Road Yard and
Shop
W35 ENV-15 Floodplain 0 0 0.47 0.47 Wrenn Road Yard and
Shop
~ Wetland boundaries by wetland number are illustrated on the resource map sheets in Volume 2 of this DEIS.
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5-47. Total Regional Rail Project Wetland Impacts''
Z ~,
~~
~~
~~
~lteruati~e _1
(scres) kttcrnati~~e Bl
(acres) ~:~Itcr~ati~~c B2
(acres) ~lferi-ati~~e C~,
(acres) y
9th Street/Duke East to Spring Forest
With Station Combination 1 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.3
With Station Combination 2 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.0
Duke Medical Center to Spring Forest (Phase I)
With Station Combination 1 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.3
With Station Combination 2 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.0
9th Street/Duke East to Durant Road
With Station Combination 1 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.4
With Station Combination 2 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.1
Duke Medical Center to Durant Road
With Station Combination 1 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.4
With Station Combination 2 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.1
Minimum Operable Segment (9th StreedDuke East to Downtown Raleigh)
With Station Combination 1 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.3
With Station Combination 2 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.0
Yard and Shop Alternatives
Ellis Road 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Wrenn Road 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3
Momsville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
~ The station and extension combinations below are presented as an aid to comparing alternatives, however, they do not
represent all possible combinations. Any combination of stations, extensions, or yard and shops could be selected.
The station combinations are defined in the introduction to this chapter.
z The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on wetlands.
system to Duke Medical Center would not increase impacts to wetlands over those from building
it to 9th Street/Duke East. Ending the project in downtown Raleigh would not reduce wetland
impacts. The extension to Durant Road would add only a tenth of an acre of impact.
The primary difference in wetland impacts would occur at one station location and at the yard and
shop sites. The North RTP -IBM Southeast Gate Station (Option A) would have up to 0.3 acres
of wetland impacts. IBM Southeast Gate (Option B) and the North RTP - TW Alexander site
would have no wetland impacts. The use of the North RTP - TW Alexander site would result,
however, in greater trackwork impacts. Thus, the difference between choosing the TW
Alexander site and the IBM Southeast Gate (Option A) site would only be 0.1 acre in favor of the
IBM site. The IBM Southeast Gate (Option B) site would have the least wetland impact in the
North RTP area. Its wetland use would be 0.04 to 0.2 acre less than with the TW Alexander site
and 0.14 to 0.3 acre less than the Option A site. As noted above, the IBM Southeast Gate site
(either option) would affect less linear distance of stream than the TW Alexander site.
The Ellis Road and Wrenn Road yard and shop sites would use 0.1 acres of wetlands and 2.3 acres
of wetlands, respectively. The Morrisville Yard and Shop site would have no wetland impact.
No alignment or station options are being considered where the balance of the wetland impacts
would occur. The West Raleigh Station would have the single largest wetland impact, affecting a
1.4-acre area of wetland and a 0.5-acre area.
Mitigation
Mitigation is defined in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations as efforts that
avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the
environment (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.20 {a-e}). Mitigation of
wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b}(1) Guidelines of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (40 CFR 230}, mitigation policy mandates articulated in the US Army Corps of
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-107 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Engineers/US Environmental Protection Agency (COE/EPA) Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) (Page and Wilcher 1990), Executive Order 11990 (Title 42, Federal Register (FR) 26961
(1977)), and the USFWS mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644-7663 (1981)):
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990 stress avoidance
and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands. Practicable alternatives
analysis musYbe fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed. USFWS
Policy also emphasizes avoidance and minimization. However, for unavoidable losses, the
USFWS recommends that mitigation efforts be based on the value and scarcity of the habitat at
risk. Habitat is classified into four resource categories based on decreasing importance and value,
with subsequent decreases in mitigation planning objectives (46 FR 7657-7658).
Permits
A US Army Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill permit would be required under Title 33, Part
323 of the Code of Federal Regulations, for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States. The permit would be needed in association with both the wetland impacts
described in this section and the stream impacts described in Section 0 above. An Individual
Permit would be required for the entire project. The Clean Water Act provides for public notice
and review of permit applications, as well as review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
approval by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, a US Environmental
Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for stormwater
discharge would be required under Title 40, Part 122 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
A Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act would be needed
from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. This permit is required in association with the Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill
permitting process.
M~n,~~.~ -~ In general, impacts to wetlands by new trackwork cannot be avoided or minimized. The Regional
~ c u ;~ Rail project's trackwork must meet desired and minimum track spacing standards. The side of
-~ ~ the track on which the Regional Rail track is placed cannot be changed except with a $10 million
~,,, •'`'~ flyover approximately 1,550 feet long. The side of the track proposed for Regional Rail tracks
was selected to minimise a variety of impact types, including minimising changes to the existing
freight tracks, and operational requirements. At Wetland 28, wetlands are present on both sides
of the existing track. Wetlands are affected at three stations. At the Central (South) RTP and
West Raleigh stations, no satisfactory site alternative exists for the stations. (Seethe description
of the station alternatives study in Section 2.2.4 of Chapter ?.) In addition, the location of the
wetland on each site is such that the wetlands cannot be avoided and still meet the stations'
facility and operational objectives. The use of Wetland 30 could be avoided by the selection of
the North RTP - TW Alexander Station or North RTP -IBM Southeast Gate Station (Option B)
instead of North RTP -IBM Southeast Gate Station (Option A). Wetlands 33, 34, and 35 could
be avoided by use of the Morrisville Yard and Shop Alternative. There are other operational, cost
and impact benefits and disbenefits associated with the choice of a North RTP station and a yard
and shop that are~discussed in this document. A determination of the practicability of these
alternatives would be presented in the Final EIS.
Mitigation opportunities are limited in Durham and Wake counties because of the extensive urban
development in both of these counties. Mitigation possibilities exist through the North Carolina
~`~~ Wetland Restoration Fund (WRF), enhancement of wetlands adjacent to those affected by the
~ ~ project, or creation of wetlands within the river basin of the wetland impacts. A specific
mitigation would be developed for the Locally Preferred Alternative and presented in the FEIS.-~' ~ a~-
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

5.9.4 Fioodplains and Regulatory Fioodways
Based upon a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps, eight 100-
year floodplains are near the existing trackwork in the rail corridor. Table 5-48 lists these
floodplains and the potential affect of the Regional Rail. The location of the 100-year floodplains
is illustrated on resource drawings contained in Volume 2 of this DEIS. Seven of those
floodplains would be affected by Regional Rail because they are in the existing railroad right-of-
way. The No-Build Alternative would not impact floodplains.
Five regulatory floodways (totaling approximately 500 feet) would be crossed by Regional Rail
trackwork. The same size opening as existing bridges would be used on new bridges so that no
floodway would be encroached upon by Regional Rail.
The extent of encroachment would depend upon the amount of fill required to add the Regional
Rail tracks to the existing railroad right-of--way. The maximum area of impact would be between
approximately 2.3 and 3.4 acres, depending upon which alternative is chosen.
All impacts to the floodplain area would be analyzed during the preparation of the FEIS phase of
the project. Construction of Regional Rail would not result in any substantial adverse impact on
natural and beneficial floodplain values. of the floodplains. In addition, it would not result in any
substantial change in flood risks or damage and would not have substantial potential for
interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes. This finding
was made for the following reasons:
• The placement of fill material for rail embankments in the 100-year floodway would not be of
sufficient quantity to affect.floodway flows.
• The existing waterway opening would be maintained.
• Where a railroad embankment must be widened in proximity to a floodplain, minor regrading
or fill in the floodplain would be required. Modeling would be done during detailed design to
ensure that any increases in backwater levels would be less than that permitted by federal law
and local ordinances. If required, retaining walls would be used so that the limits of the
widened embankment would be pulled inboard of the 100-year flood elevation.
• Where culverts penetrate the existing railroad embankment, they would be lengthened so that
the existing drainage function would be preserved.
5.9.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Regional Rail's impacts to the threatened and endangered species described in Section3.103' of
Chapter 3 would be confined to impacts to potential habitat for those species; no species were
observed within 1 mile of the Regional Rail corridor. The No-Build Alternative would have no
impact on threatened and endangered species: Table 5-49 summarizes the acreages of potential
habitat for two species that would be affected by Regional Rail. An extension to Duke Medical
Center would not increase the amount of habitat affected, but an extension to Durant Road would
result in an increase. Based on the fieldwork results,. approximately 19 percent of the project area
represents potential habitat for two federally-listed endangered-plant species: smooth coneflower
and Michaux's sumac. -Both of these species thrive in open woodland and disturbed areas and are
likely to inhabit some of the same habitats within the project corridors.
Federally-listed Protected Species
Species with the federal designation of endangered or threatened receive protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. The NC Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed for
known locations of federally and state-listed protected species. None of the federally-listed
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-109 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

'»
a
A
~~
.~y
b
r..~
..~.,
v
0
y
Cq
.~
0
O
~i
CC
GO
d'
6~

°O °1 v o ~ ~ ~ 0 0
_
~
~ ~ ~o ~ o o z z o o M
_. N N ~ V O C, ~ .~. O M
: ~ ~. C.. O O O Z .~ O O M
d' O~ L'. C O l~
~~~
i 1'L O O O z .~° O O N
,. ::~ i
~ .~. O~ ~ O C. ~" ~ O M
~' O O O O .Z° .Z° O- O N
'b
~ cC ~ N
iq w w 7
' y U
N G
• +~•+

~,
° ry
.c.mo O O
aM >, w
o~ ~ y
N
F
c w ~ c'SLi ti ~~ a m .v v .o o
w c v
.~

~ 7
o b ~ C
X 0 3 A X O
0~ 7 ~" O O~
oo'" O U
s.~v~ m ti
o ~, -L2 ~
o
h
Y ~ m s.. ti G~ °
H '1i ~
G
" ~ N' C ' y ~y ~
. ~ i
o t
_ O
L
~
o ~
v ,
~ U ~ ~ °o U ~
~ ~
T~ ~ c~~' .w 3 ~ o ~

~~
~~
~ ~ ~ v,
,o0 3 o
N ° ~ ~ a o ~,
MGt. c c
y~ o
oow
O ~ ti fd
L N ''~''~ U ~
C
~
'N T U U O~ ~O
~
o a v
~
~ N
m y v y~ U
c ca ti ~ .
..
-~
° A.
~° ~ ~ o c° _
U N
~ U c~ ~~
~ N v
`~ °
w °

p
sa. o a
M .O o 0
J N O o X o o
O O w ° a. 3° a~
.~ ~ ~".. u~ - °
o +
L~ O "~ o
N o a.
~., b
N O r. O ~ ~ •.. ~ ~ O ~ ° O U `~ S]. ~ Oi y
y E'
~ O. O
Q~ d~ H o..a ~ ~° o F~~w ~ ~U o 7 a. d~
3
`" .~
U ~
'~
' ~,
~ y
o
r `~
.~ i
F, a
w v o w C >,
0 o cc .
w C ~; y y
o o cv ° U a, ~,
~
c v
~ ~ ~ •^
° ~° '~ ~ 4, ~ °
o . a w
° O LL
° O ° X r Y
~
Y '~' ~ ~ N .
.G
~ y rA
S'1 w
x e" ~ C) ' N °
t
L
o~ i
z~A .
.. .
Z~a N
cn°~a ~ ~ ,
~C
Tr
Q ~wQ
zU i
~
~°~d O
y
z oa
V G Z
U a a
~.`
~' ~
'.O
I~

M
N
M
00
V7
O
lp
V1
\O
D\
~O
/:
~
~
~
~
w
z ~ w w

z
i
.=
1
V -t
_
~'
° N ~ Vl y ~N VJ

z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z
_
F

~ , ~ ~Q C N N d
c
~
a
r y,.
' N N o 0 o N ~
Q
N N
T,;' N N N

c'~a
w ~
~ ~
a°i ~ N
o .c ~'
~ ~ ~
°:
Q. ~ y ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ a ~ ~ U U
p
z w
~n ~+
~U ~~" ~ cC w
UU C ~ .O
~Oq ~ 1.
jU A
~ ~~ F ~
a ~ a
~, .,:' C7 C7 W W W W W W W
~' ]O 00 00 D\ O~ mil' ~f M ~O
qr::. < O O O O O O O O O

~;. M
~0 M
~O M M
00 00 M
00 M
00 M
00 M
00 M
00
Iii ; ° ° ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
:: M M M M M M M M M
Phase I Regional Rail System
5-110
N
° ~a
.~
~~
y b
~ N
f..
o ~
d °
o °
b
iii G-. O
w ~~
A ~ ayq~
v~ p R
;~ ~ p
o '•v" o
N O G.
C A T
O
O O O
.' `~' A
v~b~~
•~ U N ~
G.'~ 'O C
O >" ~ q
~N'~~
U L ~ L
~ O c}C ~
N
~.
~ `~
x
°cia.~~
.3 3 .d °o
~ ~ o
~ `~
~ ° .~ U
~ ~ a~i y.
° ~~
0
b o °~
. •~ ° aoi
~ y ~ ~
O G Q' Q'
N cad ~ C
E~~ANN
N M Q
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

N
V
.~
Ad
Q.1
'~
i~.i
b0
CI
W
C~
"~
r~r
~1
F
a
~~
a
_O
DO
a
H
'~!'
N

~

- o
° = ~ rn
~ ~ o~ ~, ~ ma c, ~ ~ o 0 0
~
~
~ m vi d vi of vi v vi ~ v-, ~•
o s
°'> 1
M
'~ -_ '-'~ 00 ~ c0 ~--~ ~ N ~ N n N O O O
'`r ~ O ~ O O ~ ~

~ ;~ c
- r O ~ ~
~,
•^ _ v
''
v,
+u ~.
p O M l~ M l~ M l~ M t~ M l~ O O O
u '. ^ ~. v~ ~ h d' ~ ~' h V' h d'
~ ..
>,
;
' u;
;
~
S.Ct: .
~+,:
w ,
~
_
x v~ oo v~ oo ~O O\ ~O Q~ ~O .-. O O O
~ C ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
'"' C1 ~

~~ n ,C ti
~
~ ~ c r v', r v~ t~ ~n h ~n l~ ~n O O O
~ ~ O G
C M d' M d' M ~• M ~ M ~
~+ ~ C
V
y
i
~ ~ N ~ N vy N h N ~ oo •--• O O O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
M ~ :i~~. ~ h ~

C n
.~
b0
.
~

~
= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~, 0 0 0
_
C r-.. O •-• 0 •-• O O •~ 0 •-•
u
,.03.. ... ".
G, ~--i 0
~i
~w
Q
A

~
L
~~ o
a~ . ~ m
'-7 M ~ ~,,, M ~ M b c~11 ~O La n O O O O
'd ~C< NC O "'^ ~G C h ~ ~ ~ y oo C

~
y
= t~ oo a~ tr o0 00 00 00 0o et v~
,
.,
~ ~
a
i~ ~ o ~

~ •--~
C, N
Q ~
A .-.
C. N
Q
C ~--~
G N
C ++
~' ~--~
A N
C7 O~ ~
q N
C.
,~ •O O •~ O O

• ~

~ •O O ~ •O O

• ~

~ •O O
m
fS
~n cC
~ cC
~ ~ c0
a cG
a
A cC
a cC
c A c0
a cC
c
~ N
a cd
~
.
~
O ~ ~ ~ .fl _
.D O ~ .D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
m
W C
U C
U
~ O
~ O
~..~ w
W 0
~..~ 0
~..~ ~.+
~ O
U O
V N
~ O
U O
V N
~
Li G ~ C ~ Q Q (~ C ^ ~ Q C Q T3
y y ~
, i

•~
y~ C/] C/1 b VI V] ~ V] C/1 U] C/1 fA C/~ ~ LYy S." • VJ
y

~ 3 3 ~ 3 3 ~ 3 3 ~ 3 3 •~ 3 3 ~ w 3 ~
~ , A rn Q ~
_ ~
0
c ~
p
O V
U •,°,
N~"~,
p
~ ~
~ O
-~ U
~ b
N ~+"
•C
O •~
.Q Q
N 'O
"c... y
N
~ ~
~ O
O is
~ C
N ~~..
.~
.~.
C
~ •O
l~ +~+
~ y .
.~
~ ~ .
O
U U
O ~ ,
•~ ti
•~
~•
~ ~.
O
0
~~.
o. ~
~ ~
O ~'
o-
a
o .~
~:
G
U C
A . ~ '.
O ~ ,,
~ y i
Y O i
N C
~ •~ e
~ ~ 1
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ V f
~a
- Q E
N
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-111 ~ra• ft Environmental Impact Statement

protected species were documented by the NC Natural Heritage Program or observed during
project field work; however, a detailed protected species field search was not conducted.
Potential habitat for two of the protected species was identified; approximately 19 percent of the
project area represented potential habitat for two plant species: Smooth coneflower (Echinacea
Laevigata) and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The following paragraphs describe each
federally-listed species in the counties containing Regional Rail and document the likelihood of
these species being affected by the project.
Bald Ea e. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is found primarily in association with large
lakes and coastal bays and sounds. Within the Regional Rail area, Greshams Lake may provide
potential foraging and roosting habitat; however, the NC Natural Heritage Program personnel
indicated that the area is too fragmented and too small to provide suitable habitat. Their records
indicate that this species has not been documented within 1 mile of the project corridor. The Regional
Rail alternatives would not affect this species because of a lack of suitable habitat in the corridor.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Primary nest sites for red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides
borealis) include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story
development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine/mixed hazdwood stands 30
years of age or older (Henry 1989). Although this species is identified as potentially present
within the Wake County, the pine dominated stands within the project azea are generally too
small, fragmented, and isolated by unsuitable habitat to provide suitable nesting or foraging
habitat for this species. NC Natural Heritage Program records indicated that this species has not
been documented within 1 mile of the project corridor. There is little likelihood of encountering
red-cockaded woodpeckers within the project corridor (personal communication, H. LeGrand,
June 2, 1999). The Regional Rail alternatives would not affect this species because of a lack of
suitable habitat in the corridor.
Dwarf Wedge Mussel. The dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) typically inhabits
streams with moderate flow velocities and substrates varying in texture from gravel and coazse
sand to mud with little silt deposition (Moser, 1993). Crabtree Creek is the only identified stream
in the project azea lazge enough to be considered dwarf wedge mussel habitat. However, the
heavy silt load and turbidity within the stream make it highly unlikely to be considered as dwarf
wedge mussel habitat (personal communication, S. Hall, NC Natural Heritage Program, June 2,
1999). NC Natural Heritage Program records indicated that this species has not been documented
within 1 mile of the project corridor. The Regional Rail alternatives would not affect this species
because of a lack of suitable habitat in the corridor.
Smooth coneflower. This species (Echinacea laevigata) grows in calcareous, basic, or
circumneutral soils on roadsides, clear cuts, and power line isights-of--way where there is abundant
light and little herbaceous competition. Shading of roadsides and the railroad right-of--way by
adjacent forest trees and routine mowing reduce the suitability of that habitat within the Regional
Rail corridor for that species. Although no individual plants were identified, about 3 percent of
the project azea is potential habitat.. Habitat for this species is a part of the 19 percent of the
project azea identified for the Michaux's Sumac below. This species is known to occur only in
Durham County. NC Natural Heritage Program records indicated that this species has not been
documented within 1 mile of the project corridor. Table 5-49 summarizes the number of acres of
potential habitat for each of the Regional Rail alternatives. Alternative A would impact the
fewest acres (10.7) of habitat while Alternative C would impact the most (15.5 acres).
Michaux's Sumac. Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) is a dioecious, densely pubescent
rhizomatous shrub, generally 2 to 3 feet in height. that produces fruits (drupes) and seeds in late
summer. Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced, such
as roadside margins or utility rights-of--way. Although no individual plants were identified, about
19 percent of the project area was identified as potential habitat for this plant. The species is
known to occur in both Durham and Wake counties. The NC 1Vatural Heritage Program's records
indicate that this species has not been documented within 1 mile of the project corridor. The
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

majority of the impact on habitat for this plant would be from trackwork. The total impacts of
each alternative on Michaux's sumac habitat would range from as low as 48.7 acres for
Alternative A for the Minimum Operating Segment (9th Street/Duke East to Downtown Raleigh)
to up to 109 acres for the full project (Dt~lce Medical Center to Durant Road).
Field surveys for the Smooth coneflower and the Michaux's sumac would be conducted during
preparation of the.FEIS to determine if the species is present in the area to be used by the Locally
Preferred Alternative. This work would be coordinated with the USFWS. If the species is found,
the TTA and the FTA would initiate formal consultation with the USFWS under the requirements
of the Endangered Species Act.'
State-listed Protected Species
No impacts to the State-listed Protected Species described in Section 3.1:0.3 ~f Lhapter 3 would
result from any of the Regional Rail alternatives. Sitings of American bluehearts and
Appalachian golden-banner have not occurred within the last twenty years in the project corridor.
5.10 Hazardous Materials/Potential Contaminants
Hazardous materiaUunderground storage tank features were identified using records review,
map review, limited interviews with NC Division of Waste Management (NCDWM)
personnel, and atwo-part field investigation. The features identified include known sites of
environmental contamination, known generators of hazardous materials, known locations of
hazardous materials or petroleum products storage, and potential undocumented sources of
environmental contamination.
Thirty-nine sites with known or potential environmental contamination were identified in the
project area by the records review and field investigations. The general location of these sites is
shown in Figure 3-2~1 in',Chapter 3'.
The number of sites within the footprint or within 500 feet of the station sites or yard and shop
sites are indicated by type in Table 5-50. These sites, plus the five sites associated with Regional
Rail trackwork, are added together by alternative in Table 5-51. As these sites relate to the
project construction footprint or are outside the footprint, there are no differences between the
Regional Rail trackwork alternatives. There are differences, however, related to station
combinations. In terms of avoiding known or potential hazardous material and underground
storage tank sites, the following station site alternatives are preferred:
• 9th Street/Duke East - 9th Street
r
• North RTP -IBM Southeast Gate
• Downtown Raleigh - Morgan/Hargett
• State Government Center - CapitaUHarrington
• Six Forks - Highwoods
• Millbrook -Pacific Avenue Extension
Several of the known sites can be categorized as low risk; these are shown in Table 5-52. Several
other sites would require additional investigation during the FEIS phase of the project. Table
5-531ists the nature of contamination on each site requiring additional investigation, its
relationship to Regional Rail, and the recommended action. Recommended further investigations
would occur prior to project right-of--way acquisition and construction to confirm and update
information obtained from agency files and the public record. Select sampling of the soil and
groundwater would be conducted at each site to help determine the absence or presence of
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-113 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

O
..,
a
x
a
d ~
b0 r~+
~~
~ ~
~~
~ ~
bAr~
~ ~
~w
.,~i ~
s~ O
~~
~a
i, ~,,,
~ ~
N ~
CC
~ •~
~, a
>~
Q
a
O
6^~
~+~+
L~
H'
C
Ir tt1`
F
N
M

~
o;
v
~
~.

M

N

N

~--~

~--~

M

...

a'
ti
G

O
~~ ~

U ~

N

M

N

N
~! ~;
~.

c
'bA
, p,
~a E
y` <a
A
_

'
~
x;
W"
U
~

i d

A
'~
H
~. ~, N
,flr i-a-
o'
W
',
ea+ U'
~'
'

o ;;;
cn
c
•
a E
fl
._~; _
a'

r7
U

W
._.
~ ..
w b
~ c°i b A y .~ ~
d N
o
7

~ ~ ~
p 3 .. ~ ~ ~
, o
T E..~ y j y ~ O >> c~ cd ~ bA .
~. N O O f-'
~

Q
~ ~n
.~ .~
° v
°° '~
°'
~ ~
.a N
~
~ ti
~ ~
... ca
a GC
b .b
a w'
°
~ aq
.. ~°
... U p.
~ ~ `c ° •a
h o

>
w
l
~
~
a
Q
c
c3
.~
.,
w
~
.~
~
~
C
~
c
°
•'"
~
a~i _
N
U
U
~
c
i
~
o
•~
n~ a
`i
~ l
cNC I
cwa I
~
~ I
~ V axi
Q o
v] o
v] ~
~•
~" • y
.~ ~

o ~

o A
I
L>'
•~ I
.~
oo I
,~
on I
.~
oo ~
U ~
U y

-~ o
O
3 0
.x 0
x ~
O p
~
N ~^^
cV
• ~
~ b
A
~
J
~~, U
~ w
.x
° w
.~
o ~ ~ ~
~
o 3
F ~
~ ~
~ z °
~ °~'
A ~
A
~ ~,
c
o ,
>
... •
°'
~ •~ •~ ~
d
~ ~
°~
~ S '~oro a3i
z a3i
z w
~
a ~j
., ~
U v
~'
~' cd
'° '~
~ , I I I ~ ~

'~ °
~ ~
a°~i e
a°~i ~
o =
o ~ a
~ a
a a
~ X
a ~
•> U ~
U ~
ce ~
'~ ~
°'
~ >r
o >~
0 >~
0 ~
° ~
O I
~ ~
,~ o 0 o ~
w ~
•~ R' ~

~
e w
d' ~
`i'
3
3 a
y
~
~
•~
~ ~
~ I
~' I
~, a
~, w
a;
`i'
3
3
~ C7
a~ C7
a~ O
w O
w o
.n 0
.,o 0
.n ~
•c °
w
~ c
o ~,,
~n v,
•~
,
(~ .
A rn rn A A ~ Z Z Z n ~ U U 3 ci~ Z A A A v~ v~ v~ v~ ~ ~ ~ v Z A 3 W ~
w
O y
~ «U.
R ~ O II
o ~ ~
U b cUj
~ ~~
O >
w ~
~ ~~ ~
~ cyV U
iV ~ ~ N
C ~,3~
O ' [ ."' h
~ c •~ c
a aw o
~ m U
O w Q N
A.
id t-: ~ N O
~. >
~~'~~~
a~,~~
~•~~~
°~' y ~ ~
~~ ~ a:~
~a° o ~°~' •~ c
U O
y U ~ O U
w'O `~ ~AAq N
y1'+ y V V]
y •~ ~ ~ II
i ~ ~ ~
~ d r~
y'O Oda
~wp~pll
~ o ~ o
~ ~.~va' E
~ c ~~' °
.~ O =• ~, ~
a~ ~b 3
~•G:a ~ a
8 ~b;;•o
O O ~ ~ ca y
'~ o.ov.~
w
ca y C ~ N
`c~ N UA.'~ 0 0
U o :a ,o
m v ~ ~ 0 0
N I.n
~ ~ ° ~ p ~
~ N °i ..>. ~, o
Q N U ~ R
O'O ~ C. N O
p O C N ~'O
to CJ ~ > ~ ~
•id '~ O ~ C
~ ti ~ II ~
~ 'II L' CO~ w.^ y
~. t03 w .~ N cG~
N tL ~ y.,
~T.~~~s
.y LsA eon
~ ~ g •c ~ •~
a
Q x II C ¢' O
~ _~a'w° q
vi ~ ~ 'V C
y O ~ •O .~ •td
~•~aw~ao
H ~Uz
- N
Phase I Regional Rail System
5-114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Vi
11i

__: oNo oNo o°OO ono ono o`no a\ orn ~ n O O O

'
~
e
`'~
~: ~
~.+ v'f rh h h h ~' v'~ v1 ~Y d' O O O
S.eC, ~:.
a

_.~ ~; N N N N N N N N ~ ~ O O O
(~. Q:
Q r'

C
O

V1 ~.
,
C G
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

~3 ~.

A
:l
~ ~ N ~ N ~D et ~O et M .-+ O O O
i ~
U
E:-
s'!

I !r _. N N N N d' 'cf ~' '~' ^' O O O ~--~
i--
E~
'-
•C ~'
~ N h N ~ N ~ N v'~ N ~ 0 0 0
' -
tQ _
G~. .C
ou
a ~ N M N M N M N M ~ N M O O .--~
x; x

C
~
° O
~ G

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O 0 .--~ 0
_~ A o

~
~
~ f ~ ~
U- O ~-+ ~ 0 ~--~ O -~ O ~ ~ O ~ 0 0 0
0. ~-+
~ ~ ~ ~
~ R7
~ O ~
O
, O
w O ~ i
~ ~
~
~ G ^ O
' Q ~ ~ Q Q C C Q C
~i ~ .Q ~ a
~' ,0 ,~ F+
A ~ ~ ~
A ,Q ' ~ ~ , ~ 0 y
c ~
° ~ ~ ~ c
° c ~ ~
°A c c
S :o: .o ~ ~ ° :o : B :c :a a
i ~ :o
~ ~ i 8 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~

cra o
U o
U ~
e~ o
U o
U ~
W o
U o
U ~
a~ o
U o
U ~
~- o
U o
U ~;
^
°' o o V o o °' o o U a ° ~ ° a c ~°
.

~ v~ vs ~ v~ v~ ~ v~ v~ ' tn ~n v~ ~
~ v~
~ ~ a
a
h Y y ~ y ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ,
ec ~ °~ o
X 3 3 a~ 3 3 ~ 3 3 ~ 3 3• ~ 3 3 . -..
w ,
~
3 ~
~ ~ ~
a. A o~ A ~ ~
~ •~
3 ~ w° 'v
o ~cy -a w
~ ~ i ~ ~
~ '~' by V .~.
C ~ Q ~
VJ •~ ~+ ~
~C O .~ O~ ~
t". N C N .~
o N 'a~ ax
U ~ p 'a A
y ~ U
O v,"
m Q ~ O a0+
k iC O ~ ~
y ~ '~ ~ II
~ p ~ y ~
C '^" ~ U ~
.~ / ~ ~ ~
.. ~ O ~ ~ ~
U ~ ~ 6yA
~~ -~~•~~
~ Q ~ II N o
G¢ m~ in m
R ..~
V p ~ p; ~' p
_ 7
~~~ aw`'~
3~m '~~~~
U ~.'
C.' y ~ y 0 0
Op ~ ~44~ m N~
o ~,
`° •~ E ~ ~~y' o a~
O O ~ a N. ~ ~
m 0 `~ ^a O O O
rn ~~. ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~
^ f], , C
c~ ~ ~ ~ ,O ~ `C~~ ~
O 3
N T N 4 ~G+. V O"
fl N ~' (~ ~', C Q ^
"" ~ 'U CYi U d ~ bq
N C
(n cd '-+ U cC
c 3~ U a,~ c c
~ ~ o ~ ~ II ~ o
W Gp by U
~ y aU~•~~ a~'i
C ,> p v ~ ~ .y v]
N
>= 7
a ~ v ~ ~ A ~ II
~ •0+ ~ O O y Q, r~A
a ca. q. a cQ
r. cn co ~a > w
~ ~~ 3 ~'~ ~
~ ~ '~ a ~ ae
ao >^_,a^
a~ c
v ~ ~ a.'~~
~z~•°
o ~Wb~b
a.~~U ~ 3 a
N Nl
t
Phase I Regional Rail System 5-115 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

i ~w
_ , o
~ o
~ .
~ .
~ ~
~.

~

o ~.~

w o
V ~ a
O v .C
i '-
I ~ s. ~ C
o
i
' C p
~
~ ~
~
- ~ pp
C .~
~

O C
O O O
_ Q c
~
~
~ ' 'o
y ', LL ~
~N
FBI
~ ~
C p 'O
a 03
~ ~°
~~
~
o
~
~
i
~ - ~ o
~~ ,
~~ ~~ ~~o
~~o ~~:~ z
~

U 3 0~
o,,0 3~~
00 3
0 3
0
I ~ eo U ..a U w .a ~
~ ~

~ w
a ~~! o 0

N ~_ ~ ~ ~
° y
~
~
~ C ~~
' C ~ v
,
~
i ~ •~
abi
~a
.~i i x ~ U .~ U .~ V .~ V ..
~ ~ CL ~ O. .a CL ~

C
H
~ I C
t ~ ~

' -' j ~
~
O _
c '~
~ ~; U o o.
~ U
7 s.+ .C ca
00
N
~
o p,
o 0.
~ c ~
n `,..~ A: C7 U
I`
I
f ~ N N
i .--. ~
~
lrr+ ~ x

G1
0
...
ao
a
O
~o
r~
i..l
N
~.
W
s.
w
a~i
8
0
y
,~
.~
C~
.~
0
U
a
a
i
a~
H
I,

>a~~ c
o
0
0 w
0 w
0

~
o~ o~ o~ o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 o a on o
o
~ o •}. ~. a
o •~ ~. o
o •., ~, o
o •.. ~,
o ~.
0 ~,
0 ~.
0 ~.
0 ~, a
o y ~.
o ~.
0 ~
0 ~. o
0 ~. ~.
o
o ~' p C p C •y •I"" p
~ a.
~ ~ Q•
~
~ ~ dr
~ ~ O"
~ ~ CJ
~ ~ V
~ ~± V
~ ~ O
~ ~ V
~ ~ 6.
~ ~ V
~ ~ V
~ ~ V
~ ~ p+
~ ~ V
N I
w
^- o~ G
o n ~
o ~a ~
o~ ~
0 0 e~
0 0 e~
0 0 eq
0 0 w
o a ~
o~ w
0 0 w^
0 0 w
0 0 e~
0~ eq
o 0
U 3 U 3 U 3 U 3 U v U o U o U v U o U 3 U o U o U o U 3 U ~
b 3

~
-c
o ~
~.
W
3 ~ .~ ~ ayi
• ~ vi
H °a ,°.
~ o ~ sc~
.
, "$
L" pq
a~ ^ a.+ .^S
w ~ U
y oo • VJ y
C
~ ca
3 '~' C.
~ ~
a
o "a
o b
^ • O
~. .J
~
V
c
~
o Y a a~ - a~ •
..,
y c3 ,.
¢.
y .
U w
O v
C
•
`. ~ O
'y ~ ° ~ ~ i+~ m
~ ~ T`Q^ CYC C ~ •cC
a ~
~ ~
~ ~ m
Q }o.~ Q
0
W N
V ~
'V
i
y ~+ y ~ Q~ .'~ N y r
n +
a i.n . ~ G)

": ~ sue. ~ 3 'b o ~ ° ~ ~ s. •~ ~ w o ,~ o on .n °~
. '~ •~
~
y~ ~ a ~ c w o •3 o ~
•
~' U c°,,o
'~" ro
c a a
F, ~
o
o
•
~ o
°SZ o
~ ~
' ~
$ ~
ue y

~ ~
~ o
aom o
on y
y• $
F. 'c
o
U~ ~ o
•o 'z °
•:~ o
z
ti
d m q rn ~ d a s
. ~ ~ v,
R
'~ U
C ~ i.
~ ~ ~
y N
N ~ .L
~ V ~
~ y C
~
O .3 O
.b ~ N
'~ ~
.~ .b
cd ~ m
«i •••"
•U sue,
w ~ ~ • ~ • _
U o O °? " 3
~, o ~, o w E-~ eu a a U 0 ~, vi ,
. v~ ?: rx ao `.G o v~ w P; o.

~, w i
~
U
o
~ ~.
.'~
a3i o
.~
~
• ' ~

4 A •Y N ~
'b ~
i
~ ~ G y
N ~'
'
~
~ ?GE ~
R ~
•~
~ ~'^
~
+ N
+ ~
~ ~ c~ ~4 O i.:
O is
O .+
~ V1 ~ ~ ~ 0
O c
}+ O U C .
~~0. ~ ~, o.~ •.a aA •~ •~ o ° ~ e ~° x y ~ •~

~, a ~•o
'
yo a ~
~~ c ~
~c a
~ Z ~
e~ ~
~ ~
~ a ~ c
~~' ~ ~~
>
~'
~ ~~
-5 aU
~a o •w
~ ~
~ ~
-moo
~
,
~
'3 `~~ 3:
a 3v y
3•~ z¢ z z 3~~ a
,
¢t7~ ,=
3~ .
°ax ~
3 z 3 3~
. a
o ~
~
~~
~ ~
y ~ ~, 3
4, ~:
~n ° v2 0 o F
.c ~~ ~ a U ~ °o ~ O
~ ~ ~°." 3

o Ga
; ~. u.
c .
a..
~ ~ ~~
~
~~
o o
~ ~, ~~
e
, ~ ~
.d ~ ~ o
A ~ ~ •~
ou o
a~ .
w o
oa a ~
Aa r ~
Q O .
wQ z c7~ E~~
i
~
~r
y i

~o
i

a
i

~
~

~

~

a

~n
N

~o
N

o,
N
~
~ ~n
d,
M

~o
M

~
M

oo
M

a\
M
f x x x ~ r
/-. ~i
~ ~ ~ -r
/~ ~
+
F. ~
r
M /-. ~
i
/-~
x: x x x x x ~x x x x
x
Phase I Regional Rail System
5-117 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

contamination. If contamination is found, soil and groundwater investigations would be
expanded to deternune the actual extent of contamination. A preferred method of testing would
be determined on a site-by-site basis closer to the time ofright-of--way acquisition.
The findings of the contamination screening and evaluation are based on preliminary information
only and are not intended to replace more detailed studies, such as individual site assessments and
subsurface soil and groundwater investigations. Rather, the screening is intended to be a guide
for identifying potential contamination in the proposed Regional Rail corridor. Other technical
studies may be required to determine the existence of site contamination prior to right-of--way
acquisition, utility relocation, or stormwater pond "construction. Potential contamination sites
may extend beyond those identified in this report because of limited historical and regulatory
information, illegal dumping practices, and a lack of compliance with storage tank registration
and hazardous waste generator programs. Finally, the ident~cation of a site in this report does
not necessarily indicate that the site contains contamination, but only that there is the potential for
contamination to occur.
Hazardous materials effects are discussed from the perspective oflow-income and minority
populations in Section 5.3.3 under "Human Health Issues." The No-Build Alternative would
have no affect on hazazdous material or storage tank sites.
5.11 Energy Use
This section quantifies the regional transportation system and construction energy expenditures
associated with the Regional Rail alternatives. The analysis examines the annual (2025) vehicle
propulsion energy use for both motor vehicles (automobile, trucks, etc.) and Regional Rail DMU
vehicles. The construction energy analysis identifies the one-time expenditure of energy required
for constructing the Regional Rail alternatives. The implementation of the Regional Rail
alternatives would result in a slight percent savings or increase in energy consumption for vehicle
propulsion (both rubber tire and rail) in 2025.
Fuel consumption in 2025 for combustion engine vehicles was calculated based on the regional
traffic forecasts, the anticipated mix of light and heavy duty gasoline and diesel engine vehicles,
and speed-sensitive fuel consumption formulae presented in A Method for Estimating Fuel
Consumption and Vehicle Emissions on Urban Arterial and Networks (FHWA, April 1981).
Table 5-54 provides estimates of VMT and energy consumption in 2020 for the No-Build, TSM,
and Regional Rail alternatives. Annual VMT in the region would decrease from the No-Build
Alternative with any of the Regional Rail alternatives. At the same time, average motor vehicle
travel speeds in the region would increase slightly. Together these changes would reduce fuel
consumption by rubber-tired vehicles operating in the region, with the speed change having the
greatest influence. These reductions would be slightly off set by the diesel propulsion
requirements for the new rail service introduced with the Regional Rail alternatives. The rail
alternatives would result in a net change in transportation system energy requirements ranging
from a 0.14 percent reduction to a 0.05 percent increase. In one case that shows an operations
energy use reduction, construction energy use would be offset in as little four to five years (for
the Duke Medical Center to Spring Forest). In all other cases, however, the construction energy
use would not be recovered by energy savings for decades or never.
5.12 Construction Impacts
This section describes the environmental impacts that would occur during the construction of
Regional Rail. The No-Build Alternative involves no new construction beyond the projects
included in area transportation plans. Regional Rail construction impacts would last only until
construction is completed. Where substantial potential negative impacts are identified, potential
measures to lessen the impact also are discussed. The TTA is developing a Project Management
Plan in conformance with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements for new transit
Rhase I Regional Rail System 5-118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

~„~. SfATE o-
~ nn
>Dj
~~ auM ~~
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 30, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Karen Boshoff
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: Interagency Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 10 on
SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue) over Bradley Creek in
Wilmington, New Hanover County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRSTP-1411(5), State Project No. 8.2251101, TIP Project
No. B-3496
Purpose of the Meeting:
An interagency meeting has been scheduled for December 7, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. in the
boardroom of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The project is not being carried through
the NEPA/404 Merger process; therefore, no concurrence is being requested. However, the
project will impact high quality wetlands and a stream and will require permits. It is the intent of
the meeting to review the proposed project with those agencies that will be responsible for
issuing permits and to address any potential problems that could be encountered in the permitting
process. The following issues will be discussed at the meeting:
1. Bridge replacement alternatives
2. Wetland and stream impacts
General Description of the Project:
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue) over
Bradley Creek in Wilmington, New Hanover County. See attached vicinity map.

Page 2
Purpose and Need of the Proiect:
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace an obsolete bridge. The existing bridge
is 40 feet (12 meters) in length and has a clear roadway width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). The bridge
was built in 1961 and has a sufficiency rating of 29.5 out of a possible 100. The structure has a
remaining life of 10 years. The bridge crosses Bradley Creek which has a Best Usage
Classification of SC HQW (High Quality Waters). A causeway leading up to the existing bridge
crosses a pristine salt marsh.
A~ency Coordination and Development of Alternatives:
An on-site meeting with representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management was held on May 5, 2000. A decision was
made at the meeting that two bridge replacement alternatives will be studied. Alternative 1
proposes the replacement of Bridge No. 10 with a bridge of adequate length to satisfy hydraulic
needs of the surrounding area. Alternative 2 proposes the removal of Bridge No. 10 and a
section of the existing causeway (approximately 480 feet west of the existing bridge) and
constructing a bridge approximately 550 feet in length. Since the meeting in May, a third
replacement alternative has been added. Alternative 3 proposes the removal of a section of the
causeway that would equal the area of wetlands to be impacted by the proposed project. The
three alternatives are summarized below:
Alternative 1: Replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure approximately
100 feet long. Three different side slope scenarios; 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 are being
considered for the roadway approaches to the bridge. Two-to-one (2:1) side
slopes will need rip-rap for slope protection. Cross pipes will be installed
under the causeway at determined intervals to improve sheet flow.
Alternative 2: Removal of a large section of the existing causeway and constructing a bridge
approximately 550 feet in length.
Alternative 3: Removal of a section of the existing causeway that will result in restoring an
area equal to the area of wetlands to be impacted by the proposed project.
Three side slope scenarios; 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 are being considered for the
roadway approaches to the bridge.
Table 1 summarizes the cost and wetland impacts associated with the three bridge
replacement alternatives.

Page 3
Additional Information:
The approved Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan recommends the widening of Wrightsville
Avenue (SR 1411) to three lanes. It may be more reasonable to incorporate the removal of the
existing causeway and the construction of a bridge over most of the wetlands as part of the future
widening project. However, it is not known when the widening of Wrightsville Avenue will
occur since no such project is currently programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP).
Your attendance at the meeting will be appreciated. If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project or the scheduled meeting, please call me at [phone] extension 223 or
e-mail me at [e-mail].
KB/
cc: Dave Timpy
Ed Brooks
John Hennessy
Fritz Rohde
David Cox
Tom McCartney
Ron Sechler
Art McMillan
Max Price
Omar Azizi
Randy Turner
Joe Blair
Lubin Prevatt
Chris Rivenbark
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Division of Coastal Management
NCDENR -Division of Water Quality
NCDENR -Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries
NCDOT -Roadway Design
NCDOT -Hydraulics
NCDOT -Structure Design
NCDOT -Division 3
NCDOT -Division 3
NCDOT -Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT -Project Development and Environmental Analysis

Table 1: Summary of Bridge Replacement Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Description 2-lane bridge, 2-lane bridge, 2-lane bridge,
of two 12-ft travel lanes two 12-ft travel lanes with two 12-ft travel lanes with
Replacement with 8-ft paved 4-ft paved shoulders, 4-ft paved shoulders,
Structure shoulders, remove approx. 480 ft of length. of causeway to be
construct cross pipes existing causeway, removed depends on side
under existing off-site detour slopes that will be
causeway, constructed (ie. area of
off-site detour wetlands that will be
impacted),
off-site detour
Length of Length of replacement
Replacement 100 feet 550 feet structure depends on side
Structure slopes to be constructed:
2:1 slopes:
Bridge length = 138 feet
3:1 slopes:
Bridge length = 188 feet
4:1 slopes:
Brid e len th = 234 feet
Width of
Replacement 40 feet 32 feet 32 feet
Structure
Total 138-ft bridge = $1,100,000
Construction $850,000 $2,625,000 188-ft bridge = $1,195,000
Cost 234-ft brid e = $1,375,000
Approximate
Wetland 2:1 slopes = 0.109 ac 138-ft bridge = 0.109 acres
Impacts 3:1 slopes = 0.191 ac 0.2 acres 188-ft bridge = 0.191 acres
4:1 slopes = 0.264 ac 234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres
Approximate 138-ft bridge = 0.109 acres
Area of 0.048 acres 0.771 acres 188-ft bridge = 0.191 acres
Causeway to 234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres
be Removed

,~
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
LO~Zq~(~(
TO: ~~~~ ~~~~~~ REFt^N)OWOR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM~~~ ~~ ~ ~
y REF..NO. OR ROOM, BLDG:.
wuuO~T~ P~fl-
ACTION
^.NOTE ANDr FILE ^ -PER OUR OONVERSATION~
^ NOTE ANDRETURN TO ME ^ PER YOUR"'REQUEST
^ 'RETURN WITFI MORE DETAILS --^ FOR YOUR- APPROVAL
^ NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ~ FOR YOUR INFORMATION
^ PLEASE ANSWER `.^ FOR YOUR. COMMENTS
^ PREPARE-REPLY'FOR MYSIGNATURE ^ SIGNATURE
^ :TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION -^ INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: '
~-3~q~ - ~ac~.x>~~af
grid e ~- ~o war
a ;~ ~n
Wiirnn - - -
`' OC - 3 6 ...2001

...moo„
~d r„ ° s~
~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
Octover 29, 2001
Dave Timpy
Ron Sechler
Jonn Hennessy
David Cox
Cathy Brittingham
Bill Arrington
Fritze Rohde
'°~G/ ~ ~
/`o

0~2~
~ /
LYNDO TIPPETT~
SECRETARY
~. .~h~ti~
~~~
US Army Corps of Engineers ~,~~ ~-s ,~.~ ~,t~~~~~~-~
National Marine Fisheries Service ,~~T~J~~iK .~/~
NCBENR -Division of Water Quality rr m~f~ ~~
NC Wildlife Resources Commission ~, ; ~,~
NC Division of Coastal Management ~/~
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: Karen Boshoff Taylor, P. E., Project Development Engineer -~,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
NCDOT
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 (Wrightsville
Avenue) over Bradley Creek, New Hanover County, Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-1411(5), State Project No. 8.2251101,
TIP Project No. B-3496.
RE: Mitigation Credits
An Ecological Enhancement Committee meeting has been scheduled for November 14,
2001 at 3:00 PM in the Photogrammetry Conference Room at the Century Center in
Raleigh. Mitigation credits for the replacement of Bridge No. 10 over Bradley Creek in
Wilmington (B-3496) will also be discussed at this meeting.
For the subject project, NCDOT has agreed to remove approximately 480 feet of the
existing causeway and to replace the existing 39-foot bridge over Bradley Creek with a
new 550-foot long bridge. This agreement was made with the understanding that
permitting agencies will award additional mitigation credits since a much longer bridge
will be constructed than what is hydraulically required.
The project schedule has been delayed several months to allow time for additional
planning and design of the longer bridge. However, a formal agreement needs to be
reached regarding the number of mitigation credits for this project before NCDOT will
continue with the design and construction of the 550-foot long bridge. If an agreement
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

cannot be reached at the November 14 meeting, the longer bridge design will no longer
be pursued.
NCDOT proposes that the following mitigation credits be awarded in response to the
construction of a 550-foot long bridge over Bradley Creek:.
Approx. construction cost of 550' long bridge $2,625,000
Approx. construction cost of 100' long bridge (bridge length - $850,000
that is hydraulically sufficient)
Difference in construction costs
15% of the additional construction cost to be absorbed by
NCDOT for environmental stewardship
Dollar amount that needs to be covered by mitigation credits
WRP cost per acre of high quality wetland mitigation
Number of mitigation credits to be awarded
$1,775,000
- $266,250
$1,508,750
$125,000
12
Please be prepared to discuss this project and related subject matter at the November 14
meeting. If you have any questions or additional comments, please call me at (919) 733-
7844 extension 223 or e-mail me at kbtaylor(~dot.state.nc.us.
KBT/
cc: Art McMillan, P. E., Roadway Design
Bill Gilmore, P. E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Randy Turner, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Chris Rivenbark, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
2

e,,. S(NE o
r•-ten
~~~~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~~~~>~°~S/~O1 G'~~~1~
BAR ~ 7 2004
~,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 19, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
~4p~~
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 10 over Bradley Creek on SR 1411, New Hanover County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1141(5), State Project No. 8.2251101, TIP Project No. B-
3496.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 10 over Bradley Creek on SR 1411 in New Hanover County. The existing bridge
will be replaced with a longer bridge along the existing alignment. The proposed bridge
replacement will be a spanning structure, thereby eliminating the piles in the stream
channel. The proposed bridge is approximately 200 feet in length and will facilitate the
removal of a total of 160 feet of the old causeway, resulting in the removal of fill in 0.19
acres of wetland. During construction, traffic will be detoured along existing area roads.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, permit
drawings, and half size plan sheets.
Bradley Creek (DWQ Index No. 18-87-24-4(1)) Class SC HQW, and associated wetlands
will be impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project will result
in 0.04 acre of fill in wetlands, 0.12 acre mechanized clearing in wetlands, 0.025 ac of fill
in surface water and 0.008 ac of temporary fill in 48 feet of the stream. Bridge No. 10
will be replaced using top down construction. This project is on the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) list for mitigation. However due to minimization of
impacts during the design phase and the use of onsite mitigation will, no offsite
mitigation will be needed.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing deck and bridge railings are composed of concrete. The substructure is
composed of timber bents and caps. The bridge rail, bents, and substructure will be
removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States. There is
potential for components of the deck and interior bents to be dropped into waters of the
United States, resulting in a temporary fill of approximately 13 cubic yards. NCDOT's
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Y
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
According to these guidelines this project is classified under the "Case 2" category which
allows no work at all in the water between February 15 to June 30 to protect anadromous
fish spawning.
Temporary Causeways
There will be 0.008 acres of temporary impacts from the construction of a temporary rock
causeway in 481ineaz feet of Bradley Creek (see permit drawing Sheets 2 and 4 of 5). A
temporary rock causeway will be required to provide access to the site by the construction
equipment on the southern side of the creek. The causeways will consist of plain Class I
rip rap.
Restoration Plan: No permanent fill will result from the causeway. The materials used as
temporary fill in the construction of the causeways will be removed. The temporary fill
areas will be graded back to the original contours. Elevations and contours in the vicinity
of the proposed causeways aze available from the field survey notes.
Schedule for Restoration of Temporary Fiil Areas: It is assumed that the Contractor will
begin construction of the proposed causeway shortly after the date of availability for the
project. The Let date is July 20, 2004 with a date of availability of August 31, 2004.
Removal and Disposal: The causeways will be removed within 90 days after it is no
longer needed. The temporary rock causeways will be removed by the Contractor using
excavating equipment. All materials placed in the stream by the Contractor will be
removed. All other materials removed by the Contractor will be disposed of at an off site
upland location.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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 February 25, 2003,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists ten federally protected species for New
Hanover County. Of these species, the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is
listed threatened due to similarity in appeazance and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
There is potential habitat for the manatee and the shortnose sturgeon at this project location,
but it is unlikely that either will be encountered. However, NCDOT will commit to
adhering to the Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West
Indian Manatee (see attached Guidelines). A biological conclusion of "May Affect, but Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" has been rendered for the West Indian manatee. A copy of the
concurrence letter dated February 4, 2004 to the Fish and Wildlife Service is attached.
NCDOT also commits to the above mentioned construction moratorium and adherence to
best management practices to avoid impacts to the shortnose sturgeon. The Biological
Conclusion of No Effect for the shortnose sturgeon remains valid. Biological conclusions
of "No Effect" documented in the CE for the remaining species given based on the absence
of habitat within the project azea remain valid.
Regulatory Approvals

Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the causeways will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
authorizing construction of the causeway. 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). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3403 and 3366
will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500(a) and 15A NCAC
2B .0200 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.
In a separate application, NCDOT is requesting a Coastal Area Management Act Major
Development Permit for this project from the NC Division of Coastal Management.
Copies of this application as well as the CAMA application will be posted on our website
at the following address: (http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.html).
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http • //www.ncdot. ors/planning/pe/naturalunit/permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/ attachment Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. CathyBrittingham, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
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. Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division Environmental Officer
Ms. Karen Taylor, P.E., PDEA Project Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(lt 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: NW 23 & 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: ^
5. 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: NCDOT
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27966-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: >7thorp~dot.state.nc.us
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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8

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 USGS 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 10 over Bradley Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3496
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: New Hanover Nearest Town: Wilmin~,ton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The site is located on SR 1411
over Bradley Creek.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 18 237976E 37090387N
(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.)
5. Property size (acres):
6. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Bradley Creek
7. River Basin: Cape Fear River
(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/.)
8. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: 'The area surrondin~ the bridge marshland, residential and
forestland
9. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Plans for
replacing the bride include replacing the current bride in the same location with a longer
Page 2 of 8

spanning structure. Equipment used will include re lug ar equipment utilized on bridge
replacement projects.
10. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose is to replace the old bridge that is
functionally obsolete.
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.
N/A
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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed project will. temporary
fill .008 acres of Bradley Creek and .025 acres permanent fill. The temporary fill is
composed of Class II Riprap and is necessary to facilitate the removal of the interior bent
from the existing bridge. The project will also impact 0.16 acres of wetlands
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
1 Fill .04 Yes Adjacent Marsh
1 Mechanized
Clearing 12 Yes Adjacent Marsh

* 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 t-800-358-9616, or
online at httn://www.fema.eov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.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: > 1 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.16
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(lineaz feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Irrt act Perennial or
Intermittent?
leases eci )

1 Fill in surface
waters
48ft
Bradley Creek
25 ft
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 UT (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
www.usQS.sov. Several Internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 60 ft (temporary)
4. 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 Area of
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number *
Type of Impact Impact
(if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) ba ,ocean, etc.)
Page 4 of 8

t,~st each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. 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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Just cation (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.
The No-Build or "do nothing" alternative was considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in
addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for
Bridge Demolition and Removal. Minimization was incorporated into the design by the use of a
lon eg r bridge
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
Page 5 of 8

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/strm~ide.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.
Onsite mitigation will be used. The replacement bridge will be longer then the current
bridge. The longer bridge will allow the removal of the causeway in 0.19 acres of wetland.
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
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
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?
Page 6 of 8

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 a NEPA/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:
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* (s Hare feet) Multiplier Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 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.
Page 7 of 8

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.
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
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).
315~`~
App>~cant/Agent's Signature bate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

~ r
NORTH C;ARGLINA
~ ~\ ~~/ ~ i
(' ..~%,
y
,~\ \\~i ~
Q`
~ ,~
~~ ~ SITE d m ~~~
~~ ~ ~-~~_
~~~ o
/ ~ ..~R~ ~' / ~ X411 ~ ~a °~ E T,~~",' ' °`~~'\
iv ~ ~~ 1 7 qh9 ~ Lt ~`~\.
~ ~,C~\i' '~ ~ ~~ wUi9Msvilie 111
~ 'aS ~ \
~.L ~ O
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY
~/ l~ PROJECT: 8.2251101 (B-3~96>
~ ~((~ ~ ~ BRIDGE NO.10 OVER BRADLEY
~~'J~ CREEg ON SR 111
IN WILMINGTON
_.. _ SHEET ` OF ~ O7 / Ol / 03

m E ~
~ ~~
~ w ~ ~ o
Z ~ ~
rn N

~
F
^
~ c
v, m Q~
~
'~
~
~
Q w U ~

a
~_
~
w -
o-cn ~
~ v °
° °
°
~ ~
w
U
LL
~ a
~ ~
~ O N O
a --
.
.
..
~ m ~n
~ ~ ~n
o 0
c
Z'-' o 0
=
ii ~--

~
Q a _c
N ~
C ~~ p U
w~
L N ~
O
N N
U ~ O
F ~
~
Q
a
~ y
~__ ~_

a m0~~
~v ° 0
F
~ g ~
c

~ o
W
a Z y
=~
°z w °-~ ~ °
J ~
~
W
w
c
m ~

0

0
_
~
~
N
LL O O

m
.0

a~ a m
~
3 ~
~ m
~
~
a~ ~

~~ d
o
U
0
0
N
J
O
O
~ O
O C N

_~ O N

~ lL O
O
O
O
r

~ J
~
Z O
H

PAIaCEL N®.
3
4
~~®~~~ 1L 11 ®D'~' ~1Le~~
NAMES AND ADDRES5E5
NAMES
Carol Ann Russell
James A and
Holly A Hug
ADDItBESSES
I10 Hooker Rd.
Wilmington, NC 28403
1601 Southwind Way
Wilmington, NC 28403

C ~
w

10-SEF-2003 08:7
R:\Hydr eulics\853496.drn
Belem AT
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~~_ ~~
~~8~~~~~~~~~
~~~o~~o~~~~~~ ~'h
m~~~~~~ ~
~~~~o~~~o~~~ ~
,~o~ ~ s
~~~~~~ ~~~m~ ~
O ~ ~ N
n
_~
Z
m
0
0
6~
t
O
r
r
D
_~
O
Z
0
0
m
I-
O
r
N Vl
--i -i
D D
o~
+ +
~~
O O
~ ~
00
+ cn
u, +
~ N
I i
'~ r
N ~
i
~r
+ ~'
r
I
N
I
1'ry
m
mZ
y
w
X ~ -~ ~
X Ar
PJ'
_'- ~~--~"' SOF1W/M/MD IT'q ESN E g ~ „/b'uiLIrY FSNf~
x ~: I
X X ZE' CO ,
X
x+
l ~$ $ ~~
~~ o' R_`~ ' ~s
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ c
N
X.
x .~i
aulNir E.sEit++r X
m
z
E, m
~ m K z
m z = ~
Z ~ ~ > ur
~ ~ / ~ 9
d T ~ Z
a
~ `"• °m
D
~ c ~` D
z z m
z
w
O D ~ T
r
S m - Z f/r
Z ~ ~ / /
-i Z ///
-i
~ C
D T
~ v. m
v -i
/J ~ '~ D '
r
/ ~ ~
s~ Z m''
C C
7d"a
~xI
~~
i
V1
_m
o ~~
~ ~- o O ~
D
C -
-+r

9 0
`° g n
°X ~^ n
T, h
~ =
] '\
0
u

~

~
+ r
NOT1
O -F ~
~ 7~
.i
~~ S
" z
$Q~
~ ~v
~~~~y
~ ~
~
p•UEEIIY EASEy~Nl
x ~ BRMJ(
~ \ ~~
~ ~
~~

~
~ :a
:
~S ,
~ ~ ~ '
~
_
~ ~,
~ ~,

~ ~
W

-mil {n \
~ a~
/~ Irn '~
/~ >F
~~ ~ ~ z
O
Ap Z n m~
m
'nom ma
m~ ~N ~ ~ a
_~ z= m ~ ~;
mr Cr ~ ~ is
~Z Z ~~ ~(
..
~ c o 56 ~
E'El1 ~ZN r~ m a{ +
m ~+
~~ ~~~ Zm r 9 m
czi= TO m0 z ~
~A ~~ ~
m rn~ zr n :R
N
o ° aEJ~

~mm
~r~
A ~
~~ N
7c ~ fTl
r'rpm
cnzD
'miN~
O p
Z ~ Z
W b ~~ ~
Orn m
C N
~ J
8 ~~:°
~~~
~~~
~~
~~
g°F
ti
+`~y ~s^
8 ~.tia
~~ B.~ry( bp`c
~~ A~a~ n
~~ y ~ i

Tc
~ ~ -
O ~
rorn
~~ ~~
A N (7
s aF a~
w~ $ ~ ~ e
~ ~
~ Z
'~ ~ ~ O
:°- ""
u'~01 dsi
r OAdf
t
W ~
~ X
x x
PoRCH
~~ d ~
I'~
O
H
v,~gsES unto ra~n+, .®
~, ~,~... ~ 8 as8
. nor Lr~ ~'~ W
$ -v I ay3 P~¢~ ~~ O
AO N
V yam, wr3 ° o
~ ~~ y
:s ~ O
II
~ ~ N
r
p
~ P
(: ~ 1'
rt p, ~ ~ m
~ ~ ~
aY i
r~ y N
`~ 1 ~ _
;$ y
*O ~ ~
m0 O
N
i ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
I .~ y ~
O
$ ~ ~
~A p
a ~
I m
~ Tc 1 ~
I ~ r ti
I Ng p
~o ~ Nv p'~~j~
,~ ,N,, -' ~ ru0,a~
' ~ L ~ ~ O\
o~
V
rn~~ll'ODb
~ rw"~u~
II ~,p yV ~QsO
A W
m~ti~~~~
~~~
\ N y
p0'00*S lOd 001-~

~ ~ ~`
~~ I ~~
~~ ,a~
8~ 8R
~ V~
I~ ~P
o
O
~~
BNICR~R WM' f P/ds'NE 1
a ti ~~
I, ~~~
/ /
~a
Q
!
~
X'° ""
- ; p+aei.. - o+ ;~ ~ g
w*~ ~
y0 E~
~~ ~
~
' C
~ +
r
7/2/99
``fN ~
~$$ ~
~wN~
~~~~~
1
~'g~
~~~
1 H
~~
a
t11
m ~~~oD v
I, """"°~
~'='~~°
~~~w~w*'
w
~~ ~ 8~w
y
ti
'<
v
m
m
N

O
~ rt
~

r ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
D

~~ =~v
° n r*t
~~
-F
~ °mD
~
•
~ NT~
~~r
~

-o o>
~ n
d ~ 0'

~ m
a
v " ?

~~
~~ w ~
T~~
~ ~
z
m~ A ~

`,63496.p(1
N :::::::::::::::~::
~€~g ~~ ~
' ~ ::::::~~:::::::::
~~ ::::;::::
~ ~
~ a ~: ~ ~
x' ni:::
;::~' .a:::::::::
:a~~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::
: .
~: m
....
?~~' ? ~'

~'

_...
............................................
::::~:::~i:: u:::r::i~:::r::r:::e:::r::: :

......
:: ::::

...
y, ::::::::::::::...::...: ::: ::n:
....... n::. ~:n:~T:~ ca::
:::
::::::::::'H::::::::::H:::::.:::: ~ :: :: • .:::

:::::::::

a
~o
N
O
N
N
N
...
'
' ~
'- ::.
~
.: llkki
. i
~
_
:
~ ::
'ii
~i::
.
;I 1 .
:
1 {
N
g~;~~ rn: ::~:: w
~` :o: ::' :::
~ ~ Z M:
:::m: ::~;::
::c*
::
n '
;~ -:

~ :
; ::~:::
c
~~ ~:::
...
~ ~
eQ
~
x ~
j
n
"
:~:
:
5 a
{{ :
:
°ii Z:e :
:o Zi
.. :
iii N
.... .. .... ... A
~ C

~..,:
~::::
:::
~~ :.
r:ik
DT
i
i'
i,v
~1
}. ~ ::
Z.:::
Vim.:
~:
:. 1~D_..
Orn .:'..
~~'s
r
i.
z! i'
~"
>''~: i:.
~~. ''
_::::
A:-
b.:
0~" ::
~::::!
N

New Hanover County
Bridge No. 10 Over Bradley Creek
on SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue)
in Wilmington
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1411(5)
State Project No. 8.2251101
TIP Project No. B-3496
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
`7- 1 - 02
Date
J -J-~
Date
~~
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
NCDOT
h
_ i
~icholas L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
FHWA

New Hanover County
Bridge No. 10 Over Bradley Creek
on SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue)
in Wilmington
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1411(5)
State Project No. 8.2251101
TIP Project No. B-3496
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 2002
Documentation. Prepared in the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
`,~tt111t11/If/~/
~~.~ ~N CARp~~;•~.

~' 1 IOZ ~ s.
~ ~Q~-
, SEAL
Karen Boshoff Tayl r, P. E. _ ~
Project Development Engineer ~ti~H~N~~~Q;•4t~
`,;
~~
`
~
'~,'QF S`j~~.~`
%
N
BO
~
,~t
tt
t~~`,•

S. Eric Midkiff, P. E.
Project Development Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.
Assistant Manager

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
New Hanover County
Bridge No. 10 Over Bradley Creek
on SR 1411 {Wrightsville Avenue)
in `dJilmington
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-141.1(5)
State Project No. 8.2251101
TIP Project No. B-3496
_ Division 3 Construction
An in-water construction moratorium is required from Febnaary 15 to June 30. Bradley
Creek is located within a Primary Fish Nursery Area and may potentially provide habitat
. for anadromous fish spawning. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources. Commission and
the North'Carolna Division of.Marine Fisheries require the moratorium.
Division'3 Construction/Structure Design Unit
The existing;bridge over Bradley. Creek. (Bridge No. 10). and the adjacent concrete utility
structure will be removed. in accordance with NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (Case 2 action). No .temporary fill will be placed in
.Bradley: Creek as a result of removing the existing bridge. and utility structure. Based on
...preliminary information, top down construction will be used to construct the new. bridge.
Division 3 Construction
Suitable habitat for he West Indian manatee is present in the project area. NCDOT will
implement the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) "Precautions for General
Construction in:Areas Which May Be Used by West Indian Manatee" (see Appendix B).
I£these precautions are considered in all aspects of project construction, this. project will
not affect the West Indian manatee.
Categorical Exclusion
July ]..2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................1
II. COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................1
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ...........................................................2
IV. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................2
A. Structure .................................................................................................... 2
B. Roadway ...................................................................................................2
C. Functional Classification ..........................................................................2
D. Intersections ..............................................................................................3
E. Right of Way and Access Control ........................................................... .3
F. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations ................................................ .3
G. LTtilities ..................................................................................................... .3
H. School Bus Data ....................................................................................... .3
I. Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... .3
J. Accident Record ....................................................................................... .4
V. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................4
A. Build Alternatives .....................................................................................4
B. Alternatives Dropped from Further Study ................................................6
1. Do Nothing Alternative .................................................................6
2. On-site Detour ...............................................................................6
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ...............................................................6
A. Structure/Roadway ..............................:.....................................................6
B. Drainage ....................................................................................................7
C. Right of Way and Access Control ............................................................7
• D. Bicycle Accommodations and Sidewalks .................................................7
E. Utility Conflicts ........................................................................................7
F. Maintenance of Traffic .............................................................................7
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..........................................................................7
A. General ......................................................................................................7
B. Air and Noise ............................................................................................7
C. Community Impacts ..................................................................................8
D. Farmland Effects .......................................................................................8
E. Historical Effects and Archaeological Effects ..........................................8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
F. Natural Resources .....................................................................................8
1. Physical Resources ........................................................................8
a. Topography .......................................................................8
b. Soils ..................................................................................9
' c. Water Resources ...............................................................9
2. Biotic Resources ......................................................................... 11
a. Biotic Communities ........................................................ 11
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................... 13
3. Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................... 16
a. Waters of the United States ............................................. 16
b. Permits ............................................................................ 17
c. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ...................... 18
4. Federally Protected Species ............................,........................... 20
5. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ................29
6. Summary .....................................................................................31
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification .............................. .31
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................ .31
A. Agency Coordination ............................................................................. .31
IX. .BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ................................................... .32

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proposed Improvements (Aerial Photograph)
Figure 3 Proposed Off-Site Detour Route
Figure 4 Projected Traffic Forecast
Figure 5 100-year Floodplain Boundary
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Bridge Replacement Alternatives ............................5
Table 2 Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ...........................13
Table 3 Fish Species Listed by NMFS Likely to Occur in Bradley
Creek ...................................................................................15
Table 4 Federally Protected Species for New Hanover County ..............21
Table 5 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
for New Hanover County ....................................................30
APPENDICES
Appendix A Comments Received from-Agencies
Appendix B U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Guidelines (July 2, 1996)
"Precautions for the General Construction in Areas Which May Be
Used. by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina"

New Hanover County
Bridge No. 10 Over Bradley Creek
on SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue)
in Wilmington
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1411(5)
State Project No. 8.2251101
TIP Project No. B-3496
The replacement of Bridge No. 10 is included in the Draft 2004-2010
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project due to the
deteriorated structural integrity. The project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". -The project's location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 and construction is scheduled to begin in FFY 2004.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 10 on existing location as shown in Figure 2. The existing structure carries
Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1411) over Bradley Creek in a north-south direction. Bradley
Creek is flowing from west to east in the vicinity of the project. The existing bridge and
a portion. of the existing causeway will be removed and a new bridge 200 feet (61 meters)
in length will be constructed. The clear roadway width of the new bridge is 33 feet
(10 meters).
Approximately 160 feet (48.8 meters) of the existing causeway will be removed.
The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as thegrade of the
existing bridge. Approximately 270 feet (82.3 meters) of new approach work is needed
to the south and 260 feet (79.3 meters) of new approach word is needed to the north of
the new bridge. The approach roadway will have a pavement width of 24 feet
(7.2 meters) with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders, of which 4-feet (1.2 meters) will be paved.
The proposed right of way width is approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide with
additional construction easements. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads
during construction to allow for on-site replacement with road closure (see Figure 3).
II. COST ESTIMATE
The current estimated costs for the replacement of Bridge No. 10 are as follows:
Construction Cost $ 1,150,000
Righh of Way Cost $ 110,500
Total Cost. $ 1,260,500

The estimated total cost of the project, as shown in the Draft 2004-2010
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), is $ 1,013,000, which includes $ 28,000 for
right of way acquisition, $850,000 for construction, and $ 135,000 for prior years cost.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Structure
Bridge No. 10 is located 0.8 miles (1.3 km) west of the US 76 junction and carries
Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1411) over Bradley Creek. The bridge consists of a two-span
reinforced concrete rail and deck on timber beams supported by timber caps and timber
piles with timber bulkhead-type abutments. The existing structure is 39 feet
(11.9 meters) long and is 29.3 feet (8.9 meters) wide. The bridge has a 28-foot
(8.4-meter) clear roadway width with two 11-foot (3.4-meter) travel lanes. The vertical
clearance between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and the streambed is approximately
13 feet (4 meters).
The bridge was originally constructed in 1961. According to Bridge Maintenance
Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the existing bridge is 28.1 out of a possible 100.
The existing bridge is found to be functionally obsolete. The posted weight restrictions
for the bridge are 28 tons for single vehicles and 34 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
B. Roadway
Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1411) is currently atwo-lane facility in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 10 consisting of a 24-foot (7.2-meter) wide travelway with 6-foot (1.8-meter)
wide grass shoulders.
The vertical alignment is flat in the project area. Horizontally, Bridge No. 10 is
located on a tangent section; however, there is a notable curve on SR 1411 north of the
existing bridge.
The posted speed limit on Wrightsville Avenue in the project area is 45 mph.
C. Functional Classification
According to the North Carolina Functional Classification System, Wrightsville
Avenue (SR 14 ] 1) functions as an urban collector within the study limits of the project.
Wrightsville Avenue is designated as a major thoroughfare in the Wilmington Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plan.

D. Intersections
Hooker Road (SR 1420) intersects Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1411) approximately
125 feet (38.1 meters) south of Bridge No. 10. Rogersville Road (SR 1419) intersects
Wrightsville Avenue approximately 950 feet (289.6 meters) north of the existing bridge.
Both intersections are stop-sign controlled.
E. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way on Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1411) in the vicinity of the
project is 60 feet (18.3 meters). No control of access currently exists in the project area.
F. Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
No exclusive bicycle lanes, other bicycle facilities, or sidewalks currently exist
along Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1411) in the vicinity of the project. Bridge No. 10
currently has 2 feet (0.6 meters) of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge for passage
of pedestrians and bicyclists.
G. Utilities
A forced sewer line~is located above ground on a separate concrete structure west
of the existing bridge and continues underground parallel to and west of the causeway.
An underground waterline runs parallel and east of the existing bridge and causeway and
crosses underneath Wrightsville Avenue perpendicularly just south of the bridge.
An overhead shared utility line (telephone, power, and cable) parallels the
existing bridge and causeway to the west and crosses to the east just south of the bridge.
An underground telephone line parallels the bridge and causeway to the west.
H. School Bus Data
Sixteen (16) school buses travel on Wrightville Avenue (SR 1411) for a total of
29 trips a day, year round, in the vicinity of the project. These school buses serve J.C.
Roe Pre-kindergarten School; Bradley Creek, College. Park, Gregory, and Wrightsville
Beach Elementary Schools; Roland-Grise, Virgo, and Williston Middle Schools; and
Lakeside and New Hanover High Schools.
I. Traffic Volumes
The current traffic volume (base year 2000) on Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1411)
between Hooker Road (SR 1420) and Rogersville Road (SR 1419) is 11,800 vehicles per
day (vpd). The projected traffic volume on Wrightsville Avenue in the year 2025 is
20,700 vpd in the project area (see Figure 4).

J. Accident Record
There have been nineteen (19) accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 10
during the period between November, 1997, and October, 2000. No fatal accidents
occurred during the studied years.
V. ALTERNATIVES
A. Build Alternatives
Three "build" alternatives were studied for the proposed project. Alternative 1
proposed the replacement of Bridge No. 10 with a bridge of adequate length to satisfy
hydraulic needs of the surrounding area. Alternative 2 proposed the removal of Bridge
No. 10 and a section of the existing causeway (approximately 480 feet [146.3 meters]
west of the existing bridge) and constructing a bridge approximately 550 feet
(167.4 meters) in length. Alternative 3 proposed the removal of Bridge No. 10 and a
section of the causeway that would equal the area of wetlands to be impacted by the
proposed project. The three alternatives aze summarized below:
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 considered replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure
approximately 100 feet long. Three different side slope scenarios; 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 were
considered for the roadway approaches to the bridge. Two-to-one (2:1) side slopes will
need rip-rap for slope protection. Cross pipes will be installed under the causeway to
improve sheet flow.
Alternative 2:
Alternative 2 considered removal of a large section of the existing causeway and
constructing a bridge approximately 550 feet in length-. Three different side slope
scenarios; 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 were considered for the roadway approaches to the bridge.
Alternative 3 (Recommended):
Alternative 3 considered removal of a section of the existing causeway that will
result in restoring an area equal to the area of wetlands to be impacted by the proposed
project. Three side slope scenarios; 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 were considered for the roadway
approaches to the bridge. The length of the new bridge would range from 138 feet to 234
feet (42.1 meters to 71.3 meters) depending on the side slopes. Alternative 3 with 3:1
side slopes is the recommended alternative. The length of the recommended structure
was increased to 200 feet (61 meters) after preliminary planning studies were completed.
Table l summarizes impacts associated with all three bridge replacement
alternatives.
4

Table 1: Summary of Bridge Replacement Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
(Recommended)
Length 100 ft 550 ft 2:1 slopes = 138 feet
3:1 slopes = 188 feet*
4:1 slopes = 234 feet
Width 40 ft 32 ft 32 feet
Total $850,000 $2,625,000 138-ft bridge = $1,100,000
Construction Cost 188-ft bridge = $1,195,000
234-ft bridge = $1,375,000
Approximate 2:1 slopes = 0.109 ac 0.2 ac 138-ft bridge = 0.109 ac
Wetland Impacts 3:1 slopes = 0.191 ac 188-ft bridge = 0.191 ac
4:1 slopes = 0.264 ac 234-ft bridge = 0.264 ac
Approximate Area 0.048 ac 0.771 ac 138-ft bridge = 0.109 ac
of Causeway to be 188-ft bridge = 0.191 ac
Removed 234-ft bridge = 0.264 ac
Note: The length of the recommended structure has been increased to 200 feet (61 meters) with 3:1
side slopes after preliminary planning studies were completed.
B. Alternatives Dropped from Further Study
Do Nothing Alternative
The "Do Nothing" alternative is not practical, since it will require the
eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is neither practical nor economical.
2. On-site Detour
An on-site detour was dropped from consideration because of the pristine
salt marsh located on both sides of the existing bridge and the impacts associated
with constructing a temporary bridge.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Structure/Roadway
Alternative 3 is the recommended alternative. Bridge No. 10 will be replaced
with a new 200-foot (61-meter) long cored slab bridge on existing location (see Figure 2).
A section of the causeway, approximately 160 feet (48.8 meters) in length, will be
removed as part of the proposed improvements. The cross section of the new bridge will
include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) wide travel lanes with 4.5-foot (1.4-meter) wide offsets

(shoulders) for pedestrian and bicycle passage. Based on preliminary information, top
down construction will be used to construct the new bridge.
Approximately 270 feet (82.3 meters) of new approach work is needed to the
south and 260 feet (79.3 meters) of new approach word is needed to the north of the new
bridge. The new approaches include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes and 8-foot
(2.4-meter) wide shoulders, of which 4-feet (1.2-meters) will be paved.
Three-to-one (3:1) side slopes will be constructed at the roadway approaches to
the new bridge. In this area, side slopes steeper than 3:1 present maintenance and slope
stability problems. In dry conditions where it never rains, a 2:1 side slope would always
be on the verge of failure and will fail by mass erosion when it rains. The safety factor
against slope failure increases to a more acceptable level with the use of 3:1 side slopes.
A 3:1 slope will also fail in some rain events; however, it will fail less frequently than a
2:1 slope. Vegetation takes longer to establish on poor sand material found in the coastal
areas. Vegetation tends to grow better on 3:1 side slopes and erosion is less likely to
occur. Refer to Section VILA on Pages 30 and 31 and Appendix A, Page A-4 and A-5
for coordination with resource and permitting agencies regarding the side slopes.
B. Drainage
Based on preliminary information, stormwater on the new structure may need to
be drained through openings on the deck. Due to the length of the proposed bridge, deck
drains may be required to drain excess water off the bridge. If deck drains are required,
they will not be placed over open water. Based on NCDOT's guidelines for the location
and design of hazardous spill basins, no hazardous spill basins will be required for this
project.
C. Right of Way and Access Control
The proposed right of way width is approximately 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide with
additional construction easements. No control of access is proposed for this project.
D. Bicycle Accommodations and Sidewalks
The new bridge will have a 4.5-foot (1.4-meter) lateral clearance on both sides of
the bridge for pedestrian and bicycle passage. The approaches to the bridge will have
4-foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles.
E. Utility Conflicts
A forced sewer line is currently located above ground on a separate structure west
of the existing bridge. The sewer line will need to be relocated. A waterline is currently
located underneath the creek east of the existing bridge and will need to be moved. It is
anticipated that directional boring will be used to relocate the existing forced sewer line
and waterline underneath the creek.
6

An overhead shared utility line (telephone, power, and cable) that currently
parallels the existing bridge and causeway to the west and crosses to the east just south of
the bridge will need to be relocated. An underground telephone line paralleling the
bridge and causeway to the west will also need to be relocated. The method of relocating
the overhead shared utility line and underground telephone line is not known at this time.
F. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be detoured on existing area roads during the construction period (see
Figure 3). The detour route will follow SR 1421 (Greenville Avenue) and US 76
(Oleander Drive} for alternative routes and will increase travel by 2.47 miles (4.0 km).
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. General
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. The project is considered to be a
federal "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant environmental
consequences. This bridge replacement will not have a substantial effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plans, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition
will be limited. No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project
is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges on 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.
B. Air and Noise
The project is located in New Hanover 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 affects on the air quality of this attainment area.
Noise transmission loss provided by the proposed structure should be sufficient to
moderate any intrusive traffic noise. Since the existing two-lane bridge will be replaced

with atwo-lane bridge, the proposed project will not increase traffic volumes; therefore,
the project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise
of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process.
C. Community Impacts
This project does not propose relocations or negatively effect property access or
access to public facilities and services; therefore, no negative community impacts are
anticipated to result from this project.
D. Farmland Effects
This bridge replacement project will not result in the loss of any federally or state
designated prime, unique or important farmland soils, nor will this project disrupt an
active farming operation.
E. Historical Effects and Archaeological Effects
The proposed project will not affect any potential historic architectural or
archaeological resources within the proposed project area. The State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project and recommended that no
further historic architectural or archaeological surveys would be required (see letter in
Appendix A, Page A-2 and A-3).
F. Natural Resources
Physical Resources
Topography, soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are
discussed below. In addition, a general description of the project vicinity and
project region is also described.
a. Topography
The proposed project is located in eastern New Hanover County
near the Intercoastal Waterway. The project is located in the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Topography in the vicinity of
the study area is characterized as nearly level to gently sloping along
streams. Project elevations range from 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 meters) above
mean sea level.

b. Soils
Soils located in the project area are of the Kenansville-Craven-
Lakeland and Tidal Marsh-Newhan associations. The Kenansville-
Craven-Lakeland association consists of nearly level to gently sloping
soils on uplands. Soils of the Tidal Marsh-Newhan association consist of
nearly level soils in flat or slightly depressional areas on rims of
depressions and on broad smooth flats. Tidal marsh is the dominant soil in
the study area. Information concerning specific soil types occurring in the
study area is provided below.
Craven fine sandy loam is nearly level, moderately well drained
soil found on broad, smooth flats on uplands. Areas are generally
irregular in shape and highly variable in size. This soil has a low organic
content, low permeability, low shrink-swell potential, and medium
available water capacity. The seasonal high water table is from 2 to 3 feet
(0.6 to 0.9 meters) below the surface.
Tidal marsh is on the nearly level flats between the coastal dunes
and the interior uplands. Organic-matter content of the surface layer is
high. The water table is at or above the surface most of the time and many
areas are flooded daily.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource
assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage standards, and
water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship
to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned index
numbers for streams and tributaries in North Cazolina. One perennial
stream in the Cape Fear River Basin, Bradley Creek [DWQ Index No.
18-87-24-4(1), (8/1/90)] is crossed by SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue).
This stream carries a Best Usage Classification of SC HQW. Class SC
refers to saltwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life
including propagation and survival, and wildlife. All saltwaters shall be
classified to protect these uses at a minimum. High Quality Waters
(HQW), refers to waters which are rated as excellent based on biological
and physical/chemical characteristics through Division of Water Quality
monitoring or special studies.

No waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project
study area.
Physical Characteristics
The salt marsh community is bisected by a coastal plain perennial
stream. At the time of the field visit, Bradley Creek had an approximate
depth of 4.0 feet (1.2 meters). The flow was slow and the water had dark
brown color. The average channel width was approximately 25 feet
(7.6 meters). The substrate consisted primarily of silt.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a
pipe, ditch, or other defined points of discharge. The term most
commonly refers to discharges associated with wastewater treatment
plants. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Dischargers are required to register for a permit.
There are no permitted dischargers located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km)
upstream of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters
through stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. There are
many types of land use activities that can serve as sources of nonpoint
source pollution including land development, construction, crop
production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads, and
parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing
substances associated with nonpoint source pollution. Others include fecal
coliform bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance
that may be washed off the ground or removed from the atmosphere and
carried into surface waters.
Water Quality
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 five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to
water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There are no
biological monitoring sites located within the project vicinity.
~o

2. Biotic Resources
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic
ecosystems. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented where
applicable in the context of plant community classifications (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats
are cited. Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk (*) in
the text. Sightings of spoor evidence are equated with sightings of individuals.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for plant
and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
a. Biotic Communities
Three biotic communities, maintained roadside, salt marsh, and
coastal plain perennial stream exist within the project study area and will
be impacted by the subject project. Each of these communities is
described below.
Maintained Roadside
The maintained roadside community consists of the highly
maintained shoulders and some less intensively managed areas that grade
into the surrounding natural communities as well as residential
communities. Significant soil disturbance and compaction; along with
frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep this community in an early
successional state.
Dominant plants in the heavily maintained portions of the
maintained roadside community include fescue (Festuca sp.), and plantain
(Plantago sp.). In the areas which receive lower levels of maintenance,
more diverse communities can develop. This community was populated
by bead grass (Paspalum sp.) and ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
This community grades .into residential yards with vegetation comprised
of grasses and species such as flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida) and
pecan (Carya illinoensis). Also included in this community are roadside
shoulders along the causeway with herb and vine species such as morning
glory (Ipomoea sagittata), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
greenbrier (Smilax bonanox), silverling (Boccharis halimifolia), trumpet
creeper (Campis radicans), foxtail grass (Setaria geniculata), peppergrass
(Lepidium campestre), soft needle rush (Juncus effusus), and giant cane
(Arundinuria gigantea). Trees and shrubs found in this area include sea
ox-eye (Barrichia frutescens), sweet gum saplings (Liguidambar

styraciflua), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), black cherry (Prunis serotina), red
cedar saplings (Juniperus virginiana), black willow (Salix nigra), marsh
elder (Iva frutescens), red maple saplings (Ater rubrum), lobolly pine
saplings (Pinus taeda), water hickory (Carya aquatica), Chinese wisteria
(Wisteria sinensis), and pecan.
Salt Marsh
Dominant plants in the salt marsh community consisted of two
species which covered the entire community. Salt marsh cordgrass
(Spartina alterniflora) covered areas of elevation adjacent to Bradley
creek while black needle rush (Juncus roemerianus) was present in areas
that were slightly higher in elevation.
Coastal Plain Perennial stream
Bradley Creek is a brackish stream that bisects the salt marsh
community. This stream has a tidal influence that results in over-bank
flooding. One species, salt marsh cordgrass was the dominant vegetation
present along the banks of Bradley Creek. The ribbed mussel
(Geukensia demissa) was observed in the stream near the banks by the
bridge and the Eastern oyster (Crassitrea virginica) may also be present in
these stream. Fishes likely to be found in creeks such as Bradley Creek
may include striped bass (Roccus lineatus), striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and mosquitofish
(Gambusia a~nis).
Wildlife
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists
primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to
coexistence with human development. Mammals common to salt marshes
such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and marsh
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) may be observed occasionally. The most
common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina), predators such as black racer (Coluber constrictor), and eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Amphibians present in this
community may include bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and pickerel frog
(R. palustris). Marsh fiddler crab* (Uca pugnax) and marsh periwinkle*
(Littorina irrorata) were observed during the field visit.
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), redwing blackbird* (Agelaius phoeniceus), kingfisher*
(Megaceryle alcyon), marsh wren (Telmatodytes palustris), clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris), black duck (Anas rubripes), and meadowlark
(Sturnella magna).
l2

b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project study area
in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the project study
area, and thus the loss of community area. Calculated quantitative impacts
to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area (Table 2). Estimated impacts are
derived based on approximately 740 feet (225.6 meters) of total approach
work required on both sides of the proposed bridge. The entire. right of
way [80.0 feet (24.4 meters)] was used for this calculation. The entire
right of way will probably not be impacted, therefore actual impacts to the
communities may be considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community type Estimated inlpact~ in
acres (hectares)
Maintained roadside 1.24 (0.51)
Salt marsh 0.20 (0.08)
Total 1.44 (0.59)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally
common throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide
ranging environmental factors. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder
community will be re-established after construction. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable for
the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced significantly from the project study area
following construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of
project construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should be
revegetated promptly after project completion to minimize erosion and the
loss of wildlife habitat.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Estimated impacts to Bradley Creek will be minimal.
Approximately l 60 feet (48.8 meters) of the existing causeway adjacent to
Bradley Creek will be removed which should improve tidal flushing and
movement of aquatic organisms.
]3

Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the
environment. Any action that affects water quality can have an adverse
impact on aquatic organisms. Although most of the disturbance caused by
project construction will be temporary, some environmental impacts
caused by the proposed project will be long term or irreversible.
Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement of
bridges, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters. Project
construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed
soils.
• Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due
to increased sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in
surface or ground water drainage patterns.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and
oil from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions will be taken to minimize these and other impacts to
water resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced
throughout the construction stage of the project.
Bradley Creek is located within a Primary Fish Nursery Area, and
may potentially provide habitat for anadromous fish spawning. For this
reason, an in-water construction moratorium will be required from the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission from February 15 to June 30. The
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries agreed that this moratorium would be
sufficient.
Essential Fish Habitat Designations
The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (PL 94-265) set
forth new requirements 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. These amendments established procedures for the identification
of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a requirement for interagency
coordination to further the conservation of federally managed fisheries.
The replacement of Bridge No. 10 will result in impacts to salt
marsh adjacent to Bradley Creek that might provide habitat or contribute
to estuarine food chains. The proposed project involves replacing the
existing bridge which is 39.0 ft (11.9 m) in length in the same location
with a new bridge that will be 200.0 ft (61.0 m) in length. Impacts will
14

occur as a result of additional fill necessary due to the lengthening of the
bridge, while removing a portion of the existing causeway.
The replacement of Bridge No. 10 will impact approximately
0.2 acres (0.08 hectare) of salt marsh adjacent to Bradley Creek.
However, removal of the existing causeway will expose 0.2 acres
(0.08 hectare) of marsh substrate that was previously filled. Therefore, the
net effect of the new bridge construction and existing causeway removal
will result in no net loss of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) with the 200-foot
(61.0 meter) bridge length.
Table 3 lists the fish species that may occur in the study area that
are managed under MSFCMA (species listed by NMFS for Bradley
Creek), including the life stages which aze known to occur.
Table 3. Fish Species Listed by NMFS Likely to Occur in Bradley
Creek.
Species Life Stag
Brown shrimp P/J, S
White shrimp P/J, S
Red drum P/J, S
Spanish mackerel J
Cobia L, P/J, A
Bluefish J, A
Summer flounder L, J, A
Note: E -Eggs, P/J - Postlarvae/ Juvenile, L - Larvae, S - Subadult,
J -Juvenile,
A -Adult
Bridge Demolition and Removal
The existing deck and bridge railings are composed of concrete.
The substructure is composed of timber bents and caps. The bridge rail,
bents, and substructure will be removed without dropping components into
Waters of the United States. However, if components of the. deck were
dropped into Waters of the United States during bridge demolition, the
resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck would be
approximately 13 cubic yards (9.9 cubic meters). The existing bridge will
be removed according to the NCDOT's best management practices for
bridge demolition and removal guidelines. According to these guidelines,
the subject project falls under the "Case 2" category which allows no work
at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. An in-
water construction moratorium will be required for this project from the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission from February 15 to June 30.
15

An existing sewer line is located on a separate concrete structure
next to Bridge No. 10. The structure is composed of concrete caps on top
of concrete piers. During construction of the new bridge, the sewer line
will be moved and the concrete structure will be removed according to the
NCDOT's best management practices for bridge demolition and removal
guidelines. The structure will be removed without dropping components
into Waters of the United States.
3. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two
significant.regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected
species. These issues retain particular significance because of federal and state
mandates which regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the
impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
a. Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (IISACE) promulgated the
definition of "Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a).
Waters of the United States include most interstate and intrastate surface
waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are
considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.- Wetlands are identified
based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into waters of
the United states falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must
follow the statutory provisions under Section 404.of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Surface Waters
. One surface water, Bradley Creek, exists within the project study
area and is considered a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussions of the biological and
water quality aspects of this water resource are presented in previous
sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts to Bradley Creek will be minimal.
Approximately l 60 feet (48.8 meters) of the existing causeway through
16

Bradley Creek will be removed. Approximately 0.2 acres (0.8 hectare) of
salt marsh may be impacted as a result of project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project length of 760 feet (225 meters).
The entire right of way width of 80 feet (24.4 meters) was used for this
calculation. The entire right of way will probably not be impacted;
therefore, actual impacts to the stream may be considerably less.
b. Permits
Clean Water Act (CWA) §401 authorizes states to determine
whether activities permitted by the federal government comply with state
water quality standards. The DWQ may require a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification if a project fills or substantially modifies waters or
wetlands. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or
other land manipulation. North Carolina developed General Certifications
(GCs) that satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permits (NWPs) [NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section,
Wetlands Water Quality Certification; undated Internet site]. The issuance
of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section
404 permit. Water Quality Certification No. 3107, which corresponds to
NWP 23, will likely be required for the project.
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. The
USACE, which administers the permit program under CWA §404,
established nationwide permits for minor activities, specialized activities,
and activities regulated by other authorities. A nationwide permit (NWP)
is a permit by rule. In other words, compliance with the NWP rules
satisfies the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Forty NWPs referenced by a number currently exist (Strand, 1997).
Nationwide 23, entitled Approved Categorical Exclusions, covers certain
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed,
in whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department. Nationwide
Permit 23 applies when another Federal agency or department determines
that their activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from an
environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The activity, work, or discharge becomes
categorically excluded when its actions neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The
Office of the Chief of Engineers must receive notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concur with the
categorical exclusion determination [January 15, 2002 (Volume 67,
Number 10, Pages 2019-2095)].
17

A Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23) is likely to
be applicable for the crossing of Bradley Creek. This permit authorizes
construction provided the following conditions are met:
• the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing;
• the fill place in Waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of
no more than 1.0 acre (0.45 hectare);
• no more than a total of 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) of the fill for the
roadway can occur in. special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
• the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and
movement of aquatic organisms, and;
• the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing of
Waters of the United States.
The subject project is located within a county that is under the
jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), which is
administered by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM). DCM is the
lead permitting agency for projects located within its jurisdiction. A
CAMA Major Development Permit will likely be required for this project.
Representatives from NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit held apre-
application meeting with the DWQ Wilmington Regional Office on
November 14, 2000. At this meeting it was determined that a Stormwater
Management Permit will not be required for this project.
NCDOT coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard to determine if a
permit is needed from that agency. At the site crossing, Bradley Creek
meets the criteria for advanced approval and an individual permit will not
be required from the Coast Guard. See letter on Page A-1 of Appendix A.
c. Avoidance, Minimization, and Miti a~ tion
The Corps of Engineers (COE) has adopted through the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
is

Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According
to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes. In order to avoid impacts to U.S. Waters, the
existing 39-foot (11.9-meter) bridge will be replaced by a 200-foot
(61 meter) bridge, thereby avoiding impacts and further opening up the
existing causeway. Removing approximately 160 feet (48.8 meters) of the
existing causeway should improve tidal flushing and movement of aquatic
organisms.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United
States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project
modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to
median widths, right of way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder
widths. To minimize impacts to U.S. Waters, the existing approaches will
be widened symmetrically, thereby maximizing use of the. existing facility
pavement. Additionally, the minimum standard shoulder and lane widths
for this type facility are recommended, as well as the steepest slopes
possible for this area.
Compensatory mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net
loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation
is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Estimated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands tota10.2 acres
(0.08 hectare). Though compensatory mitigation is not required for impacts
for projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or
19

alteration of less 1.0 acre (than 0.45 hectare) of palustrine wetlands, it is
likely that mitigation will be required for impacts in estuarine wetlands (salt
marsh) associated with this project. Written approval of the final mitigation
plan is required from the DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification.
Final permit/rnitigation decisions rest with the COE and DWQ.
Current designs call for the removal of approximately 160 feet
(48.8 meters) of the existing causeway. This area (0.2 acres
[0.08 hectare]) will be graded to the elevation of the adjacent salt marsh
and replanted with vegetation of the same species as that in the salt marsh;
therefore, offsetting impacts from construction of the bridge.
Minimal impacts to jurisdictional surface waters may occur as
result of the proposed project. If fill or dredging in surface waters occurs
as a result of construction activities, permits and certifications will be
required from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the
water quality of public waters resources.
4. Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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. An
endangered species is considered to be a species that is in danger of becoming
extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is
considered to be a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of March 7, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists ten
federally protected species for New Hanover County (see Table 4). A brief
description and biological conclusion is provided for each of these species below.
ao

Table 4. Federally Protected Species for New Hanover County.
Common Name Scientific. Name Status
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (S/A)
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened
Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
west Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered**
Note: "Endangered" a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"Threatened S/A" This listing is defined as a species which are threatened due to similarity
of appearance with other raze species and are listed to protect these species. These species
are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
"Threatened" a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"* *" obscure record, the date and/or location of the observation is uncertain.
Short-nosed sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) Endangered
Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small (3.3 feet [1 meter] in length) species
of fish which 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 sturgeon because of its shorter snout, wider
mouth, and the pattern of its preanal shields (the short-nose having one row and
the Atlantic having two).
The short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less than
sea water. It feeds on benthic 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.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Bradley Creek may provide suitable habitat for the shortnose sturgeon. A
review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on
July 18, ] 999 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the short-nosed
~~

sturgeon within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the project area. Through verbal
communication on August 12, 1999 with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, it
was determined that it is unlikely that the short-nosed sturgeon would be present
in this section of Bradley Creek. However, best management practices and use of
the construction moratorium will insure this project will not affect this species.
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Threatened
Family: Alligatoridae (Due to Similarity of Appearance)
Date Listed: June 4, 1987
The alligator is a large aquatic reptile, measuring 1.8-5.8 meters in length,
with a broadly rounded snout, heavy body, laterally compressed tail, and a dark
gray or blackish color. Young are black with conspicuous yellow crossbands; the
banding may occasionally persist on adults, although very faintly. Unlike the
American crocodile, the fourth tooth on the lower jaw of the alligator fits in a
notch in the upper jaw and is not exposed when the jaws are closed.
The alligator can be found on the east coast of the United States from
Tyrrell County, North Carolina to Corpus Christi, Texas, and north in the
Mississippi River drainage basin to Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. Home
ranges may vary considerably, with 3,162 acres for males and 21-acres for
females being average. Individuals can travel great distances, both overland and
in the water, but males tend to travel more than females.
The alligator is found rivers, streams, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and
coastal marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt water, but the young are
apparently more sensitive, with salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand
considered harmful. The diet consists of anything of suitable size, including
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and crustaceans.
Nesting takes place in late spring and early summer, with the female
building a mound of grass and other vegetation that may be two feet high and six
feet across. The nest is usually constructed near the water, in a shaded location.
The clutch of 30-60 (average 35) eggs is laid in a cavity near the top of the
mound, and is incubated by the heat from the decaying vegetation. The female
usually remains near the nest until the eggs hatch. Hatching takes place in about
nine weeks, when the young begin calling to alert the female to excavate the nest.
The primary threats to the alligator in the past have been loss of habitat
and overhunting: The legal protections in recent years have allowed this species
to increase significantly, and it is now considered biologically secure. The
alligator is distinguished from the American crocodile by its broad, rounded snout
and the way its fourth tooth of its lower jaw fits into a notch in the upper jaw
when the jaws are closed, and is therefore not exposed when the jaws are closed.
Biological Conclusion
Not Required
~~

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. The NHP database shows one
element of occurrence for this species approximately 0.8 miles (1.3 km) southeast
of the project area. No survey is required for this species.
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened
Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 28 July 1978
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke inlet, North
Carolina through Florida_ and on a small scale off of the Gulf States. There are
also major nesting grounds on the eastern coast of Australia. It lives worldwide in
temperate to subtropical waters.
Adult loggerheads weigh between 170 to 500 pounds (77 and
227 kilograms) and are 2.6 to 3.9 feet (0.8 to 1.2 meters) in length. The
loggerhead can be distinguished from other sea turtles by its unique reddish-
brown color. The loggerhead is characterized by a large head and blunt jaws.
Otherwise they have 5 or more costal plates with the first touching the nuchal and
3 to 4 bridge scutes.
Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and September on isolated
beaches that are characterized by fine grained sediments. It is mainly carnivorous
feeding on small marine animals.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of beaches was not observed during the site
visit. In addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database on May 6, 2002 indicated that there is no known occurrence
of a loggerhead sea turtle within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the project area. Therefore,
this project will not affect this species.
piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened
Family: Charadriidae
Date Listed: 11 December 1985
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a
sandpiper. An average bird grows to about 6.9 inches (17.5 cm) in length and has
a wing span of 14.8 inches (37.5 cm). It can be identified by the orange legs and
black band around the base of its neck. During the winter the plover loses its
black band, its legs fade to pale yellow, and the bill fades to black. Breeding
?;

birds are characterized by white underparts, a single black breastband, and a black
bar across the forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast from New Foundland to
North Carolina. It winters from North Carolina southward into the Florida Keys
and along the Gulf of Mexico. Plovers return to their breeding grounds in March
or early April.
Piping plovers nest in flat areas with fine sand and mixtures of shells and
pebbles. They nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation, but
some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the
sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles and food consists of
invertebrates such as insects and marine worms.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human disturbances. The presence
of people can cause the plover to abandon its nest and quit feeding.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the piping plover in the form of fine sand and mixtures
of shells and pebbles was not observed during the site visit. In addition, a review
of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on May 6,
2002 indicated that there is no known occurrence of piping plover within 1 mile
(1.6 km) of the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 28 July 1978
Threatened
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. It
ranges as far north as Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia in the
west. Nesting in North America is limited to small communities on the east coast
of Florida.
The distinguishing factors found in the green turtle are the single clawed
flippers and a single pair of elongated scales between the eyes. This turtle has a
small head and grows to a size of 2.5 to 5 feet (0.76 to 1.53 meters) and a weight
of 220.5 to 650.4 pounds (100 to 295 kilograms). It has a strongly serrate lower
jaw and only four pairs of pleural scutes.
The green sea turtle can be found in shallow waters. They are amacted to
lagoons, reefs, bays, mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine
grasses, the principle food source for the green turtle, can be found. These turtles
require beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
24

Suitable habitat for the green sea turtle in the form of lagoons, reefs, bays,
mangrove swamps and inlets was not observed during the site visit. In addition, a
review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on
May 6, 2002 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the green sea turtle
within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect
this species.
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker once occurred from New Jersey to
southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The red-cockaded woodpecker is
now found only in coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern
Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur
in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in the
piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former
populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker 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 red- woodpecker is black and white with horizontal stripes. The
breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The red-
cockaded woodpecker has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap,
nape, and throat.
The red-cockaded woodpecker 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 red-cockaded
woodpecker. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are more than 60 years old
and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range
of the red-cockaded woodpecker 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 to 100 feet (3.6 to 30.3 meters) above the ground and
average 30 to 50 feet (9.1 to 15.7 meters) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The Large incrustation of sap
is believed to be used as a defense by the red-cockaded woodpecker against
possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair
and the offspring from previous years. The red-cockaded woodpecker lays its
eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in
number from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the young: Red-
?>

cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may also feed on seasonal wild
fruits.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker in the form of trees that
are more than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of
age was not observed during the site visit. In addition, a review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on May 6, 2002 indicated
that there is no known occurrence ofred-cockaded woodpeckers within 1 mile
(1.6 km) of the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) Endangered
Family: Trichechidae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
The manatee's historic range included the Gulf Coast as far west as Texas
and the Atlantic Coast as far north as New Jersey. Winter populations are now
limited to the southern half of the Florida peninsula. In summer sightings have
occurred as far north as Virginia and west as far as the Florida panhandle.
Although manatees found in North Carolina are considered to be migratory, there
is evidence. of overwintering by manatees in warm-water discharges from
powerplants.
The manatee is a large, gray or brown, barrel shaped, aquatic mammal.
Adults average 9.8 to 13.1 feet (3 to 4 meters) long and weigh around
1,100 pounds (500 kilograms). The vestigual hindlimbs are not visible and the tail
is horizontally flattened. The specialized forelimbs are adapted to swimming.
The wrinkled body is nearly hairless except for stiff "whiskers" on the muzzle. In
turbid water common to North Carolina's waterways only a small part of the head
and nose are visible above the surface.
Manatees are found in freshwater and marine habitats with a depth of
4.9 feet (1.5 meters) or more. These habitats include: canals, sluggish rivers,
estuaries, salt water bays, and as far off shore as 3.7 miles (6.0 km).
Overwintering occurs in areas with warm water, during the rest of the year
habitats with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and proximity to
freshwater. It is believed that manatees require a source of freshwater to drink.
Manatees are herbivorous, feeding on aquatic vegetation and occasionally
fish. They may consume up to 11 % of their body weight and spend up to eight
hours a day feeding.
The main threats to the manatees existence are from flood control
structures, destruction of habitat, and injury by boat/barge collisions.
26

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bradley Creek may allow access to the West Indian manatee, therefore
suitable habitat is present for this species. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on May 6,
2002. 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. 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,"
(July 2, 1996). If these precautions are considered in all aspects of project
construction, this project will not affect the West Indian manatee. See
Appendix B for the "Precautions for general construction in areas which may be
used by the West Indian manatee in North Carolina."
sea-beach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) Threatened
Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed: 11 March 1992
Flowers Present: June to frost
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. It
was historically known from Massachusetts to Florida and is presently confined to
55 populations in North Carolina, New York, and South Carolina.
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 and 3.9 to 23.6 inches (10 to 60 centimeters)
long. The thick, fleshy leaves are small, ovate- spatulate, emarginate, rounded
and 0.4 to 0.6 inches (1 to 1.5 centimeter) long. The leaves are usually spinach
green in color, cluster towards the end of a stem, and have winged petioles.
Flowers grow in axillary fascicles and the smooth, indehsicent fruits are 0.16 to
0.2 inches (4 to 5 millimeter) long. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and
flowers are relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches
functioning in a relatively dynamic and natural manner. It grows well in
overwash flats at the accreting ends 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. This species is very
intolerant to competition and is not usually found in association with other
species. Threats to seabeach amaranth include beach stabilization projects, all
terrain vehicles (ATV's), herbivory by insects and animals, beach grooming, and
beach erosion.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
?~

Suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth in the form of barrier island
beaches was not observed during the site visit. In addition, a review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on May 6, 2002 indicated
that there is no known occurrence of seabeach amaranth within lmile (1.6 km) of
the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 12 June 1987
Flowers Present: June
This plant is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North and South
Carolina. It is currently found in nine locations in North Carolina and is believed
to be extirpated from South Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that grow to a height of three to six
dm from a rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals below the
showy yellow flowers, and usually occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in
terminal racemes of five-petalled flowers. Fruits are present from July through
October.
This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on
a wet, peat, poorly drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on
shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep
peat in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical,
poorly drained depressions of unknown origins). The areas it occurs in are fire
maintained. It is rarely associated with hardwood stands and prefers acidic soils.
Biological Conclusion: ~ No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife in the form of ecotones or
edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins was not observed
during the site visit. In addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database on May 6, 2002 indicated that there is no known
occurrence of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the project area.
Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) Endangered
Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: 7 February 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
Historical records show populations of Cooley's meadowrue in the
southeastern coastal plain in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Present
populations are limited to nine locations in North Carolina and one in Florida.
28

Known North Carolina populations are found in Columbus, Pender, and Onslow
counties.
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems that
grow to one meter in length. Stems are usually erect in direct sunlight but are lax
and may lean on other plants or trail along the ground in shady areas. Leaves are
usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobed, some two or three lobed leaves can be
seen. The flowers lack petals, but staminate ones. have yellowish to white sepals
and lavender filaments about 0.2 to 0.28 inches (5 to 7 millimeters) long.
Pistillate flowers are smaller and have greenish sepals. Fruits are narrowly
ellipsoidal achenes, 0.2 to 0.24 inches (S to 6 millimeters) long. Fruits mature
from August to September.
This plant is found in moist to wet bogs, savannas and savanna-like
openings, sandy roadsides, rights-of--ways, and old clearcuts. It is dependent on
some form of disturbance to maintain its habitat. All known populations are on
circumneutral, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils of the Grifton series.
It only grows well in areas with full sunlight.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable habitat for Cooley's meadowrue in the form of moist to wet bogs,
savannas and savanna-like openings, sandy roadsides, right of ways, and old
clearcuts was not observed during the site visit. In addition, a review of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on May 6, 2002
indicated that there is no known occurrence of Cooley's meadowrue within 1 mile
(1.6 km) of the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are twenty-two Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the
FWS for New Hanover County (Table 5). Federal Species Of Concem 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. However, the status of these species is
subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species
of Concern are defined as a species which is under consideration for listing for
which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms
which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern 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 N.C.
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
29

' Table 5. Federal Species of Concern and State Status for New Hanover
County.
~'ornmon Name ~centific Name Status Habitat
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR No
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius SC Yes
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC No
Eastern painted bunting Passerina ciris ciris R No
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus SC No
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito SC No
arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos SR No
magnificent rams-horn Planorbella magnifica E No
rare skipper Problema bulenta SR Yes
Croatan crayfish Procambarus plumimanus SR Yes
Cape Fear threetooth Triodopsis soelneri T Yes
savanna indigo-bush Amorpha geogiana var. confusa E No
sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii C/PT No
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii W1 No
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula C-SC No
bog St. John's wort Hypericum adpressum C No
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C No
spiked medusa ~ Pteroglossaspis ecristata E No
spring-flowering Solidago verna E/PT No
goldenrod
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii E No
Carolina asphodal Tofieldia glabra C No
Dune bluecurls Trichostima sp. 1 C No
lvote:
• "C" (Candidate) a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction,
direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in
North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
• "SR" (Significantly Rare) a species which exists in small numbers in the state and has been
determined by the N.C. NHP to need monitoring.
• "SC" (Special Concern) any native or once-native species which is determined by the WRC to
require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of
this article.
• "E" (Endangered) any native or once native species whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's flora or fauna is determined by the WRC to be in jeopardy or any
species determined to be an endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "1"' (Threatened) any native or once native species which is likely to become as endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one
that is designated as threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "P" (Proposed)a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing
process.
• "W 1" (Watch List ]) a species that is considered rare, but relatively secure.
30

Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A
review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of the rare species and
unique habitats on May 6, 2002 revealed one record of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area. An element of occurrence of
Venus flytrap (Dionea muscipula) exists 0.8 miles (1.3 km) northeast of the
project area.
6. Summary
The proposed project is expected to have only minor effects on natural
resources and environmental quality in the vicinity of the project area. The
primary issue of concern is protecting water quality from excessive sedimentation
as a result of stream bank and substrate disturbance. Minimizing the impacted
area along the stream channel and protecting exposed soils from erosion will
greatly aid in reducing water quality degradation. Effects on populations of other
native plants and animals should be minor. Permits will be required from the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality, and from the N. C. Division of
Coastal Management prior to construction initiation for impacts to surface water
resources.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation and Stream Modification
New Hanover County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. This particular crossing of Bradley Creek is in a designated flood
hazard zone; however, it is not included in a detailed flood study. Bradley Creek is
included in the detailed flood study for New Hanover County; however, the project site is
downstream of the detailed flood study limits. Figure 5 shows the approximate 100-year
floodplain limits in the vicinity of the project as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
There is one home northwest of the bridge which has a floor elevation approximately at
the same elevation as the existing bridge deck, which is below the approximate 100-year
flood level shown in the FEMA floodplain mapping. The existing floodplain is rural and
primarily comprised of marsh wetlands. The proposed bridge replacement will not have
any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain or on the associated flood
hazard. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable, and
groundwater resources should not be affected by the project.
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
An on-site meeting was held on May 5, 2000, to discuss the impacts associated
with the proposed project and to discuss possible design alternatives to minimize impacts
to the coastal wetlands next to the existing bridge. Representative from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the N.C. Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) and
3]

the N.C. Department of Transportation were present at this meeting. A request was made
to study an alternative that would bridge the causeway.
On December 7, 2000, an interagency meeting was held to discuss three build
alternatives (see Section V.B pages 4 and 5) for the proposed project. Representatives
from the following agencies were present at this meeting:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (LJSFWS)
National Marine Fisheries (NMF)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
A representative from the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) was not
present, but meeting minutes were sent to this agency following the meeting.
Representatives from the above mentioned resource agencies requested that
NCDOT investigate the possibility of removing a large section of the existing causeway
and thereby construct a much longer bridge than what is hydraulically sufficient.
NCDOT agreed to construct a 550-foot long bridge in exchange for wetland mitigation
credits to help off-set a portion of the additional costs associated with. constructing the
longer bridge. Additional meetings were held to further discuss this possibility; however,
resource agencies were not able to commit to providing additional mitigation credits for
this project and the longer bridge concept (Alternative 2) was dropped from further
consideration.
NCDOT coordinated with the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) regarding
the construction of 3:1 side slopes instead of 2:1. DCM has agreed to the use of 3:1 side
slopes for the approaches to the new bridge, provided that NCDOT can supply adequate
documentation to demonstrate that the maintenance and construction of 2:1 side slopes is
not feasible (see Appendix A, pages A-4 and A-5). NCDOT provided DCM with the
requested information (see Section VI.A on pages 5 and 6).
IX. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the proposed project.
32

_ Il
~/ y` ~~, ,`1 ~ ' l
~, / '~ l~'
~ fit. I
r / ~ 1 a~., rQ
~ / ~ ^t rQ
/ 1J
% /%
1 I~ I~ ,: 1
g, ~ I ~
Ig I ! •$ Kerr
i
i.pp
~ I~ „ ~ ~
_. .
NC 132 .27 Fd. .13 ` e I 3a ,.v ~1
j .07 '~ o
~< I~ I~ ~$
~~ ~
I ~ ~
I
Z~
~,;
~~ ~ ,$
~~ '~
1 I3 ~ ~ ~.~ ~ f~J
i ~ ~ m ~- i
~ I~ 1
J ;~ ~~
~ •37 0 °~
6 ~
Z i ~ A ~ ~
:~
v ~' / i
i .6 ~
': ~ \, u A2
1 .~ i ZL'
i so' i ~ ~ ~~. NC 132
I "-
. ; ~~
:D m
.._..,~
I~ ~ ~ _ pq ~~ ,~
7 y' •41 ~ R
I ~ I .0 •~
7
I § ~ ~ ~. i 7 ~ ~C
b ! Z7 •~, I~ y, ~ ~' ~
L'i ~ 07 1 r--. / ~
I ~ yy ~ '4r b ''3 Q 1 a' i' ~ `~' 0.'
I W1 .07IS ~ °' I~ d} m ~' ~~ ~ ~ ./3 I~ a¢ Ig 11
~ ,~7 •.` I~ .13 IN
.Q 9~ 173 I IR Sii . ~ Q : 1 •43
l0 I ~ $fa I ~ l?` ~ m'7j 7X ~u .` I~1B ~ ~ e 1~ r I~ ~ y I.
`~' ~'OB qq~~ '24 2m ,~ I~ \ ~ 10
~ X !! ~ 73 I ~
I r ! I~ + m
1~ I~ .~ ~ i~ I~ Ire I~ + ;; u 1~ ~ I{ ~ ~ ~ c~
I~ ~~ - ly IN a Z
i~ I~
.e7 I~ ~ ~ o" ~ ~ I i, .3y ~ ~' 7B ~ '0 1~ S ~ Z~ .~
d .. m
~ ~ y i
I~ .,~ ~ I l+ • ~ 0 .07 x.72 ~~ VZ J
O .'~ ~ 6` ''~ tr ec 4
'fl Z D IJ ' B I3 BC ~ ~ I~ 17S .3B I U ~•o
~a w Z D 1 ~ ~ I~ ~ ..6 a 0c ~c
N ~ a ro< ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 6o s ~ i ~
m I+ ~, `: ~
i
4 ~ / / I V~ I ~. • '
,,~-.
oZ iii "'".' ~ •~ , '^?
y' `~~ r^I J I~
_ + I
' a. r- ~ ~ ~ i / 1~
- I ~ ~` \ ~~ ~ ~ ':~,~ /'.. \~ ~~~ r ~ ~ ~ i I ~ Ins .ear - ~ ~ `~. ~i1 C ~r-•~ ~ ~ ~_ - `~ ~iO'o ~ ;
. ~_::..
~+ >r ~2sm Td~~.~° ~ h
• (~ ~ . ~ I z n o 3 e'o' ~ ci 3'' G.
'-' m ~''~~o.o.. : ~ -_' ~ q ~- a '~ ~ n'
,.,~--,
s~CI l ~ ~'~ > m ~ a
d CU"DO-IZ ~O ~~ ~ I~ a d s A
Y DD<D~7 ~ \:
-~ x ~ zz~z-i ,p ( .~~~,,,
ro o ~ nzcncn= _ f.~ ~ ~„~~~
~~
zooc~ ``
p' ~ ~ C DODO ~ ,' ~. ~ ~/ ~~~
.. ~t _ ~
~, ~ ... ~.
A ~ O-< D ~ ym ~ ', ~
Z (n ~
.' ~ 3 -I °m i ~'
~ ~ Z f3T7 = 1 ~~~ i
....
~~; ~ . ~ j ~ -s --
/%

~ ~ .-
% ~~ ~ ~ r
i'
~ ~~,.
j ,~ ~!~ ~
a, ~'
- ~~ h I~ ~ ~
Ig i ., 8 Ko. I~
too
I~ rl w ~
_...
1
.. _.
1
! ca.q• ......... ~ .. ~ ~ ~.~
NC l32 n F,~ .19 8 ~ ~ ... 1
,~ .os ... _...
.q7 •~ c~
I ~ /~ N,l
I
2~
,;
I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
~ i~ ~ ,_
I ~ ~ ~~
~~ y
~ u.
ti Z~
' ~~ ~ ~• ' '~ ~ NC 132
(~ r• ~ I~ ~ zq
J <
' ~ -
(~• r
C H ~ V ,
I ~ le ~ ; I~ ./q
Y '1j !
i ~ ~~, ~I~.~B o ~ I ~~
I oa .m q7 •§ § ''a `, ~ ;`I~ I I~ ,} ably Gi
G ~ p7 7 ; r--r ...f ,b•
'3 ~
I ,B ~~ .°~ ~ ~ d' 19
I ~ .071 ~ ro I ~ m i ~ ~ Ik •19 I ~ Ala I
~ ~ 0) 1 ~ ., ~ 13
.b 1 ?• ~ .(g .1• o`
-~ r
.,, 7s ; • v I ~ y0
I~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .u
J 1o IS 8 ~ /~. ~ ~ 1~ jm ~ ~ .7r ~ It ~'~ `I~ ~ ~ r / ~ .te ~3 ~, y. ^1
J ® ~ ~...` N ~ N
I~ ~,b Ir ~ z ~ I ', ~ ~~ ~ VP F 6'
~~ g I~ I~ r I~ ~ ; ~ ~ •, ly Y I~ ~ C z
I~ i~ ~ ~ I~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~' I~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ z
qt I~ R ~ .~ i I~ I~ I ~ I ~ .~ ~ ~ I~ Is IN
.~~ ~
a ; ~. ~
Ir I~ i ~~ a I~
~ $ & ,~ • q o7 a-,
~ r ; ~ ~ w K ~ s ~ ~~ g
3Je I~ •r i ~,
c ~ ~ 3 .g ~~ i 15 ~ ~ ~ '~ 'p ~ ~~
..,, O ~ rti %" ti
~ t , 9 I~ .~ e< ,
~3 N Lr pq
1t r
~~ "~
.u ,~ v.
r / i
~ / -~.~- - - - - - .z~
r ~
3 ~ m ~ ~~°~o
0 o O ZroO ZOO(' ~ r
~_ • ...
n m y m -n DODO i;.,....._. ~, ~;
<~ -I z ~ ~ O z -n -~ r j' / ~ <a
.....-~ '
~_ 3 m Omvm zc~zD ~ rr__
~N ~ ~ vJ
n A O -< D .~ am ~
_ Z (n ~ ~~ 1
-~ ~
Q' Z~ mr~11 f3T1 3 g1 ~ .
.,
~ --I r ;,~ `;1
O ~., (i.
--
..
t ; •i

LC)
N
O

L

~• ~ ~ ~'
--
i- t
~ o
. ~
} ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
0 0
~ o
o
r~ Y ~
~ °o
S

o ~
~ C
O
t ~
fC0 to ~
` >' ~'
c ~ ~
•~

^a
to CI'
~ ~
~

M
O
'v~
A

~
.~r

a.

~ = V-
~ 0 ~ 0
~ ~ 0
O m o °~ f70 A~ H
> ~'N~
~ ~¢~. o z
Q 3
~ ~
N Q wNV o

N Z ~ ~
> ~ C x
o
w z

r
R ~
~ ~ ~ ~
E ~~
~ 3 ~ ~
fA
~ (~ 'C
• G
a ~
}.,
°° .
~ ~
e 3 ~

L ~
m

N rn ~
~,
. ~• ~
,d. ~
i- ~ ~> o
^` N O
M
L ~
O
L ~
V
0
0
O
0
N J m
J DHV P~ D
(D~t, rrs~
v
0
O ~ O~
N N M
0
0
N
0
0
J pm
o~
O
r
N p\\
0~0 O ~ O
~~+ ~ N
o co
0
~ ~ °o
~r L ~
LL ~ f r1
Y
~ O
O
2
DHV -~ D
(Dual, 'I"1'S'1~
y N ~-.

.~
N ~ ~ ~
O O O
L ~ oooz ,~,~
O --~
~ ~ ~ N ~
fA c
~
~
O
~
N ~
O O O ~
c~i
Q ~ 0
O ~ W A,^
0

°
i ~
~ N ~
o
~ v
i
L .N
~
rn
.L ~ ~_ y ~
N N

~ ~ap W O ~ ~ ~ C].,~
m 3 ~O

~
G
O ~
~xQ ~ ~~"
~ ~" Q ~ a
Q ~
Q
'~
W
o I...,
~ Q ~
~
A
E-= II `~-, m IL

0
~ o
H v °

~
w y

..a
~ ~N
O
LL Q ~ ~ o
~ d
«1 7 `
~ ~ 0 3 O
=

0
y.~
~ _

I..r
~
` ~
A L.l. ~ p
] Y y
Op
.- y
A
O ~,Z0. y y
SsO~ ~ °?
zm~0. o~
O
~ v .Y ~
R
~
G ~ O `
`
>Or,OQ L1F
3

II II II II II 0
II II ti
°o ~°fa~
n °
~ w
.
o w AC
~ ~~
~ ~ ~
z A~
w -- A

a
z

.~ T -
~>
m
W
z
0
N
`/~ v
,i.

o'~i7\
r
7. ~
fir'
~ ~ ~:, n
U
n ;t
{.li / \ ~
~ / 7~~
\ / M
\~ ~ d `~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ` \
~~ TRANSPORTATION
* * DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~, ,. _ = -_- A ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
~~ 'Y ~,~41 gar' BRANCH
~ r~/ r--
' '~, /% ~ 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY
\~/\`\
~ ~ TIP PROJECT NO. B-3496
J \ ~'~~_
G'
~, FIGURE 5

TIP Project No. B-3496
APPENDIX A
Comments Received from Agencies

U.S. Department Commander 431 Crawford Street
of Transportation United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Atlantic Area Staff Symbol: (Aowb)
Urtlted Stat@S Phone: [phone]
Coast Guard
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1548
Uear Mr. Gilmore:
16590
Phis is in response to your July 20, 2000 letter requesting if a Coast Guard's
required to replace the bridge across Bradley Creek in New Hanover County,
Since this stream is subject to tidal influence, it is considered legally navigable for Bridge
Administration purposes. This stream at the crossing site also meets the criteria for advance
approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 1 i 5.70. Advance
approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than
small boats. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his advance approval to the
construction of bridges across such waterways. Ms. Karen Boshoff of your office confirmed
such conditions. Therefore, an individual permit will not be required for this project.
1l'you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Terrance Knowles at the
phone number or address shown above.
Sincerely,
Copy: Mr. Ken Forster
ANN B. DEATON
Chief: Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the l.`ommander
Fifth Coast Guard District
A-1
09 Aug 00 ~ ~•-•••

•4~Z
~> ...
., ,
day SfA7E o~
~.•4 •+.
s
n
~ ~~_~
...~.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'
. ~:
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 17, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #10 on SR 141 1 over Bradley Creek,
New Hanover County, B-3496, ER 99-7303
Dear Mr. Graf:
a Division of Archives!
kffrey J. Crow,
s
~' £~ ~'/, 19~
~l~~`L
On September 14, 1998, 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 wiici 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.
A-2
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleieh. North Carolina 27601-2807
~~~

Nicholas L. Graf
9/17/98, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
~'~-~~ /w
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ~. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett

A-3

'~,
- --
:.:~~~~~
~NCDENR
JAMES B.~ HUNT .1R...-
<GOVERNOR -
~~~BILL HOLMAN
`;SECRETARY
January 3, 2001
- NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Karen Boshoff, Project Development Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue) over
Bradley Creek, New Hanover County, TIP Project No. B-3496.
Dear Ms. Boshoff:
On December 7, 2000 I attended an interagency meeting about the above
referenced project. The purpose of the meeting was for the NC Department of
Transportation (DOT) to review the proposed project with environmental agencies
to address any potential problems that might be encountered in the permitting
process.
As you summarized in the meeting minutes, most of the meeting attendees agreed
that 3:1 side slopes are acceptable for approaches to the new bridge. However, I
stated that the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) prefers the use of 2:1
side slopes because of the reduced impact to the adjacent coastal wetlands. DOT
then explained that the construction and maintenance of 2:1 side slopes creates a
major problem in coastal areas due to the steepness of the slopes and the instability
of the sandy soils. Based on this information, I agreed to speak with Ed Brooks,
DCM Field Representative and Doug Huggett, DCM Major Permits and
Consistency Coordinator, to reconsider whether DCM would agree to the use of 3:1
side slopes for the approaches to the new bridge.
Based on information received at the meeting, and subsequent conversations with
Doug Huggett and Ed Brooks, DCM has agreed that the use of 3:1 side slopes for
the approaches to the new bridge would be acceptable, provided that DOT can
supply adequate documentation to demonstrate that the maintenance and
construction of 2:1 side slopes is not feasible. Documentation may include a
description of the type of fill material to be used, and the stability of the ground
surface where the fill material will be placed. Documentation may also include a
description of DOT's experience constructing and maintaining 2:1 side slopes
under similar circumstances.
~j ~I~I
L_ _I ~+ anIERILA
MAILING: 1638 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1638
PHYSICAL: 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NG 27604
PHONE: [phone] FA%: 919-733-1485
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
A~ DENR TOLL FREE HOTLINE: t-877-623-6748

Though DCM has agreed to the use of 3:1 side slopes for the approaches to the new bridge
provided that adequate documentation is received, we remain concerned about the additional
coastal wetland impacts that would result from the use of 3:1 side slopes. We would not agree to
the construction of 4:1 side slopes for the approaches to the new bridge. During the permit
review process for any project, DCM will require that DOT use the steepest possible slopes that
can be adequately stabilized and maintained.
Another question that came up at the meeting was in regard to DOT's consideration under
,proposed alternatives 2 or 3 of replacing portions of the existing causeway with a bridge. The
question was whether DCM would consider the •area underneath the replacement bridge in areas
where the causeway has been removed as mitigation of coastal wetland impacts even if shading
from the replacement bridge prevented coastal wetland vegetation from recolonizing the area.
The answer to this question is yes. Even if coastal wetland vegetation does not recolonize within
the areas where the causeway has been removed due to shading from the replacement bridge,
DCM would consider removal of the causeway as marsh mitigation. At a minimum, the marsh
surrounding the causeway would qualify for enhancement credits due to benefits from improved
tidal flushing and movement of aquatic organisms.
At the 12/7/00 meeting, there was also discussion about removing more of the causeway than is
needed for mitigation of wetland impacts from this project. The additional wetlands that would
be restored by removing a longer section of the causeway could potentially be used as up-front
mitigation for future DOT projects in the area. Removing all or most of the existing causeway
would have significant benefits to the Bradley Creek ecosystem, and is strongly supported by
DCM.
Please contact me at [phone] x238 or via a-mail at [e-mail] if you
have any questions or concerns, or require additional .information.
Sincerely, - ~ ~ -
~ ~ ,:
~,
~;,,r ~k; ~~y~:~~ ,
Cathy Brnttingham l_ '
Transportation Project Coordinator
CC: Ed Brooks, DCM
Doug Huggett, DCM
David Cox, WRC
John Hennessy, DWQ
. Tom McCartney, USFWS
Dave Timpy, COE
John Wadsworth, FHWA
Randy Turner, DOT
Kelly Williams, DCM
A-5

TIP Project No. B-3496
APPENDIX B
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Guidelines (July 2,1996)
"Precautions for the General Construction in Areas Which May
Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina"

s
t
Appendix B. PRECAUTIONS FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IN AREAS WHICH MAY
Bl-: T:?SED BY THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE IN NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife- Service (Service) has
developed recommendations for general construction activities in aquatic areas which may be
used by the manatee..Since the manatee is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North Carolina
with reported occurrences being greatest during the months of June through October. The
Service prefers that in-water construction which can be completed in several months be
scheduled during the seven month period of November through May. However, the Service
believes that the implementation of the following recommendations will allow major, in-water
construction projects which do not require blasting to proceed without adverse impacts to
manatees. While most conditions must be implemented throughout the yeaz, other requirements
may be implemented only during the period when manatees aze most likely to be in North
Carolina waters, currently considered to be the months of June through October. The conditions
which should be implemented throughout the yeaz are:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the project
that manatees may be present in the project azea, primarily during the months of June through
October, 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 Manurial Protection Act of 1972 and the ESA.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction/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 o tits own volition.
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report
must be made to the Service's manatee coordinator in Jacksonville, FL (ph. 904-232-2580), the
Raleigh Field Office (ph. 919-856-4520), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (ph. 919-224-1288}. The project manager should coordinate with the Service
immediately prior to the start of construction for the name and current telephone number of the
individuals to be contacted.
5. A sign should be posted in all vessels associated with the project where it is clearly visible to
the vessel operator. The sign should state:

icoxzn.4cT•
o a o
~ ~ o ~ ~ ~
o
° ~ ° °
~
A
O
70 ..+ N N ~
n o p o o

.r y
c ~ ~

~ ~
~ b
~ o o ~
N ~ -1 D pp
~ A A ~
~ (
u u n u n n x
c o~o .oo
~' Q
e Q y
r ~ a
a a
~A
~
_
:
~
p
Z Z
~ ~

r = _
m
O O

_ ~ O
O D
T ~ v
~ c D
'~ ~ ,~
' O
O ~
°
m ~ ~

4~ rn n
= y
~
~1
A
~O
O~
t- ~
~
P
O~
~~
0 .. ..
0 0
~
N o~
~ A
~ 3
~ ~
~~
~~ ~~
~~
~ o
qb
N ~
O ~' ~

N W
+
Y
N
A~ K
wg a~
'°O;~
~ ~8
b

M ~ a
Z ~ ly fd
~ ~
3 n
p
a
m ~ y

i
~ ~~
~~ ~
K y
a
a~
K~
~~
~~
a
~~ ~~
xx ~~
`~
~~
~~
~y
F~
i
is
TIP PROTECT: B 3496

`
-.
P /
~
,
/
/
.~ N ~
A ~.

~ ~
a
~ µ~ m~
r
~ s~
P

O
H
O ~~
~, b
b~ ~~
~o
c~~ ~o
a~~ ~ o
~~
~ ~ o~
~~ ~
C~ ~~
~~ O
ti~ ~
~~
r~

I~
a
0
n
0
z

v~~
~~
~a
O 1
l
~~
~x
~ ~
o ~
g~

© ~
~ ~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~

3
~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~
W N ~ ~

a
p
W
I
~ ~ ~ . W
~ ~ ~ ~ a

~
~
~
~ ~
t7~ N t7~

z ~ ~-° °~
~
m
~~
~~

~ r 1 ~ L
04-FEB- 004 11:27
aT : ~~~~~Q~q\63496.tsh
° a ao .°a ,~ O e ~• c ~ ~ °e O O O ~ O ~'. O O ~° O ~ ~'. qe ~ ~ o ~ O ~ c o' 0 0 0'oo ~ ~
RI C C U A m p ,a (G ° ~ N 3 W 4 W ~ O O O m D ~ m ~ m• °~ p G C G A~ C s~ y N O~ Q
3 3 a , ~ ~. o ~ ° ~ 3 3 a ~, 3 ° s ~. s ~' ~ 3 y y- ~ o e S. ° -~ e < v° v gg~
°' ~o ~ ~ `" ° 3 f ~ ~° ~° g ° o a c ~° A ~° ~ ° p ~ ~ c o ~ ~ o m p a
- C ~ = Q ' ~. ~ 0 ~ A n D 7, `G 3 ~ `~ ~ -p ~ ~ O ~ ~ C ~ O ° ~i Yi .«
p2 x C c 3 ~ p o ~ ~ ~ ~ -o ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a ° ° 3 ~ n -n T n
~J p s ~ ~i p
~ p =« ~ p o m p p ~ A '* ~~~ n
n ~. ~ s N 3 3~ s Q s n ,, O
- ~ ~ ~ `° 3 p o -o a -o ~„ R1 °.
4~ cam; ~~ -°~' ~ ~ ~]
p ~ o. a ~ v
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
gin ~~ 4Y' ~I1 1 I ~a~~ ITI~Iy
+ ~~ ~ ~I
I~I ~ ~ I ~ I y I I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~~ I I
~ ~ S. W ~ O ~ ~ rt O 'O ~ p ~ ~ S W 'p0 O ~ ~ A .~ d' °~ O O O w m
C n -~ -~ -~ ` Q p ~
Q Q' ~ y ~ ` y •Z ~ ~ O ~ S~ O O ~~ ~ A` W ~ 3 O O A m O O O
f°~ m' ~ Q u y c p m p ° m c p n p~ ~ 3 3 o W~~~
A p O' y~ tt~ o ~ O ~' ~ 0 -1 O O p O 3 ~ T p m a a O O ~ 'v
~ ` O p O A ~ O ~ O C O n0. O p 3
rt p p~ W 7 S ~ Q ~ + S O S rt W a~ N ~ ~ p ° tP A
~ p O '~ (f rt O O ~ O
O A O W O O s O ~ p ~ p p ~
o~ o~~ -_ o T p a C
mp f x m~ ° o H
-~~ ~ x
0o y
~, o
t
®O O~ Q O ® m O ®O o® I ~x p e O O+ ® CS a p O ~- ~¢} o-.•
r +
m o -~ _ ~
O-
rt
n
S 3•
p
g

H o
~
~
~ p
~
p
~. °-

7
Q-
~
p -

I Y lr
I
I
~ I II
II g

I ~ I ~~
I ^ JL
~ ~ m o -moo ~ ~ -'v -'o A -•~ A ~ m ~ O ~ ~ ~ C O ~v ~ ~ O jO
q q O ~ 3 ~ O O O ~• O O Sc ~~~
~ an `~ O C ~ Q L' ~~ ~ a ~ 3~ ~ a ~ a ~ O ~i ~ q
m m "p m ~. Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r y' ~ -~~ O C1,. 3 d O 7 fl. ~• ~ 3 a. ~ 7 Q.. 7
rn m~~ 7 3 A S ~~ ~ ~°'~' a~ d 3 rt Qni• Q rt O. y~ C. ~
o. n. ~ 4. p ~ c o o ~ 3 3 ' ~ ~ p O ~ °' o ~ °' ~! °- m c °- °- n Q" o ~ °- ~ Q"
7 7 ~" 3 ~ a C p 3 p p ~ O ~ Ff tP ~ T W O m -~~ A p O ~ ~ ~~ p
O W 7 n' O ~ '' Ky 0 ~ p C y A ~ ' ~• a' ~ -1 .a s o ~ ~ r
Q. d a C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ m'~~ O• O C~~ 3 p ~ A A p
~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ .. ~ ~ A m ~ ? p A O y
-Oi. 3 p 7. ~ A° ° ~ p O A y C p
C ~ ~' a y ~ '~- tP O p p n o C rn -n
~ C ~ ` p y ? ~ N ~ ~ ~
~' C ~7 p~ C !* ~ ~ rn Q
a• ~ d. m N "'' 7
m C
li ~~! ~ III!~I~ Ii~li~l' I'~ '~'
I{ 1 ~ I ' ~ . O O < < ~ A A I ~1 I9 N
V D ~ ~ ~ I O W C- ~ ~ I I I ' ~ ~ y e I I I I ' I I V ~ I ~ Gl I
I W I E I I bO I I I I I F' ~ O O O i < ~ i A i ~ I N I N
x I I I I I ~ I I ~ I~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ i
~ ~ I I I I I I
~ y ~ .~
n ~ ~ n
O C O
Q ~ ~ fl.
p
o ~ a ~
7 p ~ °
--
Q '°+ ~
~ o r
y r 7
O p
p
p
~ N
O C
n !r
~ V
3•
I

y .'o y 4 Q = y y r'; ~ T (~ 71 y W ~p ~ 70 (~ (7 = r y y N D A •~ y A ,n ,n
~~~ 3 ~ o p>> m a a e° x a~ e m e o fl o ~ 3~ m o p n s s° .°.
y Q- ~ z o m m m .S _ ~. o~ m p Q ~' a" ~ Q a ~ ~_ -~ 3 3 ~- O~ ~' p
S a c n~ °- p A~ = o a ~' A°~~° ~ y 3 ~ ~ °- s c
., c -« p y p
c a- °- = s ~ a o o ~ o '9 ~ ~ ~ c m ~ ~ v
6 ~ 4 C p
p C S ~ y O p
7
O A C ~ Q. •.-
•p+ 3 ~ y ~Oi
p O
0
i ~ ~ i ~ , {7
y
1 i t I U
I I ~ r l ~ I 'In`~J~'
I~ Q ; i I I I I
~ I>I SY ~ I I I ~ ~ I~ l~
4 I I I I I ~~
- ~ ~ ,, I J- l I ~
0
O
p
I
i
T
O
c
a
o ~
w
i
~'
0
A
n
Z
rn
Z
O
z
n
r
t/1
"~
3
O
r
to
C
Vl

C
~~ ~ ~
,~ ~ ~ ~
N
c
m
II
y
C
N
c
T
m
Z
Z
m
m
~o
CCU
~~
~~
~ ~
®~
~ ~

I I ~
04-fEB-2004 11:27
~-
t
a

w

^
l )
m D

z H
~ rn
~

i O
O
Z

+ O
~'
Z

O. O
Z
~
v
m

N
a
Z

~
\
\ ~
\ ~
1
1
\~
1
I

I n

I ~ N
N
~
~ o ~
O-~ ~
N Z
~
I °'
I
~
r g a o

I „ ~
I
I n °°

1

i

,~
~~
~`
~

~ ~
~
~' ~
c ~ ~
m
P
w
V
O
o O
Z
+
p Z
Q
p
O

D
r
rn
~_
O
Z
Z
0
W
~ Ic
P
o
•O N
P
0 O
Z
+ Z
N Q
W
A
z
0
-~
m
•o
m
m
z
-~
m
v
G7
m
r
0
•O
m
q
c
z
r
m
M
x
z
0
x
m
m
m
N
1
6/2/99
~ c ~ "'
N "'
~ °
N v
1 n
N n
-.
-n

-~<
m
m
tn-nD•n
D•o
Oo-i~
-1'~
mD•o
D~ N
xD X y rza -isr am<a <_+ m~a za Z

a
~
~ ~D o o m -u v o -n o 0 0
or
+
a i
4 1 -ODD D9 D~m•o m~ •vD•o Dv
D -~ x m<• z• -ix
• rz• <• D
mm F+ ~+Om m- ~ ~ D a

xr
z
s
z a<
DD
a<
D
oD< D
mm o y -+DD <~ •imD m~ m<D Dv r
m ..~ vzpa my -io• a 'o Oma ov
iv •o m m m• as x o• oa a• ma
~-m D ao •nr DO Dmm m0 riD o
• ~ < .. ~Dav OX zm- v x zwv ax
-1 m D xtDm m• m mm D•
s s r m-IV AvD•o D r v -~ ~
m am-1 as _r1-i iw Da-I m~
D = a' D
~ D ~ mD ~
f
n I o -
1 F+c
i D D 1 OI ~
v z'nD m a zmzD zD amD 'n
x o w v m m m w D
D ~~~ OD v D~ D~ O~ •.`y
•
r x •nq m~+<x <x zmx m
n
~ Ar r
Z r
m O~x -I
a a O
r m

v
mr-i
D
xrD-~
D-i ...
-i rr
D wm wr DG) o -IN m-~
< mo ~ <m0 mo 0 n m 3'
m ~• o r m o o ro 0
~ x z mo aaz az mmz O
m D•oc~ mo mD0 DO xmo ~z m
Z 2ma z 177 1a O. a mp
-~ am ~ zmm m m m m as
W ~ v a o -i -~ m y -~ m Z
m m
m i
m m v
mm Dm
N p o-
i
7 T T a
m ." . m m r .. ~+
m z D w m~z w z me
~ m
<(A pm CJ+1 A ~ pa <C
N COm D m.pm Nm = •n vT
• m ;
D v
n < -ors r ~,<n D

z
-~~o
o
xmm
mm
zvm
o ~
v xmc O Da~v rnv m
9 a Z• m
O
N C D D -p0 n n
v a-•
m ~ N m c
_ mm m ~n~
m !^ r~a ~° x ~ 2
s v o c~ i m

~ p p m
~ Z
a a ~
z mi m 4
l l
n
m m-
t
• ~ O
c~ a• m v<m
p. <
v- v
o ~
m ion a ~ = m C
~ D o rn x•o m
m ro
D zm~ a o r
r
~- m oa ~ a
~ °'
_ - m
D

^~_
l 1
N
m
O
z
Z
0
N
~- ~-
pp m
ma ~
++ n
apPO o
CO c~N
O j
~~ i
a
~+ OZ
va
~ # N
m
O "'
~_
~Z
g~
sg

r
rn
~_
O
z
Z
0
I
~p m
•o
++
o° •°o
°O m
00 ~
o. Z
++ Z
V O O
O O

5 0
i~ ~
~o A
€ ~ Z~
O
~~N~
z

i
~ ~ H~
~ ~~~ ~N
O H = ~ O
~t~8~A5 ^~~~~~~ C
~~~o~~~~$~~m ~
'n
_~~ ~~~
.o
~Na~Ti ~~ ~~l~ T
O ~ ~
{~ ~ N~~ ~~[r 1n
~ ~ ~~
N
D
_~
O
z
m
CTI
O
O
O
i
r
r
N
D
_~
O
Z
O
O
O
(J'i
O
r
1
Vl N
~~
D D
o~
++
~~
00
~~
00
+ ~
W +
~ N
tJi
I ~
~r
N ~
~r
~~
__.~ ~,~
~~
mm -

m
K
~ ~
m
m 2 Z
2 '~ ~ z
a
~j N ~
~ ~ / ~ ~
-d T ~ _

vN 0
~ ~
r
r\ ~
~ ~
z z m
_ _ <
~' z
r
mm
w
A ~ K ~
z ; z
z -+ i
~~
a A
~ T
I N
/~1 O
/ I `/ _~ r
O -~ Z
ZC C
O D
n
r ~ ~
ti
~)
~ Q
(_
!2 ~_
N
.D

~, m
z~0
°~m
° ~ o~~
D
c
-~ r

Ty,
mp
O 0
N ~
~ n
~
~ h
~`
~ S
~
0
n
o

~ v+v~
o~~
~
-~ ~ 7
+
~~
1
1 ~
A
g g

~ ~ ~
SR 1420 w
HOOKER RD.
m ~ -Y2- o

~ N~
N N
a

~ r
i
I
~ N
a

N
~

N a
~ L
~ ~ o

~ ~ ~

II~~
~I Itl
i4S
r~
!I
~1~
~ Z4
~_____-
$ ~ O1~ $~~
~~~ ~ ~~~
~~~~ gg~
N N N
V~~2S ~~~~ $~~
Rc$$ 9y [~
R,~ Ee
fILK IX~CAMPj/$/?ER WAYl PRNATE~ yp ~jO
tiJ
~ ,• ale
.~`~ y51N~1191~IT~0f1d).&
~a~~oD~
n M n n II (~
u .e"oq$~'o
I
~~N~~~~
~ ~§~
~ ti
~ t
7; 2:99

N
Z
N
a~~oD ~
a n n n nth
~~~ir,~~Wi. ~
~'~ ' 8~~
~~ w
~ Y

2 0
~~
oz o2
1

z o ~
O~
W

,, - ~• ~ , ~ ~. - Y
t

~r: ^~
~~~~~
t~CDENR
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
DONNA D.-MOFFITT
'' DIRECTOR
~`~ ~~ `' z ~' C~ ~ d~-i z-
:-- NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
January 3, 2001
Karen Boshoff, Project Development Engineer
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue) over
Bradley Creek, New Hanover County, TIP Project No. B-3496.
Dear Ms. Boshoff:
On December 7, 2000 I attended an interagency meeting about the above
referenced project. The purpose of the meeting was for the NC Department of
Transportation (DOT) to review the proposed project with environmental agencies
to address any potential problems that might be encountered in the permitting
process.
As you summarized in the meeting minutes, most of the meeting attendees agreed
that 3:1 side slopes are acceptable for approaches to the new bridge. However, I
stated that the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) prefers the use of 2:1
side slopes because of the reduced impact to the adjacent coastal wetlands. DOT
then explained that the construction and maintenance of 2:1 side slopes creates a
major problem in coastal areas due to the steepness of the slopes and the instability
of the sandy soils. Based on this information, I agreed to speak with Ed Brooks,
DCM Field Representative and Doug Huggett, DCM Major Permits and
Consistency Coordinator, to reconsider whether DCM would agree to the use of 3:1
side slopes for the approaches to the new bridge.
Based on information received at the meeting, and subsequent conversations with
Doug Huggett and Ed Brooks, DCM has agreed that the use of 3:1 side slopes for
the approaches to the new bridge would be acceptable, provided that DOT can
supply adequate documentation to demonstrate that the maintenance and
construction of 2:1 side slopes is not feasible. Documentation may include a
description of the type of fill material to be used, and the stability of the ground
surface where the fill material will be placed. Documentation may also include a
description of DOT's experience constructing and maintaining 2:1 side slopes
under similar circumstances.
~~
"' JW Aid 6-Rt L'A= "':
MAILING: 1638 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIG H~ NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1638
PHYSICAL: 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10~ POST-CONSUMER PAPER
DENR TOLL FREE HOTLINE: [phone]

Though DCM has agreed to the use of 3:1 side slopes for the approaches to the new bridge
provided that adequate documentation is received, we remain concerned about the additional
coastal wetland impacts that would result from the use of 3:1 side slopes. We would not agree to
the construction of 4:1 side slopes for the approaches to the new bridge. During. the permit
review process for any project, DCM will require that DOT use the steepest possible slopes that
can be adequately stabilized and maintained.
~~'SL
Another question that came up at the meeting was in regard to DOT's consideration under
proposed alternatives 2 or 3 of replacing portions of the .existing causeway with a bridge. The
question was whether DCM would consider the area underneath the replacement bridge in areas.
where the causeway has been removed as mitigation of coastal wetland impacts even if shading
from the replacement bridge prevented coastal wetland vegetation from recolonizing the area.
The answer to this question is yes. Even if coastal wetland vegetation does not recolonize within
the areas where the causeway has been removed due to shading from the replacement bridge,
DCM would consider removal of the causeway as marsh mitigation. At a minimum, the marsh
surrounding the causeway would qualify for enhancement credits due to benefits from improved
tidal flushing and movement of aquatic organisms.
At the 12/7/00 meeting, there was also discussion about removing more of the causeway than is
needed for mitigation of wetland impacts from this project. The additional wetlands that would
be restored by removing a longer section of the causeway could potentially be used as up-front
mitigation for future DOT projects in the area. Removing all or most of the existing causeway
would have significant benefits to the Bradley Creek ecosystem, and is strongly supported by
DCM.
Please contact me at [phone] x238 or via a-mail at [e-mail] if you
have any questions or concerns, or require additional information.
Si~nc~er-ely,
Cathy B ' tingham %
Transportation Project Coordinator
CC: Ed Brooks, DCM
Doug Huggett, DCM
David Cox, WRC
John Hennessy, DWQ
Tom McCartney, USFWS
Dave Timpy, COE
John Wadsworth, FHWA
Randy Turner, DOT
Kelly Williams, DCM

NCDOTrP&E BRANCH
,, ,
Fax~919-733-9794
d ,r,,. a
~rq~„+
P. 01
~~a~2~
( Nov 30 '00 1745
STATE of NORTH C OLINA
Please deliver the following pages to: '' ~ ~ ~
arse
~~~ (91
(91
. 73?
(91
. (91
8S6
'rhos Telecopy Is being sent by:
Name: Karen Bosl~off~ ~ . ~
Fhone Number: [phone] extehsion 223
Remarks: Agenda far meeting, on ~Uecemb~r 7, 2000, and the ro'ect
P J
informatiot~~ for`TIP~:P~jeci B-3'46
Number of .ages (including Borer s~ee~ls :8~ ~, ~ ~.
6
. ~
' !
' r
i
if you do not receive all pages cIearty, ptease.~cal~:E919 733-3141 as soon As possible.
Project laevelopment and Environmental Anaiysis: BrenC~ Fax Number [phone]
DEPA~TIV~1~T O~ PORT.AT~ON
JA1~S B. fIiTN',C IR. P.O. SOX 2520I, IL' 1LEIGH, N.C. 7611-5201 D~vID McCOY
GovBRNUR SECt~fARY
Nave~ber 30, 20

NCDOT~P&E BRANCH Fax~919-733-9794
Nov 30 '00 1746 P. 03
1:00 Karen Boshoff NCDOT/PD&EA
8-3496Bridge 10 over `
Bradley Creek, Wilmington
Tcam 1Vlembers: Dave Timpy-USA la
John Hennessy-D Q
David Cox-WRC
Torn 1~IcCartney- FWS
Ran'S.echleF NMF
Ed Broo~CS-I~IC Di sion of Coastal Management
Fria Rohde-NC.1}i 'sion of Marine Fisheries
*Purpose ofineeting is to obtain.inpntfmrii.t~re r
~ source agencies on the bridge
replacement alternatives to tre sttidiecl.
~ .
PLEASE NOTE THAT MEE"Ti1vG ~SESSIOrF '~Vl'LL BE RECORDED

NCIIOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax~919-733-9794 Nov 30 '00 1~~47 t'. U4

A'd~~ a
1
.~~~. l
r
STATE OF NORTH CA~(tOL1NA
DEP~,RTMEI~IT' OF ~'RA~'SpORTATION
JAMES $. YIlJN7' JR.
CiOVERIVOR
MEMOIZANDUIvI TO:
1~ ROM:
P.O, BOX 25201, RALEIGIi, N,C. 2'1611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
~ SECRETARY
November 30, 20 0
File
Karen Boshof~ /~• ~
Project Develvp~at Engineer
sv3aJECT: Interagency ~eetirr~.for` lacement of Bridge No. l 0 one
SR 1411 (Wrigltsvilte Ave e) over Bradley Creek ~
Wi '.
lrnurgto~,•New Hanauer ounty, Federal Aid Project
Na. BRSTF I411(5}; State ~rojeet No. 8.2251101, TZP Project
No. B-3496
Purpose of the 1V.[eetirr~• ~ ~ P
N
Arr interagency meeting has been.solieilirlei#, for D ember 7, 2000 at 1:00 p.xxr. in the
boardroom of the Transportation Bu~ding• in Raleigh. ~ project is not being carried through
the NEPA/404 Merger process; therefore, pia eorcirrrence wing requested. However, the
pmjeet will :impact high duality wetlands and a strc.~•a~rd will re urre
the mceting to review the o sed 9 ~ Permits, It i s the intent of
1~' p° Protect w~h~those a~ ies that will be responsible for
issuing pe~rits and to address any potential prabl!ems~~ttxat'COUId be encountered in the permitting
process. The following issues will ~:dzscirssed'at t~se rne~«~~g:
E
1. Bridge replace~crent altexnatives
2. Wetland and stream impacts
General Descri»tion of the Project;,
NCl70T pro oscs to re la
P p ce Bridge~N'a. l0 on SR,I' 11 (Wrightsville Avenue) over
Bradley Creek irr Wilmington, New.llanover.Corrnty. 'See a~tached vicinity r~~p-
I

NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax~919-733-9794 j Nov 30 '00 1747 P. 05
i
Page 2
. C
Purpose and Need of the Project• I
The purpose of the proposed project is to replac an obsolete bridge. fhc existing bridge
is 40 feet (12 meters) in length and has a clear roadway (width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). The bridge
was built in 1961 and has a sufficiency rating ol'29.5 0~ of a possible 100. The structure has a
remaining life of 10 years. The bridge crosses Bradley reek which has a Best Usage
Classification of SC HQW (High Quality Waters). A causeway leading up to the existing bridge
crosses a pristine salt marsh. ~ ,
An on-site meeting with represenfiatiyes of the.'
North Carolina Division of Coastal lldanngement .was 1
made at the meeting that two bridge ~replacerne~t alters
proposes the replacement of Bridge No..~10 with a bridj
needs of the surrounding area. Alteirnative 2 proposes
section of the existing causeway (approximately 480 fe
constricting a bridge approximately X50` ~fee~ iii length,
replacement alternative has been added. ~Alternatiue 3~
causeway that would equal the area of wetlands to~be.i:i
three alternatives are Summarized below:
Alternative l: Replacement of the exisfiixtg bridge
100 feet long. Thiree different side
considered ~'or the roadway approaf
slopes will needrip-rap fot''slope p~
under the causeway a~ de~eru~nect i
Alternative 2: Removal of a large seetiort~of~the e
approximately 550 feet~in'length.
Army Corps of Engineers and the
d .on May 5, 2000_ A decision was
gives will be studied. Alternative 1
of adequate length to satisfy hydraulic
removal of Bridge No. 10 and a
west of the existing bridge) and
°*~ce the meeting in .May, a third
>poses the removal of a section of the
acted by the proposed project. The
~. a new structure approximately
e scenarios; 2:1, 3:I, and 4:1 are being
to the bridge. Two-to-one (2;1) side
rtion. Cross pipes will be installed
to improve sheet flow.
causeway and consbeucting a bridge
Alternative 3: Removal of a section of the ,existingca • ay that will result in restoring an
area equal to the area of wetlands to be~ mpacted by the proposed project.
Three side slope scenarios; 2;1,'3:1,' 4:1 are being considered ;for the
roadway approaches to;th~e bridge.
Table 1 sunirrxarizes the cost and ~vetla~d impacts sociated with the three bridge
replacement alternatives. ~ . ~ .

NCDOT~P&E BRANCH Fax~919-733-9794
Nov 30 '00 1748 P. 06
Page 3
Additionallnformatio ;
The approved Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan rr
Avenue (SR 1411) to three lanes. It may be more reason
existing causeway and the construction of a bridge over
widening project. However, it is not known whets the w
occur since no such project is currently progr~~ in t
(TIP).
emends the widening of Wrightsville
~Ie to incorporate the removal of the
Est of the wetlands as part of the future
Wing of Wrightsville Avenue will
Transportation Ixnprovemcnt Program
E
Your attendance at the meeting will :be appreciatet~. If you have an
the proposed project or the schedute~ meetiti ~ y questiotxs regarding
~ P cad me at [phone] extension 223 or
e-mail me at kboshoff a dot_state.nc:iis.
KB/
cc: Dave Timpy
Ed Brooks
John Hennessy
Fritz Rohde
David Cox
Tom McCatrtr,ey
Ron Sechler
Art McMillan
Max Price
Omar Azizi
Randy Turner
Joe Blair
Lubin Prevatt
Chris Rivenbark
IJg Arttiy ~orps.o€~1/hg~eers
NC Division;of Coasts! ~Vlanagement
NODE = bivisi~vn of `Water Quality
NCDEI~R•=:Division o arine Fisheries
NG Wildlife Resources ommission
LTS 'Fish. and Wildlife Se ice
National`Mar~ne Fishery
NCDOT - Roadway Des~ig~t
NCbOT. - Hydratilies
NCDOT - S,~ructure:De •
NCDOT - Division'3
NCDOT -Division 3
NCDOT:- Projeet Deyel meet and Environmental AttaIysis
NCDOT- Project .Ijevei' ~ meet and Environmental ,Analysis

NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
Fax ~ 919-733-9794 ! Nov 30 ' 00 17 48 P. 07
~teit native 1 _
Description 2-lane bridge,
of two i 2-ft travel lanes
Replacement with 8-#~ paved
Structure shoulders,
Construct cross pipes
under existing
causeway,
off-site detour
Replacement ~ 100 feet
Structure
Width of
Replacement 40 feet
Structure
Total
Construction $850,000
Cost
Approairnate
~'~'etland 2:1 slapes = 0.109 ac
Impacts 3:1 slopes = 0.191 ac
4: ] slopes ~ 0.264 ae
2-lane bridge,
two 12-ft travel lanes with
4-ft paved sho ers,
remove approx. X480 ft of
existing eaosew~y,
oil:site detour
550'
32 feet
$2,65,
0.2 acres
Area of 0.048 acres f ~ 0.771 acres
Causeway to
be 17ertlovecl . .
2-lane bridge,» • ~ /
two 12-ft travel Ianes with
4-ft paved shoulders,
length of ca~.iseway to be
removed depends on side
slopes that will be
constructed (ie. area, of
wetlands that will be
irr~pacted),
off-site detour
~.ength of x'eplacenrtent
structure depends oa side
slopes to be constructed:
2:1 slopes:
Bridge length = ] 38 feet
3:I slopes:
Bridge length =188 feet
4:1 slopes:
Bridge Iength = 234 feet
32 feet
1 j ~-1T bridge = $ ] ,100,004
188-ft bridge = $I,19S,OOp
234-;ft bridge = $1,375,004
138-ft bridge = 0.109 acres
188_ft bridge = 0.191 acres
234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres
13$~f~ bridge = 0.109 aexes
188-ft bridge = 0.19], acres
234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres

NCDf]T/P&E BRANCH Fax ~ 919-733-9794 Nov 30 ' 00 17 49 P. U8

~ . z F .`
~ - ~ W 2 ~' +..

• ? ` i' .. a
.
, ~ C G `,1

~
..
~ ' .
• :
~: •.~. ~.I
' •''•
. 9.: y
.
• ~

• .• ~. ,. •:
.,
":.

. „• _
~

~" % i
;
~ •
~~ •
• .~ • •: ..
I

~.
•
• .. '' ' , 1

•
....:..
:
..
, "f .~
. •.

..
;,. :,

~ i 1
(;

:; ~ -
N. C. DEPARTMENT. OF-..TRANSPORTATION

.TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
~'~n ~~)
. TO•-
~~I
~
~ REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
©
~n
~r
su ~.4
FROM~: /~ T/~ ~,~/~
. ~
~
~ LDG.
REF. NOh. OR RO
fO
M~
~B
~
~
O
Vl
~ta~
~ ~
J
~
~
V~
-
~
'P..'rl ~
ACTION.
^ NOTE AND FILE ^ PER OUR CONVERSATION
^ NOTE AND RETURN TO.•ME ^ PER YOUR REQUEST
^ RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS- ^ FOR YOUR APPROVAL
^ NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS. Q~ FOR YOUR INFORMATION
^ PLEASE ANSWER - ^ 'FOR YOUR COMMENTS
^ PREPARE REPLY FORMY SIGNATURE ^ SIGNATURE
^ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ^ INVESTIGATE AND. REPORT
COMM ENTS:
~- 3~-~tv
Jt~ L~2001

.,Ty-
N d ~-I~6
"b
•~~:~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
-I ~~ vC~
'~ ~~% r~l1a~~
SEP 2 ~ 2d01
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 24, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Timpy US Army Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ron Sechler National Marine Fisheries
John Hennessy NCDENR -Division of Water Quality
David Cox NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cathy Brittingham NC Division of Coastal Management
Ed Brooks NC Division of Coastal Management
Fritze Rohde NC Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: Karen Boshoff Taylor, P. E., Project Development Engineer ~1C,~
Project Developmen t and Environmental Analysis Branch,
NCDOT
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 (Wrightsville
Avenue) over Bradley Creek, New Hanover County, Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-1411(5), State Project No. 8.2251101,
TIP Project No. B-3496.
On December 7, 2000, an interagency meeting for the above project was held in the
boardroom of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The purpose of the meeting was to
review the proposed project with those agencies that will be responsible for issuing
permits and to address any potential problems that could be encountered in the permitting
process. At the meeting, NCDOT agreed to pursue the following actions:
1. Investigate the need for mitigation of high quality wetlands for other area projects
to be constructed in the near future that could be obtained from this project if the
existing causeway is removed.
2. Discuss the removal of the existing causeway with upper management.
3. Coordinate with the Division of Coastal Management regarding the construction
of 3:1 side slopes instead of 2:1.
The purpose of this memo is to report the findings of the above-mentioned issues. Please
refer to the meeting minutes sent out on December 13, 2000 for more information on the
three replacement alternatives that were presented at the meeting (see attached meeting
minutes).
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWN!DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

1. The removal of approximately 480 feet of the existing causeway at Bradley Creek
and the construction of a 550-foot long bridge (Alternative 2) will restore approximately
0.77 acres of high quality wetlands at a cost of 1.775 million dollazs. This equates to a
cost of approximately 2.3 million dollars per acre of wetlands. Mitigation for high
quality wetlands is needed for the proposed Wilmington Bypass and other projects in the
area; however, other less costly mitigation possibilities are currently being investigated.
2. The removal of the existing causeway was discussed with NCDOT's upper
management. NCDOT cannot justify the expenditure of 1.775 million dollars to restore
0.77 acres of wetlands. However, permitting agencies have verbally agreed to award
additional enhancement credits if the existing causeway is removed. An interagency
committee is currently working towards establishing guidelines to determine how many
enhancement credits can be awazded for the subject project, as well as other similar
bridge replacement projects in the state.
3. The NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has' agreed to the use of 3:1 side
slopes for the approaches to the new bridge, provided that NCDOT can supply adequate
documentation to demonstrate that the maintenance and construction of 2:1 side slopes is
not feasible. Literature on this subject can be found in the Soil Mechanics book by
Lambe & Whitman, Table 11.3, Summary of Friction Angle Data for Use in Preliminary
Design (page 149). This reference lists the low end slope angle of repose for uniform fine
sand to medium sand at 26 degrees (the angle of a 2:1 slope). In dry conditions where it
never rains the slope would always be on the verge of failure. When it rains the slope
will fail by mass erosion. The safety factor against slope failure is increased to a more
acceptable level with the use of 3:1 side slopes. A 3:1 slope will also fail as a result of
some rain events; however, it will fail less frequently than a 2:1 slope. It also takes
longer to establish vegetation on poor sand material found in the coastal areas.
Vegetation tends to grow better on 3:1 side slopes and erosion is less likely to occur.
Some NCDOT projects where 2:1 side slopes have created problems are listed below:
1. TIP project B-2531 (Craven County) -replacement and removal of Bridge
No. 28 over the Neuse River -multiple slope failures on 2:1 side slopes have
occurred over a five year period.
2. US 64/NC 11 in Edgecombe County -multiple repairs have been done on 2:1
side slopes.
3. US 264/LTS 264A in Wilson County - 2:1 side slope failures occurred on Y-
line fills.
4. Slope failures occurred on the bridge approaches at Sneed's Ferry and the I-40
slopes just east of the Northeast Cape Fear River bridge due to the
construction of 2:1 side slopes.
NCDOT recommends the construction of a 550-foot long bridge with 3:1 side slopes for
the approaches to the bridge. The proposed bridge will be 32 feet wide with two 12-foot
travel lanes and 4-foot shoulders on each side of the bridge. The construction cost for the
recommended alternative is approximately $2,625,000.
2

If you have any questions or additional comments, please call me at [phone]
extension 223 or a-mail me at kbtaylor(a~dot.state.nc.us.
KBT/
cc: Ron Lucas, P. E., Federal Highway Administration
Joe Blair, P. E., NCDOT, Division 3
Art McMillan, P. E., Roadway Design
Omar Azizi, P. E., Structure Design
Max Price, P. E., Hydraulics
Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Bill Gilmore, P. E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Rob Hanson, P. E., Project Development and Environmental. Analysis
Lubin Prevatt, P. E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Randy Turner, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Chris Rivenbark, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Eric Midkiff, P. E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis
3

~~
M ~A~4
O ~ynao~
~'"~paw~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
December 14, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
File
Karen Boshoff ' K~ .
Project Development Engineer
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes, Replacement of Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411
(Wrightsville Avenue) over Bradley Creek, New Hanover County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1411(5), State Project
No. 8.2251101, TIP Project No. B-3496.
On December 7, 2000, an interagency meeting for the above project was held in the
boardroom of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The following people attended the
meeting:
Dave Timpy
Tom McCartney
John Wadsworth
John Hennessy
David Cox
Cathy Brittingham
Randy Turner
Art McMillan
Omar Azizi
Tim Goggins
Max Price
Lubin Prevatt
Chris Rivenbark
Eric Midkiff
Karen Boshoff
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Highway Administration
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Coastal Management
NCDOT -Division 3
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed project with environmental
agencies and to address any potential problems that could be encountered in the permitting
process. The proposed project will require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: yyyyyt!DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

~~
2
NCDENR -Division of Water Quality, a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) from the US
Army Corps of Engineers, and a CAMA Major Development Permit from the Division of
Coastal Management (DCM).
Following introductions, I gave a brief description of the project and the three
replacement alternatives currently under study (refer to Table 1). Discussion of the three
alternatives followed. The following comments were made:
Future widening of SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue) was discussed and how it may affect
the subject project. The widening of Wrightsville Avenue is currently not a funded project in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); however, the Thoroughfare Plan for the City of
Wilmington currently recommends widening the existing two-lane roadway to a three-lane
facility. Planned development in the area may require the road to be widened to more than three
lanes. The proposed replacement bridge would need to be wide enough to maintain traffic on it
when it is widened in the future.
All the representatives of the resource agencies were in favor of Alternative 2 (550-ft
long bridge), or at least removal of as much of the existing causeway as possible. NCDOT
questioned the reasonableness of spending an additional 1.775 million dollars on this project to
take out a section of the causeway that will restore only 0.77 acres of wetlands. The additional
cost is equivalent to the average cost of replacing two bridges in North Carolina. NCDOT
agreed to discuss the removal of the existing causeway with upper management and the need for
using the restored wetlands as mitigation on other projects in the area. The agencies did
understand that, under current funding formulas, the additional expenditures for the longer bridge
could negatively effect the total number of bridge replacements in the state. In that regard, the
agencies indicated a strong preference for the replacement bridge to be at least 188-feet in length
(Alternative 3).
Another concern regarding the length of bridge to be constructed was raised. Currently,
an off-site detour is proposed for this project; however, the longer the proposed bridge is, the
longer it will take to construct. It may not be feasible to keep the road closed more than one
construction season, which means that an on-site detour may be required. An on-site detour will
result in additional impacts to the wetlands in the area. However, it was pointed out that, should
Alternative 2 be recommended, and anoff-site detour is not feasible, serious consideration would
have to be given to construction of a temporary detour bridge vs. a temporary fill causeway.
Most of the meeting attendees agreed that 3:1 side slopes is acceptable for the approaches
to the new bridge. The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) still prefers the use of 2:1 side
slopes because of the reduced impact to the adjacent coastal wetlands. NCDOT would require
the use of rip-rap on 2:1 side slopes for protection and stabilization of the steep slopes. The
construction and maintenance of 2:1 side slopes creates a major problem in coastal areas due to
the steepness of the slopes and the instability of the sandy soils. Cathy Brittingham agreed to
discuss these concerns with the field representative of DCM (Ed Brooks) and report back if they
would be willing to allow the construction of 3:1 side slopes.

3
The effectiveness of placing cross pipes underneath the existing causeway was also
discussed. The placement of 48-inch wide cross pipes are proposed for Alternatives 1 and 3.
The intended purpose of the cross pipes underneath the causeway is to improve sheet flow
between the adjacent wetland fragments. Max Price asked if it is worth the expense of placing
the pipes when it is currently not known whether they do in fact improve sheet flow. It was
agreed that this issue needs to be further investigated before the placement of cross pipes is ruled
out. Dave Timpy and David Cox agreed to search for any literature that may exists on the
effectiveness of placing cross pipes under an existing causeway to improve sheet flow.
NCDOT agreed to pursue the following actions:
1. Investigate the need for emergent marsh mitigation credits for future area projects, which
could provide some justification for removing all or most of the causeway at the subject
project.
2. Discuss the removal of the existing causeway with upper management.
3. Coordinate with DCM regarding the construction of 3:1 side slopes instead of 2:1.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the proposed project, please call me at
[phone] ext. 223 or a-mail me at kboshoff(c~dot.state.nc.us.
KB/
cc: Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries
Ed Brooks, NC Division of Coastal Management
Fritze Rohde, NC Division of Marine Fisheries
Gary Covering, P.E., NCDOT -Roadway Design
Joe Blair, P.E., NCDOT -Division 3
Bill Gilmore, P.E., NCDOT -Project Development and Environmental Analysis

Table 1: Summary of Bridge Replacement Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Description 2-lane bridge, 2-lane bridge, 2-lane bridge,
of two 12-ft travel lanes two 12-ft travel lanes with two 12-ft travel lanes with
Replacement with 8-ft paved 4-ft paved shoulders, 4-ft paved shoulders,
Structure shoulders, remove approx. 480 ft of length of causeway to be
construct cross pipes existing causeway, removed depends on side
under existing off-site detour slopes that will be
causeway, constructed (ie. area of
off-site detour wetlands that will be
impacted),
off-site detour
Length of Length of replacement
Replacement 100 feet 550 feet structure depends on side
Structure slopes to be constructed:
2:1 slopes:
Bridge length =138 feet
3:1 slopes:
Bridge length = 188 feet
4:1 slopes:
Bridge length = 234 feet
Width of
Replacement 40 feet 32 feet 32 feet
Structure
Total 138-ft bridge = $1,100,000
Construction $850,000 $2,625,000 188-ft bridge = $1,195,000
Cost 234-ft bridge = $1,375,000
Approximate
Wetland 2:1 slopes = 0.109 ac 138-ft bridge = 0.109 acres
Impacts 3:1 slopes = 0.191 ac 0.2 acres 188-ft bridge = 0.191 acres
4:1 slopes = 0.264 ac 234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres
Approximate 138-ft bridge = 0.109 acres
Area of 0.048 acres 0.771 acres 188-ft bridge = 0.191 acres
Causeway to 234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres
be Removed

j _ •~ ~
' % `~ ~1
~~
`~ ~
% `, ,,.
~ tia ~ ;~~
~ q•!
i i.
I~
~ I I - •~ Kerr IN
_.. _.. i
i
• '~ ))
e~rr^. ~_
13~ .27 K.1 59'1 1
1 .~ .13 ` .OS s ~ ... _.._ •snV 1
i ..07 •b cj' 1
i •~
I~ ~ j I~~, IN ~~
1
\ ly ,~ N1
I I !,
II Z`. ~.+
' ~
I~ r"
~ ~ 1 _
'.
~ ~ A .,
8 i I^1
~,I• I 1 ~ V i~
~~ Is ~ 2 \~'~ .)p 1
/ c
~ ~• ! 7.~~ u ~ .q2
y
.< ~ ~ I~ ~ NC 132
I i ~ i 90' ZS'
~.
i i
1 ~
m
i ,.:
..,
fD
.73 _ ~~ - .1) ~
~ I
' •9 _
'7J I~ I~ i~ •yL"' GN
f I
I ~ .071a bi &~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a' .)9 ~~q -~ `S' Ira'
O r m t .)3 I~ ~ / 25
~ ~) ~±
?v ,~ Im 13 IR
4 ~ I~ s` I~ I .w I~ a .: i 0 i ~ )q o
~ ''p I
.)p I ~ ~ .~ '~a p; g~;q ~m ~ ~ ')~ ~ ~ ~•,` I ~ ~ : r ~ I~ ~...: ~~; ~ ~ .~ do
I ~ ~' I S 110 ~ •'J ~' ~ 0 I' ~
• ' rr , 0 IN .~ N
I yj I~ ~ ~ r ~ \'~` ) I
~, ~
p _ •.) ~
.ry 1! ~1~ I~ •I o I~ e ~ r ~n g o s d zm
I~ ~ y r ~ y
a 1-' ...~ -_ -~ ~ _.~
I° ~ _ ~ ~ ~
to \`;T ~ I~ I I • y 0~ .07 ~z. ~ ~0 92 o i~.
.L r G ~ , ; S ~' N N
a o c m I~ ~ v • ~ 1~ I~ ~ ~ '~ - 6~ ~' ~ 1
~ a
I~ N G O
17.1 $ ~ ~~ ~
N «. I / i r° s
b ~ ` `+ i~ I~ ;,~
I~ ~ 4`~, ~
I~ IP 76 ~ b •. ._.._.. _..._.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _. _.._......._.._..._. _
Iv l+ I~ / V ~~ ~ `+ 1 ,I
g .a ~ .td 03 h `
1 rn a ~ r. / ` li _,_, ~. _._~__ 1.09
1><i a Ix0 IN ~~ ~ it I // 1. `• ,'~..__,____.~_ 27
_/ r , ~ /
k <<~ ~ , ~
~1
--
~~ _ ~;~
3} m ''~~ p "+ N
" ~'n
J r ~ v,rp ~ n"
',;~+' ~ `\ tom', ~? ~ ` ss ~m c ~, o ~ :; A e si
,'~~ i ~ IN 'td ~3 0 z 0
~ ~ ~"~ ,~ o~~a o3
P V -~.
~ CA~O-IZ ~,
x DD<D~1 ~;\\
-3 x ~ zzr~z-+ ~
o _ ~zcncn= ~•'
~r ~ b o ~ czi °z ° ~ ~ ,:,~ ~~ ,
~~~ n ~ ~ ~ DODO -' ~ OU)
~ ~ W ~ C mr-rZD '_' ~ ~ ~ ' \ rw
ZO ~ H o vJ
~ °r c < = o yc /
`~ ~ ~l D ~ ~ .~ N~
f7 O •-< D ~ ,gym i 1; ~ ~~
._. ~s Z (n ~ v 1 J
~ m 3 ~ ~.
x z m ;~ _
~.
.., -
r ~~ ' -
110 ~.
om , ~ _;, ` _, _
~:~~ ,-
_._ ,~ -
__ .- is -
.. _._
___ . -..
;%

~ njj~~
~ ~u' \w"
///~ `~-~y, /Q~ N
K . m
_:2 .~
.~~~.
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 2201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 30, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Karen Boshoff ' i~
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: Interagency Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 10. on
SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue) over Bradley Creek in
Wilmington, New Hanover County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRSTP-1411(5), State Project No. 8.2251101, TIP Project
No. B-3496
Purpose of the Meeting:
An interagency meeting has been scheduled for December 7, 2000 at 1:00 p.m. in the
boardroom of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. The project is not being carried through
the NEPA/404 Merger process; therefore, no concurrence is being requested. However, the
project will impact high quality wetlands and a stream and will require permits. It is the intent of
the meeting to review the proposed project with those agencies that will be responsible for
issuing permits and to address any potential problems that could be encountered in the permitting
process. The following issues will be discussed at the meeting:
1. .Bridge replacement alternatives
2. Wetland and stream impacts
General Description of the Project:
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 (Wrightsville Avenue) over
Bradley Creek in Wilmington, New Hanover County. See attached vicinity map.

`~
Page 2
Purpose and Need of the Project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace an obsolete bridge. The existing bridge
is 40 feet (12 meters) in length and has a clear roadway width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). The bridge
was built in 1961 and has a sufficiency rating of 29.5 out of a possible 100. The structure has a
remaining life of 10 years. The bridge crosses Bradley Creek which has a Best Usage
Classification of SC HQ.W (High Quality Waters). A causeway leading up to the existing bridge
crosses a pristine salt marsh.
Agency Coordination and Development of Alternatives:
An on-site meeting with representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management was held on May 5, 2000. A decision was
made at the meeting that two bridge replacement alternatives will be studied. Alternative 1
proposes the replacement of Bridge No. 10 with a bridge of adequate length to satisfy hydraulic
needs of the surrounding area. Alternative 2 proposes the removal of Bridge No. 10 and a
section of the existing causeway (approximately 480 feet west of the existing bridge) and
constructing a bridge approximately 550 feet in length. Since the meeting in May, a third
replacement alternative has been added. Alternative 3 proposes the removal of a section of the
causeway that would equal the area of wetlands to be impacted by the proposed project. The
three alternatives are summarized below:
Alternative 1: Replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure approximately
100 feet long. Three different side slope scenarios; 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 are being
considered for the roadway approaches to the bridge. Two-to-one (2:1) side
slopes will need rip-rap for slope protection. Cross pipes will be installed
under the causeway at determined intervals to improve sheet flow.
Alternative 2: Removal of a large section of the existing causeway and constructing a bridge
approximately 550 feet in length.
Alternative 3: Removal of a section of the existing causeway that will result. in restoring an
area equal to the area of wetlands to be impacted by the proposed project.
Three side slope scenarios; 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 are being considered for the
roadway approaches to the bridge.
Table 1 summarizes the cost and wetland impacts associated with the three bridge
replacement alternatives.

Page 3
Additional Information:
The approved Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan recommends the widening of Wrightsville
Avenue (SR 1411) to three lanes. It may be more reasonable to incorporate the removal of the
existing causeway and the construction of a bridge over most of the wetlands as part of the future
widening project. However, it is not known when the widening of Wrightsville Avenue will
occur since no such project is currently programmed in the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP).
Your attendance at the meeting will be appreciated. If you have any questions regarding
the proposed project or the scheduled meeting, please call me at [phone] extension 223 or
e-mail me at kboshoff(?a,dot.state.nc.us.
KB/
cc: Dave Timpy
Ed Brooks
John Hennessy
Fritz Rohde
David Cox
Tom McCartney
Ron Sechler
Art McMillan
Max Price
Omar Azizi
Randy Turner
Joe Blair
Lubin Prevatt
Chris Rivenbark
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Division of Coastal Management
NCDENR -Division of Water Quality
NCDENR -Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries
NCDOT -Roadway Design
NCDOT -Hydraulics
NCDOT -Structure Design
NCDOT -Division 3
NCDOT -Division 3
NCDOT -Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NCDOT -Project Development and Environmental Analysis

Table 1: Summary of Bridge Replacement Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Description 2-lane bridge, 2-lane bridge, 2-lane bridge,
of two 12-ft travel lanes two 12-ft travel lanes with two 12-ft travel lanes with
Replacement with 8-ft paved 4-ft paved shoulders, 4-ft paved shoulders,
Structure shoulders, remove approx. 480 ft of length of causeway to be
construct cross pipes existing causeway, removed depends on side
under existing off-site detour slopes that will be
causeway, constructed (ie. axes of
off-site detour wetlands that will be
impacted),
off-site detour
Length of Length of replacement
Replacement 100 feet 550 feet structure depends on side
Structure slopes to be constructed:
2:1 slopes:
Bridge length = 138 feet
3:1 slopes:
Bridge length = 188 feet
4:1 slopes:
Bridge length = 234 feet
Width of
Replacement 40 feet 32 feet 32 feet
Structure
Total 138-ft bridge = $1,100;000
Construction $850,000 $2,625,000 188-ft bridge = $1,195,000
Cost ~ 234-ft bridge = $1,375,000
Approximate
Wetland 2:1 slopes = 0.109 ac 138-ft bridge = 0.109 acres
Impacts 3:1 slopes = 0.191 ac 0.2 acres 188-ft bridge = 0.191 acres
4:1 slopes = 0.264 ac 234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres
Approximate 138-ft bridge = 0.109 acres
Area of 0.048- acres 0.771 acres 188-ft bridge = 0.191 acres
Causeway to 234-ft bridge = 0.264 acres
be Removed

.. ,
~~~c~~~
~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
May 20, 2004
Mr. Steve Lund ~!~'TL~~d~~ / ~~~ ~ ~
US Army Corps of Engineers ~~~~~~
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 ~`~~ ~ ~ Z004
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
yif~j'~l~ ~[i~L~ ~ `~ ~~~; i tUa"~~
Dear Mr. Lund:
Subject: NC 24/27 Widening, R-967CC, Stanly County, Southern Piedmont Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 0.14 acres of riverine wetland, 0.04
acres. ofnon-riverine wetland, and 1,272 feet of stream impacts of the subject project in the following .
manner:
Wetland Preservation (10.1) in same eco-re ion 1 8 acres)
Drowning Creek/Camp McCall, Moore and Richmond Counties
Stream Preservation (10:1) in same eco-region (12 720 feet)
Drowning Creek/Camp McCall, Moore and Richmond Counties
G ~-•
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
The subject TIP 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 project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-967CC
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NorthCaro/l/ina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ~gtur-~(`~
Sincerel ,
.~ /~ ~~
~~
~-~~ ~ I ~~
Natural Resources

~~~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
May 20, 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: NC 24/27 Widening, R-967CC, Stanly County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide compensatory mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a
letter dated May 11, 2004, the impacts requiring EEP mitigation are located in Cataloging Unit 03040105
of the Yadkin River Basin in the Southern Piedmont Eco-Region, and are summarized below.
Wetland Impacts: 0.14 acres Riverine; 0.04 acres Non-Riverine
Stream Impacts: 1,272 feet
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 compensatory mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of this agreement.
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: Steve Lund, USACE-Asheville
John Dorney, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File No. R-967CB
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NorthCaro/l/ina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ~atur+a`[~/