20070047 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_19961112

SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FROM SR 1104 TO NC 211
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STP-1105(6)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2231201
T.I.P. NO. R-2245
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c)
by the
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Cooperating Agency
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
? .-7 06) /
r &. 5w'c1(
a-1
This assessment documents the need for transportation improvements for access to Oak Island in
Brunswick County. Existing and projected conditions in the study area are described, and corridors
are evaluated with respect to costs, social and ec9nomic impacts, and environme94al consequences.
////-2- 9v
Da (e of Ap roval
7,-// e9
Date of Approval

I

r-e2
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
Comments must be received by Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Mana er of Planning and Environmental
Branch, NCDOT, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 by: y 3e Y?
I
H. Franklin Vick, P.E. - NCUOT
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
I
SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FROM
SR 1104 TO NC 211
Federal Aid Project No. STP-1105(6)
State Project No. 8.2231201
T.I.P. No. R-2245
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared by:
DSAtlantic Corporation
?auu,+n,p
.• ES31
Date . Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
SEAL Vice President
14118 a Project Manager
i FNS I tiE?0' g
Documentation Prepared For:
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
D to L. Ga'1 rimes, E.
Project Engineer
I4 ?-
/1// 2 qG IMF-t?
' Date Philip S. 44arris, III, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I
S.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
' Administration Action Environmental Assessment
1 S.2 CONTACTS
' The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this
Environmental Assessment:
Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, PE
' Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
' Telephone: [phone]
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
S.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the construction of a high-rise bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway, from SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) to the mainland and the construction of a two-lane
roadway on new location with,partial-control-of-access'from the waterway to just north of NC
211 at SR 1500 (Midway Road) in Brunswick County. The action includes widening the existing
two-lane SR 1105 from SR 1104 (Beach Road) to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and
replacing of Bridge No. 206 over Davis Canal. The proposed action is identified in the 1997-
1 S-1
2003 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as R-2245. Brunswick County rates the Second Bridge to Oak Island as the most
important project in the county. Exhibit 1.1.1 shows the study area and the existing road
system.
The proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island would improve the level of service on the existing
road system by increasing traffic capacity and would provide additional access onto and off of
the island. The results of this action would be a reduction in vehicle hours of travel;
improvements in travel speeds; reduction in traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities; savings in
cost to the traveling public; improvements in emergency evacuation times and routes for a
natural disaster or a nuclear accident at the nearby Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant; enhanced
economic development potential; improved access to public facilities; and improved access for
emergency vehicles. These factors would improve the accessibility of Oak Island for its'
residents and visitors.
S.4 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
A Section 9 permit from the US Coast Guard and a Section 404 permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers will be required. A 401 Water Quality Certification from the North
Carolina Department of Health, Environment, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of
Environmental Management and a CAMA permit from DEHNR, Division of Coastal
Management will be required also.
S.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Second Bridge Alternatives - Preliminary second bridge alternatives were developed with the
use of "Land Suitability Mapping". Initial studies and evaluations reduced the number of
preliminary second bridge alternatives to five, Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. Field studies
S-2

and detailed environmental determinations were completed for each alternative. These
' alternatives are shown in Exhibit 1. 1.2 and described below.
1 Alternative A begins at SR 1104 (Beach Drive) and extends along SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue),
across Davis Canal, to the intersection with SR 1190 (Oak Island Drive) before rising to cross
Yacht Drive and the Intracoastal Waterway. After crossing the Intracoastal Waterway,
Alternative A turns in a westerly direction toward Mercers Mill Pond before turning to the
northeast to intersect with NC 211 approximately 840 meters (2755 feet) west of the existing NC
' 211/SR 1500 intersection. Alternative A ends at SR 1500 approximately 1415 meters (4641 feet)
I north of the NC 211/SR 1500 intersection. Alternative A is 9.39 kilometers (5.83 miles) long
Alternative B follows the same alignment as Alternative A until it crosses the Intracoastal
Waterway. After crossing the Intracoastal Waterway, Alternative B follows a northeasterly
direction until it intersects with NC 211 at SR 1500. Alternative B is 7.55 kilometers (4.69
I miles) long.
' Alternative C follows the same alignment as Alternative A and B until it crosses the Intracoastal
Waterway. After crossing the Intracoastal Waterway, Alternative C turns to the east towards
Saint James Plantation before turning to the northwest to intersect with NC 211 at SR 1500.
Alternative C is 8.27 kilometers (5.14 miles) long.
I Alternative D follows the same alignment as Alternatives A, B, and C until it crosses the
' Intracoastal Waterway. After crossing the waterway, Alternative D turns to the west and
parallels the waterway on new location before merging with SR 1112 (Sunset Harbor Road).
From that point, SR 1112 would be upgraded to it's intersection with NC 211. Alternative D
is 12.38 kilometers (7.68 miles) of construction length with a total travel length of 18.38
S-3
kilometers (11.40 miles).
Alternative E begins at SR 1104 and turns off of SR 1105 and follows SR 1190 (West Oak
Island Drive) to the west end of the island where it crosses the Intracoastal Waterway and then
ties to SR 1112. As with Alternative D, SR 1112 will be upgraded to it's intersection with NC
211. Alternative E is 12.14 kilometers (7.53 miles) of construction length with a total travel
length of 18.48 kilometers (11.25 miles).
Following detailed evaluation, Alternatives D and E were determined not to be reasonable and
feasible and were eliminated from further consideration. Alternatives A, B, and C would each
require a minimum of 30 meters (98 feet) of right-of-way.
Improve Existing Alternative - The Improve Existing Alternative, widening and upgrading NC
133 from NC 211 to SR 1104 and SR 1104 from NC 133 to SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) was
not considered for this project because it does not meet one of the project's purposes and needs;
to provide a second access to Oak Island. Although widening the existing roadway and bridge
would increase the traffic capacity, it would not improve the access to and from the island,
especially for residents on the west end of the island. All vehicles would still be brought on the
island from the east. Therefore, the Improve Existing Alternative was not considered a viable
alternative.
No-Build Alternative - The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements to the existing
roadway system to and on Oak Island, with the exception of routine maintenance. The existing
roadway and bridge would remain the only access onto and off of the island and NC 133 would
continue to be a two and three-lane roadway from NC 211 to SR 1104.
S-4

The No-Build Alternative would not be compatible with the transportation goals of Long Beach,
1 Brunswick County, and North Carolina which are: to improve the safety and efficiency of travel
accessing Oak Island by providing a second roadway and bridge to the island. Because the
transportation needs and objectives would not be met by the No-Build Alternative, local
' governments would be hampered in their efforts to provide improved transportation services to
existing development and to attract new development and tourism. However, the No-Build
' Alternative provides a basis for comparing the adverse impacts and benefits of the Second Bridge
Alternatives.
' Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative - Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) improvements involve increasing the available capacity of the existing facility with
minimum capital expenditures and without reconstructing the existing facility. Items such as the
addition of turn lanes, striping, signing, signalization and minor realignments are examples of
' TSM physical improvements. Traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control and
signal timing changes are examples of TSM operational improvements. These improvements
were considered but would not improve the levels of service on NC 133. In addition, they
' would not be consistent with the purpose of the project; to provide a second access to the island.
Therefore, the TSM Alternative is not considered a reasonable and feasible alternative.
Mass Transit Alternative - The Mass Transit Alternative was eliminated from consideration
because it would not address the purpose of and need for the project.
' S.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Relocations - An estimated 10 residences and 1 business on Oak Island may be displaced by
' Alternatives A, B, and C. These residents and businesses are located along SR 1105 (Middleton
Avenue).
1 S-5
Land Use - The project study area lies within the planning jurisdiction of both Brunswick
County and the Town of Long Beach. Both land use plans have identified a future need for
urban services in the project study area due to anticipated growth. Alternatives B and C lie
mainly in the area classified as urban transition. Alternative A lies mainly in an area designated
as rural, skirts an area classified as a conservation area, and crosses an area classified as urban
transition. Although all of the alternatives would be consistent with the land use plans adopted
by Brunswick County and the Town of Long Beach, Alternatives B and C lie more fully in the
area identified as urban transition.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts - The mainland area between NC 211 and the Intracoastal
Waterway will be developed by 2020, with or without the Second Bridge, as evidenced by the
development plans of St. James Plantation. Therefore, no long term secondary and cumulative
impacts are anticipated due to the proposed project.
Community Facilities - The construction of the Second Bridge would facilitate access to the
public beaches. All three alternatives would impact a public walkway and parking access area
to the Intracoastal Waterway which is located at the end of Middleton Avenue. Care will be
taken to avoid or minimize impacts to this estuarine access. If necessary, relocation of the
access will be accomplished in coordination with the Town of Long Beach.
None of the proposed alternatives would directly impact schools in the project study area. A
second bridge would give Brunswick County Board of Education fresh alternatives for providing
the most direct and efficient school bus transportation system for area students.
Churches located both on the island and on the mainland may benefit from the increased
accessibility that would be provided to permanent residents and tourists with a second bridge.
S-6

I No known cemeteries would be impacted by any of the alternatives.
Utilities - Existing utilities potentially affected by Alternatives A, B, and C include water
distribution lines on Oak Island, telephone cables and cable television lines on the mainland and
telephone cables on the island. Existing utilities that are not anticipated to be affected include
a 69 kilovolt transmission line, an electrical power substation, a water storage tower and a
remote telephone office hub.
I Hazardous Materials Sites and Underground Storage Tanks - Alternative A could potentially
' impact one underground storage tank site, the Beach Pantry, on Middleton Avenue. Alternatives
B and C could potentially impact the Beach Pantry as well as an underground storage tank site
' at the Midway Trading Post, located at the intersection of SR 1500 and NC 211.
Archaeological Resources - Presently, there are no archaeological sites in the study area listed
in the National Register of Historic Places. Based on the results of the archaeological and
historical background report prepared for the project, the probability of archaeological sites
' occurring within the study area is low. The most probable location for archaeological sites is
along the rims of the Carolina Bays. If the Preferred Alternative impacts any of the Carolina
Bays in the study area, an archaeological survey of the bay and the rim area will be conducted.
Historic Architectural Resources - Based on the results of the historic architectural survey, there
are no properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within
the area of potential effect for the project. The SHPO concurred with this determination on
February 23, 1995 (See Appendix A). The Historic Architectural Survey Report is on file at
NCDOT and available for review.
1 S-7
Air Quality - Brunswick County was 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. None of the receptors studied for Alternatives A, B, and C in the Air
Quality Analysis were projected to approach or exceed either the one-hour or eight-hour
concentrations set forth by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. However, the No-build
Alternative is expected to exceed the eight-hour concentration standards, at a distance of 15
meters (49 feet) from the existing centerline, for six of the ten locations analyzed.
Noise - Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either approach or
exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (67 dbA for residences and 72 dbA for businesses),
or substantially exceed the existing noise levels. By the Design Year 2020, the number of
receptors approaching or exceeding the criteria is estimated to be 62 for Alternative A and 60
for Alternatives B and C. Because all the impacted receptors have driveway connections that
must be maintained, it was determined that noise barriers are not considered reasonable and are
not recommended for this project.
Mineral Resources - The Yellow Banks confined (diked) disposal facility (CDF), located along
the north side of the Intracoastal Waterway, would be impacted by Alternatives A, B, and C.
The encroachment onto the Yellow Banks CDF is estimated to be 5 hectares (12 acres) for
Alternatives A and B, and 6 hectares (15 acres) for Alternative C. No other known mineral
resources would be impacted by any alternative. Coordination with the United States Army
Corp of Engineers (USACOE) will continue concerning the use of this material.
Water Qualiy - The proposed action would increase the overall stormwater runoff from the
existing roadway system because of the increase in pavement surface. This runoff would contain
small amounts of pollutants such as oil, grease and lead. However, because of the 12w=toy
S-8
i
medium. ayerage_diily-traffic-volumes-predicted-for-this-facility-no-substantial-adverse=impacts
due-to-runoff-are-anticipated7 More important than the actual amount of runoff, may be the
proximity of such runoff-to-high-quality waters-(HQW):_Altemative=A crosses-several.tributaries-I
- of Mercers-Mill-Creek-j- a=HQW-zonei?Alternative C skirts -the-edge-of-a_HQW=zone-draining?
to (Ash=Swamp-Alternative_B_does-not-affect-any-HQW-zones Biotic Community Impacts - The proposed project would disrupt an otherwise forested area with
a graded and compacted road corridor that would level the microtopography and permanently
replace vegetation with impervious surface cover. These changes would (1) reduce available
habitat for plants, (2) fragment plant communities, (3) increase surface runoff that must be
accommodated by residual plant communities, (4) possibly alter plant-water relationships by
a changing the natural subsurface water movement, and (5) reduce available wildlife habitats by
n the amount of area impacted.
u
Because the project area between Smith and the Intracoastal Waterway is almost completely
forested, no substantial adverse impacts from fragmentation are expected for any of the
alternatives. Alternative A would result in approximately 16.5 hectares (40.8 acres) of forested
land losses, Alternative B, 13.4 hectares (33.1 acres), and Alternative C, 15.4 hectares (38.0
acres).
CWetland- p I - Based on wetland determinations, the potential wetlands occurring in the
proposed right-of-way is 2.9 hectares (7.2 acres) for Alternative A, 4.0 hectares (9.9 acres) for
Alternative B, and 2.6 hectares (6.4 acres) for Alternative C. Wetland impacts within the
Preferred Alternative will be avoided and minimized to the fullest extent practicable during the
design phase of the project.
S-9
Rare and Protected Species - For ten of the fifteen species currently listed as threatened or
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, conclusions of no effect were determined
based on lack of habitat for nesting, roosting or foraging in the project area. For the West
Indian Manatee, the "Precautions For General Construction In Areas which may be used by the
West Indian Manatee in North Carolina" issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on July
3, 1996 will be implemented. Habitat surveys for the remaining three species were conducted
in August and October 1996. A "no effect" was determined for cooley's meadowrue and
roughleaved loosestrife, and a "not likely to adversely affect" was determined for the red-
cockaded woodpecker.
Preliminary Cost Estimate - Preliminary cost estimates were completed based on the functional
designs for the alternatives. The estimated right-of-way and construction costs are approximately
$4.2 million and $13.3 million, respectively, for Alternative A, approximately $3.7 million and
$12.3 -million, respectively, for Alternative B, and approximately $4.0 million and $12.6
million, respectively, for Alternative C.
S.7 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended alternative will be selected following a corridor public hearing. Comments
received at the hearing and on the Environment Assessment will be considered in this selection.
S.8 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will make every effort to minimize impacts
to the natural environment. Impact minimization will be accomplished by adhering to strict
guidelines and specifications adopted by the State of North Carolina.
S-10
Q
a 1. If the Preferred Alternative impacts any of the Carolina Bays in the study area, an
a archaeological survey of the bay and the rim will be conducted.
2. Each hazardous material and underground storage tank site in the right-of-way limits of
the Preferred Alternative will be monitored including regulatory status, site visits,
interviews with property owners and on-site analysis. An assessment will be performed
a to the degree necessary to determine the levels of contamination and to evaluate
remediation options along with the associated acquisition costs. Resolution of problems
associated with contamination will be coordinated with appropriate regulatory agencies
and, prior to right-of-way acquisition, appropriate actions will be taken where applicable.
a Q777 dmpacts to__the_water'quality of all receiving waters-will-be-minimized-by-strict-adherence-`j
to-the-North-Carolina-Department-of_Transportation's-"BEstManagement-Practices-for
CP-rotection-of-Surface Waters; "-June 1991-
4. Wetland delineations will be conducted within the Preferred Alternative prior to
preliminary design. Every effort will be made to avoid and to minimize the wetlands
a impacts through the location and design of the roadway facility within the corridor.
Mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be coordinated with the appropriate state
0 and federal regulatory agencies. A-conceptual-wetland-m tigation-plan'will be, included
in-the,final-environmental-document
5. Hydraulic structures will be designed to assure there will be a minimal increase in the
water surface elevation during the base flood. Additional hydraulic surveys and analyses,
a for both major and minor stream crossings, will be performed during the design phase
to accurately locate the stream channels, tops of banks, and other topographic features.
a S-1I
a
6
7
8.
9
Coordination with the US Army Corp of Engineers will continue to minimize the impact
to the Yellow Banks confined (diked) disposal facility (CDF).
Care will be taken to avoid or minimize impacts to the Intracoastal Waterway access at
the end of Middleton Avenue. If necessary, relocation of the access will be
accomplished in coordination with the Town of Long Beach.
In areas of noise impacted receptors where abatement measures have been considered and
found not to be reasonable, a vegetative barrier may be considered for aesthetic
screening.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed recommendations for general
construction activities in aquatic areas which may be used by the manatee. The following
conditions should be implemented throughout the year:
a.
b.
The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with
the project that manatees may be present in the project area, 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.
The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel
S-12
I
that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing
' manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
and the ESA.
' c. 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 on its own volition.
d. 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, Florida
([phone]), the Raleigh Field Office ([phone]), and the North
' Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ([phone]). 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.
e. 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:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occur in these waters during the
' warmer months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if
' operating this vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must
be shut down if a manatee comes within 50 feet of operating equipment. A
collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service at [phone] and the North Carolina Wildlife
' 5-13
Resources Commission at [phone].
f. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, or injuries to
manatees during project construction. After construction the project manager will
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees during
construction. This report will be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office
and NCWRC.
The following conditions will only be required for construction during the period from June 1
through October 31, the period when manatees are most likely to be in North Carolina:
g. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake/idle"
speeds at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than
a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep
water whenever possible.
h. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barrier will be: (a)
made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in
manner that they cannot break free and entangle manatees; and (c) regularly
monitored to ensure that manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be
placed in a•manner to allow manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
S-14
Y
I
I
S-15
I
TABLE S.1
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
a
n
a
a
a
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................. . S-1
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ................... . 1-1
1.1 PROJECT SETTING ............................. . 1-1
1.1.1 Description of the Proposed Action ................ . 1-1
1.1.2 Project History ................ . . 1-5
1.2 SYSTEM LINKAGE .............................. . 1-6
1.2.1 Existing Interstate and US Routes ................. . 1-6
1.2.2 Other Area Facilities ......................... . 1-7
1.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ............. . 1-7
1.4 PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS . 1-9
1.5 HIGHWAY CAPACITY ........................... 1-10
1.5.1 Existing Highway ..................... ...... 1-10
1.5.2 Traffic Capacity Analysis ................ ...... 1-11
1.5.3 Existing and Base Year Traffic Conditions ...... ...... 1-12
1.5.4 Future Traffic Conditions ................ ...... 1-15
1.5.5 Accident Analysis ..................... ...... 1-18
1.5.6 Emergency Evacuation .................. ...... 1-24
1.6 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS ............... ...... 1-25
1.6.1 Transit and Rideshare ................... ...... 1-25
1.6.2 Rail Service ......................... ...... 1-25
1.6.3 Airports ........................... ...... 1-25
1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED ............... ...... 1-26
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................. ....... 2-1
2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .................. ....... 2-1
i
2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE . 2-2
2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE ..................... . 2-3
2.4 IMPROVE EXISTING ALTERNATIVE .................. . 2-3
2.5 SECOND BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES ................... . 2-4
2.5.1 Study Area ............................... . 2-4
2.5.2 Development of Preliminary Alternatives ............. . 2-5
2.5.3 Second Bridge Alternatives ..................... . 2-8
2.6 ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA ...................... 2-11
2.7 ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES ................... 2-13
2.8 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THE SECOND BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVES ............................... 2-15
2.9 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FOLLOWING DETAILED
STUDY ...................................... 2-19
2.10 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .................... 2-19
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................... ... 3-1
3.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT AREA .. ... 3-1
3.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .............. ... 3-4
3.2.1 Population Characteristics .................... ... 3-4
3.2.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics .......... ... 3-9
3.2.3 Neighborhood and Community Cohesion ........... .. 3-14
3.3 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING ................................. .. 3-14
3.3.1 Existing Land Use ......................... .. 3-14
3.3.2 Land Use Planning ........................ .. 3-16
3.3.3 Transportation Planning ..................... .. 3-17
3.3.4 Emergency Evacuation Planning ................ .. 3-18
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................ .. 3-20
3.4.1 Schools ........................ .. .. 3-20
3.4.2 Churches and Cemeteries ..................... .. 3-21
3.4.3 Parks and Recreational Facilities ................ .. 3-21
ii

' 3.4.4 Additional Community Services ................... 3-24
3.4.5 Archaeological and Historic Architectural Properties ...... 3-24
3.5 UTILITIES ................................... 3-25
3.5.1 Electric Power Transmission ................. . . 3-25
3.5.2 Water Service ............................. . 3-26
3.5.3 Sewer Service ............................ . 3-26
' 3.5.4 Natural Gas Service ......................... . 3-28
3.5.5 Communications ................ . . ... . 3-28
3.5.6 Railroads ......................... 3-28
'
3.6 PHYS ICAL ENVIRONMENT ....................... . 3-28
' 3.6.1 Floodplains and Floodways .................... . 3-28
3.6.2 Hydrology and Drainage ...................... . 3-29
3.6.3 Geology, Topography, and Soils ............. . . 3-29
' 3.6.4 ..
Mineral Resources .
3-34
3.6.5 Hazardous Material Sites and Underground Storage Tanks . . 3-34
' 3.6.6
3.6.7 Air Quality ..............................
Noise . 3-37
3-42
3.6.8 Prime, Unique, and Important Farmlands ............ . 3-49
' 3.7 NATURAL RESOURCES ......................... . 3-49
3.7.1 Biotic Communities ......................... . 3-50
3.7.2 Water Resources 3-76
3.7.3 Waters of the United States . .................... . 3-78
3.7.4 Rare and Protected Species ..................... . 3-80
' 3.7.5 Natural Areas 3-96
' 4
0 ENV IRONM E
TA
C
. N
L
ONSEOUENCES .................... .. 4-1
4.1 LAND USE IMPACTS ........................... .. 4-1
4.1.1 Development Trends and Land Use Plans Impacted ...... .. 4-2
4.1.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Development Plans ..... .. 4-2
4.1.3 Secondary Land Use Impacts ................... .. 4-5
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ......................... .. 4-7

4.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS ............................. . 4-10
' 4.2.1 Changes in Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion .... . 4-10
4.2.2 Changes in Travel Patterns and Accessibility .......... . . 4-10
4.2.3 Impacts on Specific Social Groups ................ . 4-12
1 4.2.4 Relocation Impacts .. . 4-12
iii
4.2.5 Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists ...... 4-16
4.2.6 Emergency Evacuation ........................ 4-16
4.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................ 4-17
4.3.1 Regional and Local Economy .................... 4-18
4.3.2 Existing Highway-Related Businesses ............... 4-18
4.3.3 Established Business Districts .................... 4-19
4.3.4 Secondary Economic Impacts .................... 4-20
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS ................. .. 4-21
4.4.1 Schools ............................... .. 4-21
4.4.2 Churches and Cemeteries ..................... .. 4-21
4.4.3 Parks and Recreational Facilities ................ .. 4-21
4.4.4 Archaeological and Historical Properties ........... .. 4-22
4.4.5 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act .... .. 4-22
4.5 UTILITY IMPACTS ............................ .. 4-22
4.5.1 Electric Power Transmission ................... .. 4-22
4.5.2 Water Service ............................ .. 4-23
4.5.3 Sewer Service ...................... ... .. 4-23
4.5.4 Natural Gas Service ........................ .. 4-24
4.5.5 Communications .......................... .. 4-24
4.5.6 Railroads .............................. .. 4-24
4.6 PHYS ICAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS ............... .. 4-25
4.6.1 Floodplain Impacts ........................ .. 4-25
4.6.2 Hydraulic Impacts ......................... .. 4-25
4.6.3 Geology, Topography, and Soils ................ .. 4-26
4.6.4 Mineral Resources ......................... .. 4-27
4.6.5 Hazardous Material Sites/Underground Storage Tanks ... .. 4-28
4.6.6 Air Quality Impacts ........................ .. 4-30
4.6.7 Noise Impacts ......................... .. 4-31
4.6.8 Farmland Impacts ......................... .. 4-35
4.7 NATU RAL RESOURCE IMPACTS .................. .. 4-37
4.7.1 Biotic Communities ........................ .. 4-38
4.7.2 Water Resources ....................... .. .. 4-44
4.7.3 Waters of the U.S . ........................ .. 4-46
4.7.4 Rare and Protected Species .................... .. 4-50
4.7.5 Natural Areas ............................ .. 4-59
4.8 VISUAL IMPACTS .............................. 4-59
iv

' 4
9 CONSTRUCTION
.
IMPACTS .................... .... 4-60
4.9.1 Air Quality ........................... .... 4-61
4.9.2 Noise ............................... .... 4-61
4.9.3 Water Quality .......................... .... 4-62
4.9.4 Maintenance of Traffic .................... .... 4-62
4.9.5 Construction Materials and Waste ............. .... 4-63
' 4.10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .. . 4-65
'
4.11 IRREVERSIBLE AND .IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED
ACTION ................................. .... 4-67
5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............ 5-1
' ...... .....
5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION .................... ..... 5-1
' 5.1.1 Scoping Letter ......................... ..... 5-1
5.1.2 Steering Committee ...................... ..... 5-1
5.1.3 Agency Field Review ..................... ..... 5-2
5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................... ..... 5-2
'
5.2.1 Mailing List ........................... ..... 5-3
5.2.2 Newsletters ..................... .. ..... 5-3
' 5.2.3 Toll-Free Phone Hotline ................... ..... 5-4
5.2.4 Small Group Informational Workshops . 5-4
5.2.5 Citizens Informational Workshops ............. ..... 5-4
' 5.2.6 Local Officials Informational Workshops ......... ..... 5-7
6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix A - Coordination
A.1 Agency Comments
' A.2 AD-1006 Forms
A.3 Relocation Reports
A.4 Yellow Banks Coordination
'
Appendix B - Public Involvement Materials
' Appendix C - References

1 v
EXHIBITS
PAGE
1.1.1 Study Area Map ............................. 1-3
1.1.2 Second Bridge Alternatives ...................... 1-4
1.5.1a Average Daily Traffic Volumes, 1994 Existing Year ...... 1-13
1.5.1b Average Daily Traffic Volumes, 2000 Base Year ........ 1-14
1.5.2 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, 2020 Design Year ...... 1-17
1.5.3 Accident Frequency .......................... 1-20
2.5.1 Preliminary Alternatives ........................ 2-9
2.6.1 Typical Sections ............................ 2-14
2.8.1 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, 2020 Alternatives A, B, and C 2-17
2.8.2 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, 2020 Alternatives D and E . 2-20
3.3.1 Generalized Land Classification Map ............... 3-19
3.4.1 Community Facilities and Services ................. 3-22
3.5.1 Utilities ................................. 3-27
3.6.1 Floodplains ............................... 3-30.
3.6.2 Mineral Resources ........................... 3-35
3.6.3 Hazardous Material Sites and Underground Storage Tanks .. 3-38
3.6.4 Air Quality Receptors ......................... 3-43
3.6.5 Noise Monitoring Locations ..................... 3-48
3.7.1 Wetlands ................................. 3-81
4.1.1 Induced Impact Area .......................... 4-3
vi
I
I

TABLES PAGE

S.1 Engineering and Environmental Consequences .............. 5-15
1.5.1 No-Build Alternative, Level of Service for Roadway Segments .... 1-16
1.5.2 No-Build Alternative, Intersection Level of Service ....... .. 1-16
1.5.3 Accident Analysis Summary, 11/01/91 Through 10/31/94 1-19
1.5.4 Accident Summary, 11/01/91 Through 10/31/94 ............. 1-22
1.5.5 Accident Frequency by Month and Day of Week ............. 1-23
2.5.1 Preliminary Evaluations ................... 2-11
2.6.1 .........
Roadway Design Criteria ...................... 2-12
2.7.1 Second Bridge Alternatives Cost Comparisons .............. 2-13
2.8.1
2.8.2 Alternatives A, B, and C Level of Service for Roadway Segments .. 2-15
Alternatives A, B, and C Intersection Level of Service with Recommended
Revisions ..................................... 2-16
2.8.3
3.2.1 Alternatives D and E Level of Service for Roadway Segments ....
Population Trends of Lockwoods Folly and Smithville Townships, 2-18
The Town of Long Beach, Brunswick County, and North Carolina .. . 3-5
3.2.2 Racial Characteristics of Lockwoods Folly and Smithville
Townships, Brunswick County, and North Carolina . 3-7
3.2.3 Population by Age Group Within Lockwoods Folly and Smithville
Townships, Brunswick County, and North Carolina ........... . 3-8
3.2.4 Civilian Labor Force and Percent Unemployed for Brunswick County
and North Carolina ............................... 3-10
' 3.2.5 Employment by Industry Groups of Lockwoods Folly and
Smithville Townships, The Town of Long Beach, Brunswick
County, and North Carolina ......................... 3-11
' 3.2.6 Per Capita Personal Income for Brunswick County and North
Carolina ................... 3-12
3.2.7 Commuting to Work and Mean Travel Time for Lockwoods
' Folly and Smithville Townships, Brunswick County and North
Carolina ................ .... .. 3-13
3.6.1 Soils Mapped in the Study Area ............... 3-32
3.6.2 Mobile5A/Cal3QHC Input Parameters ................... 3-42
3.6.3 Noise Abatement Criteria ........................... 3-45
3.6.4 Ambient Noise Levels ................. 3-47
3.7.1 Relative Value of Habitat Types in the Study Area ........... 3-74
3.7.2 Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species for
Brunswick County ............................... 3-83
' 3.7.3 State-Protected Species Listed 3-92
3.7.4 Typical Habitat and Habitat Occurrence of Species Considered for
Federal Listing as Endangered or Threatened in Brunswick County 3-94

' vii
TABLES (CONTINUED)
PAGE
4.2.1 Estimated Number of Relocations ..................... . 4-13
4.6.1 Design Year 2020 One-Hour/Eight-Hour CO-Concentrations .... . 4-31
4.6.2 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary ............... . 4-33
4.6.3 Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary - Receptor Exterior Noise
Level Increases ........................... ... . 4-33
4.7.1 Area of Each Corridor by Land Use and Aquatic Categories ..... . 4-38
4.7.2 Forestland in Proposed Alternative Corridors by Forest Type
and Age Class ......................... . . 4-39
4.7.3 Area of Forestland Types Impacted by Right-of-Way ......... . 4-42
4.7.4 Stream Characteristics in Alternative A and Alternative C ...... . 4-45
4.7.5 Approximate Extent of Wetland in Corridor .............. . 4-47
4.7.6 Approximate Extent of Wetland in Right-of-Way ........... . 4-49
4.7.7 Biological Conclusion Concerning Federally Protected Species ... . 4-52
4.7.8 Allowable Suitable Habitat for Protected Species
Alternative Corridors ............................ . 4-55
4.7.9 Available Red-cockaded Woodpecker Habitat .............. . 4-58
4.11.1 Engineering and Environmental Consequences ............. . 4-69
viii
I
1 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to fully document the various build and no-
build alternatives evaluated for a second bridge to Oak Island. Section 1 of this report
' documents the purpose of and need for the Second Bridge to Oak Island project and describes
the existing and proposed transportation system within the study area.
Documentation of the alternatives selection process, as well as descriptions of the
' preliminary alternatives, the alternatives chosen for more detailed study, and the alternatives
' eliminated following detailed study is found in Section 2. Section 3 of this report describes
the existing social, economic, and environmental settings within the study area.
The probable social, economic and environmental effects of the three build alternatives and
1 the proposed mitigation measures are presented in Section 4.
I
1.1 PROJECT SETTING
1.1.1 Description of Proposed Action
The proposed action is the construction of a high-rise bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway from SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) to the mainland and the construction of a two-
lane roadway, on new location, from the waterway to just north of NC 211 at SR 1500
(Midway Road). Middleton Avenue, a state route from SR 1104 to SR 1190 (Oak Island
' Drive), would be widened from SR 1104 to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway including the
replacement of Bridge No. 206 over Davis Canal, as a part of this project. The proposed
action is identified in the 1997-2003 North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as R-2245. Brunswick County rates
1
' 1-1
the Second Bridge to Oak Island as the most important project in the county. Exhibit 1.1.1
shows the study area and the existing road system.
The proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island would improve the level of service on the
existing road system by increasing traffic capacity and would provide additional access onto
and off of the island. The results of this action would be a reduction in vehicle hours of
travel; improvements in travel speeds; reduction in traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities;
savings in cost to the traveling public; improvements in emergency evacuation times and
routes for a natural disaster or a nuclear accident at the nearby Brunswick Nuclear Power
Plant; enhanced economic development potential; improved access to public facilities; and
improved access for emergency vehicles. These factors would improve the accessibility of
Oak Island for its' residents and visitors.
Several alternative corridors for the Second Bridge to Oak Island were developed based upon
information obtained during the planning process; comments and concerns raised at the two
citizens informational workshops and at the Steering Committee meetings; and
correspondence from state and federal regulatory agencies and organizations. Five second
bridge alternatives were selected for detailed study, Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. The
second bridge alternatives are represented by 150 meter (500 foot) corridors to provide
flexibility for minimizing impacts to the natural and human environment during design.
In addition to the five second bridge alternatives, the following four alternatives were
studied: (1) No-Build or "Do Nothing" Alternative, (2) Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) Alternative, (3) Mass Transit Alternative and (4) the Improve Existing Alternative.
Exhibit 1. 1.2 shows the five second bridge alternatives. These alternatives are discussed
further in Section 2.
1-2
I
1 1.1.2. Project History
' Discussions by Long Beach Commissioners for a second bridge over the Intracoastal
Waterway at Middleton Avenue was begun as far back as 1960, at which time Oak Island's
only link to the mainland was a swing bridge at NC 133. This former bridge was struck by
' a barge and destroyed in September, 1971. Ferry services and a temporary floating pontoon
bridge provided the only means of accessibility during the three-and-a-half year construction
' period for the new high-level bridge which was opened on March 6, 1975. By the time this
bridge was opened, CP&L's nuclear plant had been completed and the Pfizer Corporation
had opened a new plant near Southport. Along with this growth came an increased need for
' a future second bridge to accommodate the tremendous growth on Oak Island and to provide
a means of egress in the event of a natural or nuclear disaster.
A resolution was passed by the Town of Long Beach Commissioners on January 17, 1970
1 recommending that the State Highway Commission build a bridge across the Intracoastal
' Waterway at Middleton Avenue. On May 5, 1977 the Town of Long Beach Commissioners
passed another resolution asking that a second bridge be located at the end of the island to
' meet with SR 1112 at Sunset Harbor. This request was followed by a similar resolution
' passed by the Brunswick County Commissioners dated May 25, 1977. Studies conducted by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation showed the most cost effective structure
' to be a crossing at Middleton Avenue, with an accompanying connection to NC 211 at SR
1500 on the mainland. In April, 1986, the North Carolina Board of Transportation requested
the Town of Long Beach submit a resolution of support for a second bridge. This resolution
' in favor of the Second Bridge to Oak Island was passed on April 15, 1986.
' A Feasibility Study was completed in June, 1987 for the Second Bridge to Oak Island. The
feasibility study made the following recommendation: "The most feasible method of
1-5
providing additional access to Oak Island is to extend SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) across
the waterway at a point referred to as Yellow Banks. The extension would intersect NC 211
at Smith where SR 1500 extends north to US 17 just south of Bolivia".
This Second Bridge to Oak Island Corridor Study and Environmental Assessment began in
October, 1994. Each of the previously recommended corridors was considered and evaluated
as part of this study.
The 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Plan indicates right-of-way acquisition
for TIP No. R-2245 is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 1997 and construction in
Federal Fiscal Year 1998.
1.2 SYSTEM LINKAGE
1.2.1 Existing Interstate and US Routes
There is no US route in the project study area. However, US 17, a north-south highway
connecting cities and towns along the eastern coast of the United States, is easily accessible
from the project area. Traveling north of the project on SR 1500, US 17 Bypass is
approximately 11 kilometers (7 miles) from NC 211. The proposed project would give Oak
Island a direct connection to US 17 while enhancing accessibility, emergency evacuation, and
increasing traffic capacity to the island.
Presently, the nearest interstate is I-40 which ends in Wilmington approximately 57
kilometers (35 miles) north of Oak Island. However, a proposed new interstate highway will
traverse Brunswick County. I-74 will enter North Carolina from Virginia along I-77 in
Surry County and will generally follow along US 52, US 311, US 220 and US 74 to west
of Whiteville in Columbus County. From Whiteville, I-74 will cross Columbus and
1-6

I

I
Brunswick Counties northwest to northeast on new location and intersect US 17
approximately 30 miles south of the study area. I-74 will then follow US 17 into South
Carolina.
1.2.2 Other Area Facilities
NC 211 is the only major east-west arterial in the project area. It begins at the Cape Fear
River, just northeast of Southport, and heads west to US 17 in Supply about 27 kilometers
(17 miles) away. NC 211 continues in a northwest direction through Lumberton and
Southern Pines before ending at US 220 in Montgomery County. NC 133, east of the project
area, is the only existing access onto Oak Island and is the major route used to and from the
Wilmington area and to 1-40.
There are several secondary routes in the study area, several of which would intersect with
the proposed project. These secondary facilities generally provide localized access for area
residences and businesses. NC 133 carries all traffic onto and off of the island. The traffic
is distributed on the island by SR 1104 and SR 1190, of which both intersect SR 1105. On
the mainland the proposed project ends at SR 1500 which is the only connection from this
area to US 17 Business near Bolivia and US 17 Bypass. The secondary routes connecting
with the project are listed below with their common names:
SR 1104 (Beach Road)
SR 1190 (Oak Island Drive)
SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue)
SR 1500 (Midway Road)
1.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island would contribute innumerable benefits to the
project study area and surrounding community as well as to tourists traveling to the area.
1-7
Local support for a second bridge has been substantial. Residents of Oak Island feel that '
a second bridge is a necessity for reasons of convenience as well as safety. ,
Traffic congestion has become a serious problem within the project study area. With
increasing demands for access to the beach areas, roads such as NC 133, NC 211 and NC
87, are experiencing capacity related problems. The grid system of streets in the residential
areas of Long Beach contribute to traffic congestion and travel delays, particularly during
the peak tourist seasons. Residents of Long Beach include a mixture of retirees and working
households. A second bridge would provide improved access to retail centers and services
available on the mainland and shorter commuting times to mainland places of employment
and to major cities such as Wilmington.
Residents of Oak Island have expressed great concern over the ability to safely and
efficiently evacuate the island in the event of a man-made hazard or major storm. A second
bridge linking Oak Island to the mainland would help address the safety concerns of island
residents, instilling an increased sense of security.
The availability of many community services would be improved with the addition of a
second bridge. With another means of access to Oak Island, current school district lines
could be reevaluated to establish the safest and most efficient bus routes for transporting
students to area schools. The Long Beach Volunteer Rescue Squad, the Brunswick County
Emergency Management Services, and area law enforcement and fire protection services,
would be able to respond more quickly to emergencies with an additional means of access
and resulting reduced traffic congestion. Churches, schools, parks, hospitals and other
community services located both on the mainland and the island would become more
accessible to all residents of the project study area.
1-8

I schedule and funding goals for the next seven years. The 1997-2003 Transportation
A second bridge to Oak Island will support development that is occurring within the project
study area and the surrounding vicinity. Accessibility to the island would be increased for
both overnight and day visitor traffic. Brunswick County recognizes that the development
of a high quality tourism trade is a primary element of the county's economic future. Long
Beach, while desiring increased economic development, is dedicated to promoting and
preserving the "family" oriented, retirement-resort atmosphere and reputation of it's
community and will approve development only when and where adequate facilities and
services to support it are available.
1.4 PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island has been a priority for many years as discussed
in Section 1.1.2. It is included in the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Plan, and is
supported by the Brunswick County Thoroughfare Plan, Land Use Plan, and the Town of
Long Beach Land Use Plan as a priority project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation annually updates a priority list with
Improvement Plan has scheduled the following projects in the vicinity of the study area
(planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction).
I
Project
TIP No.
' NC 133 R-3306
' SR 1500 & R-3434
SR 1401
t
Proposed Improvements
Upgrade road to 24 feet
from SR 1530 to SR 1518.
Upgrade road to 24 feet w/
paved shlds. from NC 211 to
US 17 Bus. & improve
intersection w/ US 17 Bus.
1-9
Projected Schedule
Construction 1997 - 1999
Right/Way 2002 -2003+
Construction Post Years
Project TIP No. Proposed Improvements Projected Schedule
New Route R-3324 Two-lane connector from Planning 2000- 2002
NC 211-133 to NC 87. Design 2002 - 2003+
Right/Way 2003 - 2003+
Construction Post Years
NC 133 B-3115 Replace Bridge No. 61 over Right/Way 1999
Town Creek. Construction 2000
NC 133 B-3116 Replace Bridge No. 56 over Right/Way 1999
Allen Creek. Construction 2000
NC 211 B-2110 Replace Bridge No. 62 over Right/Way 1999
Royal Oak Swamp. Construction 2000
SR 1500 B-3308 Replace Bridge No. 25 over Construction 2001
River Swamp.
Long Beach E-3404 Extend paved shoulders on Under Constr uction
SR 1104 (Beach Drive).
NC 87, W-3408 Realign intersection of NC 87, Identified Future
NC 133 & NC 133 & Sunny Pt Access Rd, Need
Access Rd. and install traffic signal.
SR 1401 B-3117 Replace Bridge No. 101 over Construction 2000
Branch of Pinch Gut Creek
1.5 HIGHWAY CAPACITY
1.5.1 Existing Highway
NC 133 and the existing bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway is currently the only access
to Oak Island which includes Long Beach, Yaupon Beach and Caswell Beach. NC 133 is
a 24 to 36 foot wide, two to three lane facility with no access control from NC 211 to SR
1104, East Oak Island Drive. NC 211 is a 22-foot wide, two-lane facility throughout the
project study area. The terrain is level, and the horizontal and vertical alignment is
adequate. There is an existing traffic signal at the intersection of NC 211 and NC 133, and
at the intersection of NC 133 and SR 1104. Turn lanes are provided at these intersections.
There are also numerous unsignalized intersections along the existing travel route. The
1-10

adjacent land is scattered with residential and commercial development. This existing
development limits improvements to the existing highway without substantial social and
economic impacts.
' The posted speed on NC 211 and SR 1500 in the project study area is 55 mph. The posted
speed on NC 133 varies between 35 and 45 mph as it traverses the Intracoastal Waterway.
' Oak Island Drive's speed limit is posted at 35 mph near NC 133 then increases to 45 mph
after it leaves the commercial area. At the intersection of Oak Island Drive and Middleton
' Avenue, Oak Island Drive is posted at 45 mph while Middleton Avenue is posted at 35 mph.
' 1.5.2 Traffic Capacity Analysis
' A traffic capacity analysis was performed for the proposed project and the results are
discussed in the following sections. The analysis was conducted with base year 2000 and
design year 2020 traffic volumes. The existing roads were evaluated for the base and design
' years, both with and without the proposed Second Bridge. Roadway and intersection levels
of service were determined for the base and design year for the proposed roadway and
' intersections. If unacceptable levels of service were experienced, then signal warrants were
studied.
' A measure commonly used to determine the adequacy of a roadway facility is the comparison
of the traffic volume with the roadway capacity, expressed as the volume/capacity (V/C)
ratio. This ratio is used to describe levels of traffic service ranging from level of service
' A to F. Level of service A represents a low V/C relationship, indicative of smooth, free-
flow traffic, and the best condition; while F represents a high V/C, congested traffic,
' complete breakdown of traffic flow, and is the worst condition. Levels of service A through
C are the desired levels, although level of service D is considered acceptable for urban
' 1-11
facilities. Traffic conditions that exceed level of service D (E and F) are not acceptable.
These latter conditions represent significant travel delay, increase the potential for accidents,
and contribute to the inefficient operation of motor vehicles.
The analysis includes an examination of the proposed roadway and intersection capacities,
and makes recommendations to maintain an acceptable level of service.
The capacity analyses were performed using the "Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report
209, Third Edition, updated 1994" (HCM), the latest (1994) version of the "Highway
Capacity Software" (HCS) and HCM/Cinema 2.0. Documentation from the analysis of each
traffic movement in the AM and PM peaks is included in the "Traffic Capacity Analysis for
the Second Bridge to Oak Island."
1.5.3 Existing and Base Year Traffic Conditions
Existing year (1994) traffic volumes along the existing route of NC 211, NC 133, SR 1104
and SR 1190 range from 5,400 to 13,100 vehicles per day (vpd) for the off-peak, and from
9,400 to 18,600 vpd for the summer peak. Traffic volumes on the existing bridge range
from 11,100 vpd for the off-peak to 16,800 vpd for the summer peak. Exhibit 1.5. la shows
the 1994 average daily traffic volumes along the existing travel route and the connecting
streets for the off-peak and summer peak, respectively. Exhibit 1.5. lb shows the base year
(2000) traffic volumes which were used in the capacity analysis for the off-peak and summer
peak. The directional split varies for the project, ranging from sixty (60) to sixty-five (65)
percent of the vehicles of the design hourly volume. The predominant traffic flow is onto
Oak Island during the PM peak hour. The peak hour volumes account for eight to nine
percent of the daily traffic depending on the location. Dual-tired trucks attribute one to two
percent and truck tractor semi-trailers one percent of the average daily traffic.
1-12
IN
iu
IN
is

MILS
is
iu
io
19
f
e. /
?EP i
i

? ?r yyy
"?.. j 4700
7000 BRUNSWICK
1 NUCLEAR POWER
12900
19600
3100
6600
SR 1104 (WST BEACH
SUNSET
-HARBOR :?L24_00 YACNT OR. EST 00 WEST OAK ISL'
S:

MILITARY OCEAN
TERMINAL
SUNNY POINT
9000
13400

ll tl North Carolina
ATLANTIC OCEAN Department of Transportation
Environmental Assessment
Second Bridge to Oak Island
LEGEND ! Brunswick County, North Carolina
S EAK ADT VOLUMES
OMMERE
Average Daily Traffic volumes
1994 Existing Year
le
Exhibit 15.1a
IN
211 \
a
\
) _5
I 8
a
a ?
?)?.MILS...?
i
a , 12000
.,
j ? .:y \ I
SUNSET
HARBOR `T YACHT OR• i I '`:.? ..
/ i . 2000 5 I:
\ \...-... ?... / .` 2900 WEST OAK ISLA !U
SR 1104 (WEST BEACH DRI
ATLANTIC OCEAN ll !1

a
LEGEND
OFF-PEAK

SUMMER PEAK ADT VOLUMES
I
n I
I
MILITARY OCEAN
TERMINAL
SUNNY POINT
f
1
15700
23800 /. 13%
BRUNSWICK
:AR POWER

S:
.?-TERWAY J-
-TV
11000
16300

North Carolina
r(j; Department of Transportation
Environmental Assessment
Second Bridge to Oak Island
Brunswick County, North Carolina
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
2000 Base Year
Exhibit 1.5.1b

C

I
A segmental capacity analysis was performed using the 2000 base year design hourly traffic
volumes in the peak flow direction during the off-peak and summer peak. In the base year,
the existing bridge is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D during the off-peak
and LOS E during the summer peak.
The existing major intersections along NC 211, NC 133, SR 1104, and SR 1190, between
SR 1500 and SR 1105, were analyzed. NC 211/NC 133 and NC 133/SR 1104 are the only
signalized intersections on NC 211 and NC 133 in the study area. All of the intersections
are expected to operate at levels of service from A to C in the 2000 base year.
Table 1.5.1 shows the results of the analysis for the existing roadway for the off-peak and
summer peak. Table 1.5.2 presents the unsignalized and signalized intersections and the
levels of service for the off-peak and summer peak during the AM and PM peaks.
1.5.4 Future Traffic Conditions
Traffic forecasts for the 2020 design year are based on the projected increase in population
and development. Travel demand along this project will increase 67 to 124 percent by the
design year. These projected traffic volumes, as shown in Exhibit 1.5.2 range from 9,900
to 23,200 vpd during the off-peak and 18,000 to 31,000 vpd during the summer peak.
An analysis was done for the design year traffic volumes at the same location as the base
year analysis. In the 2020 design year, the existing road is expected to operate at capacity,
LOS E, in the off-peak and LOS F in the summer peak. The results are shown in Table
1.5.1.
The existing intersections were also analyzed in the design year. Table 1.5.2 shows the
1-15
TABLE 1.5.1
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENTS
levels of service for all intersections. The intersections are expected to operate at LOS E
and F during the summer peak and LOS A to F during the off-peak in the 2020 design year
The less desirable levels of service at the intersections are attributed to the left turn
movements to and from the cross roads. Left turning traffic on NC 133 slows down or stops
while waiting to find a gap in the opposing traffic. Also, traffic turning left onto NC 133
has to wait for a gap from both lanes of traffic before entering. As traffic increases, delays
increase and levels of service decrease.
This analysis shows the capacity deficiencies expected for NC 211, NC 133, SR 1104 and
1-16
TABLE 1.5.2
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
SR 1190 if the Second Bridge to Oak Island project is not constructed. With unacceptable
levels of service throughout the design year, safety will be compromised and delays will be
extensive. The second bridge will relieve traffic congestion on the existing bridge by
a attracting approximately 48% of the traffic away from NC 133. The traffic analysis for the
Second Bridge Alternatives is discussed in Section 2.8.
U 1.5.5 Accident Analysis
U Accident data for the period of November 1, 1991 through October 31, 1994 was used to
analyze accident potential along the current route. Accident data for the followings segments
were analyzed:
Segment 1: SR 1500 (Midway Rd.) from 1.65 km (1.02 mile) north of NC
211 to 15.2 m (50 ft) north of NC 211. Length= 1.63 km (1.01
miles)
Segment 2: NC 211 from SR 1500 to NC 133. Length=8.03 km (4.98
miles)
Segment 3: NC 133 from 15.2 in (50 ft) south of NC 211 to 15.2 in
' (50 ft) north of SR 1104 (Yaupon Drive). Length=5.68 km
(3.52 miles)
' Segment 4: SR 1104 (Yaupon Drive) and SR 1190 (East Oak Island
Highway) from NC 133 to 15.2 in (50 ft) east of SR 1105
(Middleton Ave). Length=9.21 km (5.71 miles)
' Segment 5: SR 1105 (Middleton Ave.) from E. Beach Drive to E. Yacht
Drive. Length=1.47 km (0.91 miles)
' A summary of the accident analysis for each segment is shown in Table 1.5.3. There were
a total of 173 accidents, including 4 fatal accidents, 85 accidents involving injuries and 84
accidents that resulted in property damage only. The estimated economic loss from these
' accidents totaled $558,964. Exhibit 1.5.3 shows the locations along the current route where
accidents frequently occur. The largest percentage of accidents occurred at the intersection
of NC 211 and NC 133 south of NC 211.
' 1-18
>/
W
?co)x
Hd'F
F r+
z?
w?
Ao
U?
U
w o 0
o 0
v °o Oo
F O'.Q'
o
i i
b rn
b c
O

Wa
e r v
i
r

?.I W O rn r V N O
W P, O V M .. ? N
17 •-- N
W
i?
U ... ? ; 7 7 7 7 7 F"

F
Qa p 0 O p V O N O rn 0 O U o O O O
O O p b O
O O O O O
? O
ti
? v0 O ?_ vp _? ?p
^ o
^ vp N ? ?O
F w U
U U U
U U U U
U U V
U U
V
' U U
U U U
U U
S?i Q Q Q' Q Q Q Q Q Q
' Q Q Q Q Q
U ; ? ? F
. ;
/. ;
? ; ? ? ? ? 4
C1 F? ?? N ?
C
B C ^
? A
C
b? ! !
N 4 a? ?
C
?? r? c
O 4 l
?
O i 4 M? !
a! W? C
P C
O O ^ O w 0 O O O O N° O O M p V O
o\ b V
!Q U U U U u U U U U U U u U U
;![? Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q' Q Q Q ¢ Q
a

o

E
(n y E
p " E
m '° E
-, Y E
r

E o U o m
z C E m,? o,? c o `o
Z a= w o ° N v > a m
: A o o ,,, o > M
? N M ?+ y

Q o
?
_ N O S x U u v
z
c o q O
3 E N y .?. u?... •'• o
N N .Q V 'O
U ao'^`'' E ENO= E,yoCQ °v 5 0
--2z W W Z "" v
G vi O y ?.. A L
ok.. o ? ? o?o oo. 3 E.o ow
9
N
L N ry
t
w mN'o E
u
?rn
oa
z0 z z
°?r
'
? h
z r z71

;.? N M C V1 ? i

W ..

11
11
11

1
I
1
i
I
I
I
I
Accident rate and fatal accident rate are measures related to average daily traffic and the
length of the studied segments. The total accident rate for the stated time period varies from
53.29 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers (MVK) (85.95 accidents per 100 million
vehicle miles (MVM)) to 248.00 accidents per 100 MVK (400.00 per 100 MVM) as shown
in Table 1.5.3. The fatal accident rate for the same time period varies from 0 per 100 MVK
(0 per 100 MVM) to 1.98 per 100 MVK (3.20 per 100 MVM). As shown in Table 1.5.3,
these averages, with the exception of SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue), are somewhat lower than
the statewide averages for similar North Carolina routes in 1993.
The accident severity index is a weighted measure of the seriousness of traffic accidents
occurring on a roadway segment, in terms of injuries and property damage. The accident
severity index for the studied segments vary from 10.05 to 21.28 as shown in Table 1.5.3.
Three of the studied segments had accident severity indexes that were moderately higher than
the statewide averages of 13.1 for North Carolina routes and 12.0 for secondary roads for
the year 1993. As shown in Table 1.5.4, the most prevalent types of accidents occurring on
the studied segments, are rear end collisions that occur when a vehicle has slowed down or
come to a stop in the lane of travel (28.3 %), accidents at an angle (14.5 %), and accidents
involving a left turn on the same road (12.7%). These type of accidents on the existing
roadways would increase with traffic growth and deteriorating level of service.
Table 1.5.5 describes the frequency of accidents in relation to the month of the year and the
day of the week. The influx of tourists during the summer months and weekends causes a
substantial increase in the number of accidents. Studies show that Brunswick County, in
general, and Oak Island, specifically, are experiencing a rapid increase in growth. Several
of the studied segments (NC 211, NC 133 and SR 1105) have accident severity indexes
which are higher than the statewide averages for similar two-lane North Carolina routes and
1-21
d'
H
M
Q? O
W (/]
O
d W ?"
Ua
N
N

X 0 0 r O O ? Q\ M M N N N N m W m O
+ F N 7 N a7 V V N N N N rn rn vi O
_.. f
I C m
C
V
0
N
N
°`
?
h
l?
rn
v1
?
•R
N
N
N
N
r
: R
9 C
O u

O 6 S
6iz

?:F v?
r rn
N O
O

w
O V M

N
? w S bz
p -:0 v1 vi rn M N N ? b N b N b b b O
F N rn D\ M M M M O
7
O Q °` b m ?O ?O V N N N N M

C S S S S s
c-,C a D, m M M ?O a ? [? U o\ D\ 0\ O
S F! ? N ? D\ O\ h M O
M
O u a o0 h rn M N a

`' o a b? 6s b? s bR bR
°
61E?
p

N

u
O u
?
N
v?
1?
R
i
vi
N
M
.r
'.
?
r
•?
,,,?
r
i
r
i
O

O
S.E. O
rn O
rn O
O

4n '
O V
? Q N

a
w
Q
a
?
r
G

Z

z •O W y ttl td
v E w `v

z7 z
°
„

'z h d N
U s
? O 3 E

h

= o
x F

o
a

z

o
Wo _
W O
W UE U F
2
c4 a Z 4 s cG o z w w x
ro
0p
C
V
C
CO
CW
C U
O F
C
U O
'Q N
= O
? a
U
w C
d
O. Y
O F
O w
O C
d
b ?
b R
?a
°
=Q
? .c
? o
m
vU
=o
U
aw
U
o?
z°
I

TABLE 1.5.5
ACCIDENT FREQUENCY BY MONTH AND DAY OF WEEK

MONTH/DAY SEGMENT TOTAL % OF
1 2 3 4 5
TOTAL
January 2 1 8 11 6.4%
Februar 5 4 3
y 1 13 7.5%
March 1 3 1 5 2.9%
A
ril 4 5
p 5 14 8.1%
May 6 6 6 18 10.4%
J 4
une 6 5 15 8.7%
July 1 5 6 11 1 24 13.9%
Au
u
t 6 8
g
s 9 1 24 13.9%
September 5 1 4 1 11 6.4%

October 1 6 6 6 19 11.0%
November 4 5 3 12 6.9%
Decemb 2 3
er 2 7 4.0%
TOTAL 2 50 54 63 4 173 100.0%
1
Monday 6 9 7 1 23 13.3%
Tuesday 9 4 8 21 12.1%

Wednesday 9 7 8 1 25 14.5%
' Thursday 1 7 6 9 1 24 13.9%
Friday 6 17 11 34 19.7%
' Saturday 1 7 6 16 1 31 17.9%
Sunday 6 5 4 15 8.7%
TOTAL 2 50 54 63 4 173 100.0%

`J
' 1-23
secondary roads. Constructing a second bridge to Oak Island will provide a dispersion of
existing traffic, diverting traffic intended for Long Beach away from NC 211 and NC 133,
improve current accident rates, as well as provide for increased future traffic demands.
1.5.6 Emergency Evacuation
Within the study area there are two emergency evacuation plans in place. One is the
Brunswick County Hurricane Evacuation Plan and.the other is the North Carolina Emergency
Response Plan in Support of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.
The Brunswick County Hurricane Evacuation Plan was developed to provide for an orderly
and coordinated evacuation in order to minimize the effects of hurricanes on residents and
visitors of Brunswick County. An underlying objective of the plan is to minimize physical
damage, injury, and loss of life in the event of a hurricane threat.
Although the National Hurricane Center can track approaching hurricanes several days in
advance, the precise location and time the hurricane hits the coast, as well as its severity,
cannot be determined until much later. For a variety of reason, it is not practical to issue
evacuation warnings until evacuation is considered necessary. Therefore, such warnings may
not be issued until just hours before the hurricane strikes.
The North Carolina Emergency Response Plan in Support of the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant has been developed to provide for an orderly and coordinated evacuation in the event
of an accident at Carolina Power and Light's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, commonly
known as Brunswick Nuclear Plant.
The estimated maximum number of vehicles evacuating over the existing bridge from Oak
1-24
Island in the event of an emergency was 16,800 in 1994. This can be expected to almost
double by 2020 when 28,500 vehicles could attempt to leave under the worst conditions.
1.6 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS
1.6.1 Transit and Rideshare
Mass public transit is not available in the project study area. Public transportation is
h available from several taxicab companies on Oak Island. The Brunswick County Department
of Social Services provides transportation services to kidney dialysis patients. The Town of
Long Beach Parks and Recreation Department has vans that provide transportation services
for senior citizens within the study area. Brunswick County Community College provides
transportation for handicapped students. Approximately 17 percent of the work force in
Brunswick County drive to work in carpools.
1.6.2 Rail Service
1 No railroad lines are located within the project study area. Amtrak Passenger service is
available at Fayetteville, approximately 117 miles from the study area.
1.6.3 Airports
No airports are located within the study area. The Brunswick County Airport is located on
' NC 133, east of the project study area. This facility is owned by the Airport Commission,
whose membership is appointed by the County Commissioners and several municipal
' Townships. Brunswick County gives financial support to the airport. There is no
' commercial service available at this time, however, the airport anticipates adding a shuttle
service to the New Hanover International Airport in Wilmington, in the future. An average
of ten (10) private planes utilize this airport during regular weekdays. As tourism is a major
factor on Oak Island, the daily average may vary from twenty (20) to forty (40) planes on
1-25
weekends and during the peak summer season. In addition to the New Hanover International
Airport in Wilmington, commercial passenger airline service is available at the Grand Strand
Airport in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
1.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED
The existing route to Oak Island, including NC 211 and NC 133, is currently carrying from
5,400 to 13,100 vehicles per day (vpd) for the off-peak, and from 9,400 to 18,600 vpd for
the summer peak in 1994. By the year 2020, the traffic is expected to increase to a range
of 9,900 to 23,200 vpd for the off-peak and from 18,600 to 31,000 vpd for the summer
peak. The highway is the only link from the mainland of Brunswick County to Oak Island
and its beaches. The current level of service is marginally acceptable and accident severity
index is moderately higher than the statewide averages of 13.1 for North Carolina routes and
12.0 for secondary roads.
Travel demand along this project will increase 67 to 124 percent by the design year. As a
result, the level of service is expected to rapidly decline. The existing road and bridge
would operate at LOS E in the off-peak and LOS F in the summer peak during the design
year.
Constructing the Second Bridge to Oak Island would provide a dispersion of existing traffic,
diverting traffic intended for Long Beach away from NC 211 and NC 133 and improving
traffic service, as well as provide for increased future traffic demand. The Second Bridge
will benefit Brunswick County, Oak Island and its communities. The proposed facility will
reduce vehicle hours of travel; improve travel speeds; improve emergency evacuation times
and routes for natural disasters and nuclear accidents; enhance economic development
potential and improve access to public facilities and for emergency vehicles.
1-26
? ? ml ? ? ¦? ? ?! ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
I

O III o
? O
m
Z -n y
>o ;0 o
CO
m
°o ZZ
Z? {N
C, 0
m z ?I0
2 D F;oO
0 u nmv
mA iJ ?
A M
D z o
2Z
~
0
1 0o
nm
z m j
Z0
o
A Zo
Ou
o In
z :rzl

O f
D Z
A D m r
a m
o m
Z
n D O
Z O
ti Om
z
V)
I
0 0
0
N
J 3
3
m
/!
>
/ D C
0
nz
_Z
'
LOCKWODDS FOLLY INLET ?.
1 ( _ _.. /..._
L_?...I\Dc i..
i ..' m z
M co
....
m-1
r
zZ
-i
A
0
0
D
Z
r-
0
Z
O
co
m
D
O

I
I I ::
I j II 1. 1.
I y .'
I
1
I I?
I?
SE MM MT 5 j j
(NIDDLETON AWE
I II
w
I ? 1
m j I
Ny.
a:: a
s ?y: °`D A° I I
jl
i
I
IZ
?ol
D:
Iy
ID N
9
?al °z
q/ z
J
N33Si,
?rra /
I
\
1
/
fAn .. . \?QUlN
2WA4(P
As-.. CP tYL?
I ?C
,I \
co
n 7 Q-.
Q. ?C33
goz 3
3 OZ o
_ m . ;j
m O? CAD 0.
n
-"1
:r O
JJ9D
m m oSD 9;g,
Q c L
7 m?W7
Q O c °

v1,
IP
)

N
1

\

co)
s
N O=
/,
\ 1,549
°' / rn

N
w
co
i
\
tcCm?
'A
V
0o
?n
x
v
C
? ?o r ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?¦ ?¦ ? ?
I
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
This chapter addresses various alternatives for the proposed action, including the No-Build.
During the initial phases of this study, numerous alternatives were considered and evaluated.
I, Those alternatives which did not meet the purpose and need of the project, had undesirable
adverse impacts, or were considered impractical or noncompetitive, were eliminated from
' further consideration. Those alternatives that were retained for detailed study are evaluated
and presented in the following discussion.
' 2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements to the existing roadway system
' to and on Oak Island, with the exception of routine maintenance. The existing roadway and
I? bridge would remain the only access onto and off of the island and NC 133 would continue
to be a two and three-lane roadway from NC 211 to SR 1104.
The No-Build Alternative would not be compatible with the transportation goals of Long
Beach, Brunswick County and North Carolina which are: to improve the safety and
efficiency of travel accessing Oak Island by providing a second roadway and bridge to the
island. Because the transportation needs and objectives would not be met by the No-Build
Alternative, local governments would be hampered in their efforts to provide services to
existing development and to attract new development and tourism.
i
1 Additionally, as discussed in Section 1.5, the No-Build Alternative would not provide
acceptable levels of service on NC 133. The roadway would become increasingly burdened
with heavy traffic, long delays and the high potential for accidents. Given the existing and
I
1 2-1
projected levels of service and resultant safety consequences, the No-Build Alternative is not
considered a satisfactory alternative.
Evacuation of the island during emergencies such as a hurricane or an accident at Brunswick
Nuclear Plant or Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal is severely hampered with the entire
island evacuating by a single two-lane roadway and bridge. If there was an accident at the
nuclear plant or the military terminal, traffic has to exit the island toward these facilities,
coming within three miles of the power plant before it could begin to move away from the
accident site. A second bridge on the island would move traffic away from such an accident
immediately, and with a hurricane it would double the evacuation capacity of the island. The
No-Build Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative due to the need for improved
evacuation routes off the island in the case of emergencies.
The No-Build Alternative would avoid any adverse environmental impacts. However,
adverse social impacts could result due to increased accidents and delays leading to the loss
of business and tourism in the area.
The No-Build Alternative was eliminated from further consideration for the reasons stated
above. However, the No-Build Alternative provides a basis for comparing the adverse
impacts and benefits of the Build Alternatives.
2.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the available
capacity of the existing facility with minimum capital expenditures and without
reconstructing the existing facility. Items such as the addition of turn lanes, striping,
signing, signalization and minor realignments are examples of TSM physical improvements.
2-2

1 Traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control and signal timing changes are
' examples of TSM operational improvements. These improvements were considered but
would not improve the levels of service on NC 133. In addition, they would not be
' consistent with the purpose of the project, to provide a second access to the island.
I
Therefore, the TSM Alternative was not considered a reasonable and feasible alternative and
i' was eliminated from further consideration.
2.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
r Currently there is no existing mass transit system in Brunswick County. This is due to the
lack of demand, low population density, diffused employment centers and diversity of trip
origins and destinations. The study area is rural in nature on the mainland, medium
residential density on the island, and there are few businesses.
Many of the road users are retirees or tourist coming from all over the state and out-of-state.
Neither of these user groups would benefit from a mass transit solution.
Due to these factors, the Mass Transit Alternative was not considered a reasonable and
feasible alternative and was eliminated from further consideration.
2.4 IMPROVE EXISTING ALTERNATIVE
The Improve Existing Alternative, widening and upgrading NC 133 from NC 211 to SR 1104
and SR 1104 from NC 133 to SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) was not considered for this
project because it does not meet one of the purposes and needs; to provide a second access
to Oak Island. Although widening the existing roadway and bridge would increase the traffic
capacity, it would not improve the access to and from the island, especially for residents on
the west end of the island. All vehicles would still be brought on the island from the east.
,? 2-3
To provide the additional capacity needed, NC 133, south of NC 211, SR 1104 and SR 1190
(Oak Island Drive) would need to be upgraded. SR 1104 particularly would suffer as all the
Long Beach and Yaupon Beach traffic uses this two-lane roadway to access beach property
and facilities. In addition, this single access would not as effectively evacuate the island in
the event of a natural disaster or nuclear accident. Therefore, the Improve Existing
Alternative was not considered a viable alternative.
2.5 SECOND BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES
The Second Bridge Alternatives involve constructing a new high-level bridge over the
Intracoastal Waterway, replacement of the existing bridge over Davis Canal, upgrading
existing sections of roadway and construction of new segments of roadway between SR 1104
(Beach Drive) and NC 211. The roadway will be classified as a rural major collector with
partial control of access.
2.5.1 Study Area
The southern and island terminus of the project begins at the SR 1104/SR 1105 intersection
in Long Beach, on Oak Island. SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) is a major north-south street
and the only street on the western half of the island which extends across Davis Canal to the
beach. It is located 8.9 kilometers (5.5 miles) west of the existing bridge (NC 133) and has
an existing 30.5 meter (100 foot) right-of-way. The northern and mainland terminus of the
project would intersect NC 211 at or near SR 1500 at Smith. The east-west boundaries on
the mainland were established to encompass any reasonable and feasible alternative variations
in the 6.5 kilometers (4 miles) between the Intracoastal Waterway at Middleton Avenue and
NC 211 at Smith. During the course of the study, the project study area was expanded to
encompass the western portion of Oak Island from Middleton Avenue to the end of West Oak
2-4
I
Island Drive and on the mainland to include SR 1112 (Sunset Harbor Road). The initial and
expanded project study areas are shown in Exhibit 1.1.1.
The study area is characterized by rural activities. At the north end to the project, the small
' crossroads of Smith includes a modern store and a scattering of farm buildings sighted in
1I? agricultural fields. From Smith south to the Intracoastal Waterway the study area is
comprised of woodlands, of which portions have been cut over for lumber; dense shrubs; and
area of potential wetlands. The closest major development in this area is Saint James
' Plantation lying to the east of the study area. The southern end of the project, on Oak
Island, is characterized by densely arranged residences serving mostly as vacation homes.
The area is subdivided but many lots remain vacant especially in the middle of the island,
' farthest from the waterway and beach.
1 2.5.2 Development. of Preliminary Alternatives
I1? The selection and evaluation of preliminary alternatives within the study area included the
consideration of a variety of criteria. In the early phase of the study, an aerial photomosaic,
USGS maps, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps, tax maps, research and field
studies were used to identify the locations of human and natural features. Build alternatives
were developed which avoided identified sensitive areas to the greatest extent possible
without compromising the traffic service benefits of the project or unreasonably increasing
construction costs. As information became available through research and field surveys,
r increasingly specific criteria were used to modify or eliminate preliminary alternatives.
r The following criteria were used to develop the preliminary alternatives:
' 2-5
• Impacts on residential communities and neighborhoods, specific social groups,
business developments, archaeological sites and historic architectural properties, and
parks.
• Impact on wetlands, wildlife habitat, and natural systems.
• Economic impacts on businesses due to relocation and loss of accessibility.
• Potential for disruption of established communities and neighborhoods.
• Use of known Section 4(f) (i.e., publicly-owned land of a wildlife refuge, recreation
area, or an historic site) resources when other prudent and feasible alternatives are
available.
• Regional and state transportation goals.
• Traffic operational and safety conditions and congestion.
• Economic considerations, including relative cost of construction and road user costs
• Compatibility with accepted geometric design standards and criteria.
• Geological stability.
• Potential for encroachments in floodways and floodplains.
• Hazardous material sites.
"Land Suitability Mapping," showing factors that would limit or discourage the development
of a highway, was developed. The "Land Suitability Mapping" was used to identify
preliminary alternatives that would minimize potential impacts while maintaining engineering
design standards.
From the "Land Suitability Mapping" eighteen (18) potential alternatives were identified.
This number was reduced to eight (8) preliminary alternatives by eliminating alternatives
with more potential impacts and/or less desirable engineering alignments. These eight
preliminary alternatives include six (6) new location alternatives and two alternatives that
2-6

utilize Sunset Harbor Road. All eight preliminary alternatives include the construction of
' a new bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. The eight preliminary alternatives are shown
graphically on Exhibit 2.5.1.
All of the preliminary alternatives begin on Oak Island at the intersection of SR 1105
(Middleton Avenue) with SR 1104 (Beach Drive). Seven of the eight follow the same
corridor across the Intracoastal Waterway before they diverge in different directions.
Alternatives C101 and C102 end at SR 1500 approximately 1415 meters (4641 feet) north
of NC 211/SR 1500 intersection and intersect with NC 211 approximately 840 meters (2755
' feet) west of the existing NC 211/SR 1500 intersection. Alternatives C301, C305, C306,
and C308 end at the NC 211/SR 1500 intersection. A connector, C101A/C102A was
' provided between corridors C101 and C102 and the existing NC 211/SR 1500 intersection
to allow the alternatives to use the existing intersection. After crossing the Intracoastal
Waterway, Alternative C402 turns west and parallels the waterway on new location before
merging with SR 1112 (Sunset Harbor Road). The eighth alternative, Alternative C403,
turns west off of SR 1105 and follows SR 1190 (West Oak Island Drive) to the west end of
r the island where it crosses the Intracoastal Waterway and ties to Sunset Harbor Road. For
both Alternatives C402 and C403, Sunset Harbor Road will be upgraded to it's intersection
with NC 211.
Following initial field studies, the C101A/C102A connector was eliminated because of
undesirable curvature. Alternatives C301 and C306 were eliminated because of their higher
potential wetland impacts and their intrusion into some of the more valuable natural areas
of concern. Alternatives C101 and C102 were combined, joining the best segments of each,
' because of their similar characteristics. The preliminary alternative evaluation reduced the
1
' 2-7
number of alternatives to five: Alternative A (combination of C101 and C102), Alternative
B (C305), Alternative C (C308), Alternative D (C402), and Alternative E (C403).
2.5.3 Second Bridge Alternatives
Each of the second bridge alternatives is proposed as a two-lane roadway with partial control
of access. Intersections for all cross roads will be at grade except at Yacht Drive. Yacht
Drive would be converted to a grade separation and remain open under the proposed bridge
due to the required height of the bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway. The second bridge
alternatives are shown in Exhibit 1.1.2.
Field studies and environmental determinations were completed for each alternative and
technical reports were prepared for many of the areas of environmental evaluation. These
reports are available for review at the NCDOT. The second bridge alternatives are described
from south to north as follows.
Alternative A - Alternative A begins at SR 1104 (Beach Drive) and extends down Middleton
Avenue across Davis Canal. It intersects with SR 1190 (Oak Island Drive) before rising to
cross Yacht Drive and the Intracoastal Waterway. After crossing the Intracoastal Waterway,
Alternative A turns in a westerly direction toward Mercers Mill Pond before turning to the
northeast to intersect with NC 211 west of the existing SR 1500INC 211 intersection.
Alternative A ties to SR 1500 approximately 1,415 meters (4,641 feet) north of NC 211.
Alternative B - Alternative B follows the same alignment as Alternative A until it crosses
the Intracoastal Waterway. After crossing the Intracoastal Waterway, Alternative B follows
a northeasterly direction until it intersects with NC 211 at SR 1500.
2-8

' Alternative C - Alternative C follows the same alignment as Alternatives A and B until it
crosses the Intracoastal Waterway. After crossing the Intracoastal Waterway, Alternative
C turns to the east toward Saint James Plantation before turning to the northwest to intersect
I?
with NC 211 at SR 1500.
Alternative D - Alternative D follows the same alignment as Alternatives A, B, and C until
it crosses the Intracoastal Waterway. After crossing the waterway, Alternative D turns to
the west and parallels the waterway on new location before merging with SR 1112 (Sunset
' Harbor Road). From that point, SR 1112 would be upgraded to it's intersection with NC
211.
Alternative E - Alternative E begins at SR 1104 and turns west off of SR 1105 and follows
SR 1190 (West Oak Island Drive) to the west end of the island where it crosses the
' Intracoastal Waterway and ties to SR 1112. As with Alternative D, SR 1112 will be
upgraded to it's intersection with NC 211.
I?
I An evaluation was performed on the second bridge alternatives after environmental impacts
I
were analyzed, quantities were completed and cost estimates were obtained. The five
alternatives were evaluated on the following major issues:
• Estimated Construction Costs
• Wetland Impacts
' • Protected Species Habitat
• Relocations
' Although all alternatives could limit wildlife species migration, potential impacts of the
alternatives vary. Because Alternative A traverses the study area's least productive wildlife
' 2-10
habitats, it poses relatively low impact to terrestrial species and only modest impact to
aquatic fauna migrating from tributaries of Mercer's Mill Creek. Alternatives B and C, both
of which divide diverse longleaf communities and pocosin habitats of varying quality, would
impose moderate limitations on foraging and migrating terrestrial wildlife. Of these two
alternatives, Alternative C is closer to aquatic habitats and therefore more likely to
negatively affect herptiles and other aquatic wildlife. Alternatives D and E cross some of
the richest habitats observed in the study area. In each case the alternative would impact
vernal pools and hydrology supporting their diverse fauna. Alternative D would also
separate Big Cypress Bay from habitat linking it to tidal and coastal marshes and wetlands.
Table 2.5.1 shows the relocations, wetland impacts, and costs associated with each of the
second bridge alternatives.
TABLE 2.5.1
PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS
IMPACT ALTERNATIVES '
A B: C D
Length - km(miles) 9.
39 (5.84)
7.55 (4.69)
8.27 (5.14)
12.38 7.68)
12.
M](7.

Total Cost $17,525,000 $15,975,000 $16,550,000 $20,650,000 $23
Relocations
Residences 10 10 10 18
Businesses 1 1 1 2 2
Total 11 11 I1 20 16
Wetlands - Hectares (Acres) 2.9 (7.2) 4.0 (9.9) 2.6 (6.4) 4.0 (9.9) 4.9 (12.1)
2.6 ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA '
Roadway design criteria was developed based on the purpose and need for this project. The
design criteria used for this project is shown in Table 2.6.1.
The right-of-way width is proposed to be a minimum of 30 meters (98 feet). Typical
2-11

TABLE 2.6.1
ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA
Type of Facility: Two-lane rural collector with partial access control.
Design Speeds: L-Line * 100 kmh (62.15 mph) minimum - North of Waterway
* 80 kmh (49.71 mph) minimum - Bridge over Waterway
* 65 kmh (40.39 mph) minimum - South of Waterway
Y-Line * 65 - 100 kmh (40.39 - 62.15 mph) minimum
Pavement Widths: L-Line * 9.6 m (32 ft); consisting of two 3.6 m (12 ft) lanes, and two 1.2 m (4 ft) full
depth paved shoulders.
Y-Line * varies 3.0 to 3.6 m (10 to 12 ft) lanes
Shoulder Widths: L-Line * Minimum usable width is 2.4 m (8 ft)
* Full depth paved width 1.2 m (4 ft) if traffic > 8000 ADT and 0.6 m (2 ft)
if traffic > 4000 but G 8000 ADT
' Y-Line
* * Varies, based on traffic volumes
Shoul ders will be increased by 1.0 m (3 ft) where guardrail is required.
Ditches: L-Line * V-Ditch with hinge point slopes
* Ditch slope 6:1 for 3.6 m (12 ft)
Y-Line * V-Ditch, varies depending on local or collector and ADT
Horizontal Curvature: L-Line * Minimum Radius:
100 kmh (62.15 mph) = 360 m (1181 ft)
65 kmh (40.39 mph) = 135m (443 ft)
* Spirals will be required.
Y-Line * Minimum Radius:
' varies depending on -Y-Line classification
Vertical Curvature: L-Line * Vertical Curvature Rate:
100 kmh; Crest K = 62 m - 105 m
Sag K = 37.m - 51 m
80 kmh; Crest K = 32 m - 49 m
Sag K=25m-32m
65 kmh; Crest K = 18 m - 25 m
i Sag K=17m-21m
Y-Line * varies depending on -Y-Line classification
Grades: L-Line * 5% maximum
Y-Line * varies depending on -Y-Line classification
Suoerelevation: L-Line * 10%
?i (e max.) Y-Line * 10%
* Norm al Crown is 2%
Slopes: 2:1 Max. Cut slopes, with hinge point varies to 6:1
2:1 Max. Fill slopes, with hinge point varies to 6:1
Bridge Structures: L-Line * Clear Roadway Width: (based on >4000 ADT)
9.6 m (32 ft) for bridge over Intracoastal Waterway
12 m (40 ft) for bridge over Big Davis Canal
* Vertical Clearances:
20.0 m (65 ft) over the Intracoastal Waterway
Use existing clearance over Big Davis Canal
* Horizontal Clearances:
27.4 m (90 ft) between pier footings for Intracoastal Waterway
Sources: "A Policy on Geomet ric Design of Highways and Streets, " AASHTO, 1990. NCDOT, Division of
Highways, Design Man ual.
' 2-12
sections, which include the mainline and cross roads, are shown in Exhibit 2.6.1. The United
States Coast Guard, in their letter dated February 23, 1995, states "for fixed bridges crossing
the Intracoastal Waterway, the established guide clearances require that the vertical clearance
at mean high water will be 20.0 meter (65 feet) and the horizontal clearance will be a
minimum of 27.4 meter (90 feet)
The facility is proposed to be a two-lane rural collector with partial access control. Access
will be limited onto the roadway. The number of driveways excepted depends on the size
of each parcel. All properties will be allowed at least one driveway access, but unlimited
access will be restricted.
2.7 ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
A comparison of the preliminary cost estimates for second bridge alternatives were made and
are tabulated in Table 2.7.1.
TABLE 2.7.1
SECOND BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES COST COMPARISONS
2-13
F
2.8 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR THE SECOND BRIDGE ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives A, B, and C
Design year 2020 average daily traffic (ADT) for the Alternatives A, B, and C range from
9,600 vehicles per day (vpd) for the off-peak to 13,700 vpd for the summer peak. The
' existing bridge will carry approximately 11,100 vpd for the off-peak and 14,800 vpd for the
summer peak. Design hourly volumes were estimated to be from nine to eleven percent, and
truck traffic between two and three percent of the ADT. The design year 2020 traffic
volumes are shown in Exhibit 2.8.1.
A segmental analysis was performed in two locations using the 2020 design year design
hourly volumes in the peak flow direction. Alternatives A, B, and C are expected to operate
I at level of service (LOS) D in both the off-peak and summer peak. The existing bridge will
operate at LOS D during the off-peak and LOS E during the summer peak. These results
are shown in Table 2.8.1.
I
[J

I

I
The two proposed intersections were analyzed based on the recommended configurations and
the 2020 design year traffic volumes. One intersection, SR 1500 and NC 211, will be
converted from a T-intersection to a four-legged, intersection with additional turn lanes, as
a result of the proposed project. At the intersection of SR 1105 and SR 1190, turn lanes will
be added to accommodate additional turning traffic. The results of the level of service
2-15
TABLE 2.8.1
ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS
analysis for the intersections are shown in Table 2.8.2.
During the design year, the two intersections are expected to experience unacceptable levels
of service during the summer peak. Signal warrants were checked for these two unsignalized
intersections. Both were predicted to meet at least one signal warrant each for both the off-
peak and summer peak in the design year.
The two intersections were then analyzed in the 2020 design year as signalized. Both are
expected to have acceptable levels of service with the exception of the summer peak when
the SR 1500/NC 211 intersection is expected to operate at LOS E. This intersection
experiences high turning and through traffic along NC 211, resulting in low levels of
service. No additional through lanes are currently planned along NC 211.
Alternatives D and E
Traffic projections for Alternatives D and E show that the usage on these two alternatives
will drop by 19% and 26%, respectively, as compared to Alternatives A, B and C.
2-16
TABLE 2.8.2
ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITH RECOMMENDED REVISIONS

Design year 2020 average daily traffic (ADT) for Alternative D ranges from 7,800 vpd for
the off-peak to 12,400 vpd for summer peak. The range for Alternative E is 7,100 vpd for
the off-peak to 10,200 vpd for the summer peak. The existing bridge will carry

I
I

I
approximately 12,900 vpd for the off-peak and 16,100 vpd for the summer peak for
Alternative D, and 13,600 vpd for the off-peak and 18,300 vpd for the summer peak for
Alternative E. The design year 2020 traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 2.8.2.
A segmental analysis was performed in two locations using the 2020 design year hourly
volumes in the peak flow direction. Alternative D is expected to operate at LOS C in the
off-peak and LOS D in the summer peak while the existing bridge will operate at LOS D in
the off-peak and LOS E in the summer peak. Alternative E is expected to operate at LOS
C in the off-peak and LOS D in the summer peak while the existing bridge will operate at
LOS E in both the off-peak and summer peak. These results are shown in Table 2.8.3.
TABLE 2.8.3
ALTERNATIVES D AND E
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS
I
1

1
1
1 2-18
2.9 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FOLLOWING DETAILED STUDY
Based on the higher potential wetland impacts, higher right-of-way and construction costs,
higher relocation impacts and lower traffic use, Alternatives D and E were determined not
reasonable and feasible and were eliminated from further consideration.
2.10 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended alternative will be selected following a corridor public hearing.
Comments received at the hearing and on the Environment Assessment will be considered
in this selection.
2-19

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT AREA
Brunswick County is located on the lower Atlantic Coastal Plain of southeastern North
' Carolina. The project area lies south of NC 211 from SR 1500 (Midway Road) at Smith to
SR 1104 (Beach Drive) in Long Beach and encompasses portions of Lockwoods Folly and
Smithville townships.
I Brunswick County is approximately 550,713 acres in size and is roughly 39 miles wide and
33 miles deep at the widest points. Mean annual temperature is 63.1 degrees fahrenheit and
annual rainfall averages 54.81 inches per year. The elevation of Brunswick County varies
from sea level to 75 feet above sea level.
' Siouan Indians, later called the Cape Fear Indians, were the native inhabitants of the area
that is now Brunswick County. The first European settlement was established on the banks
of the Cape Fear river in 1664. Hostilities between the natives and the settlers doomed the
initial attempts at settlement to failure and decades would' pass before permanent settlement
I would be realized.
' Tradition holds that the Cape Fear was a popular rendezvous for pirates and that they came
' there in great numbers (Lee 1978). While there is nothing in the records to indicate the truth
of this tradition, one infamous pirate, Stede Bonnet, is known to have met his fate upon the
Cape Fear. Bonnet, once a partner of Blackbeard, sailed up the Cape Fear in 1718 with two
prized stolen vessels and spent several weeks repairing his ships and dividing captured booty
with his men. Word reached Charlestown that the pirates were in the Cape Fear and Colonel
William Rhett was sent up the river in two heavily armed ships to seize them. After a
3-1

furious battle, Stede Bonnet was captured, along with his men, and taken as prisoner to
Charlestown where his dishonorable career came to an end on the gallows there. '
Permanent settlement along the Cape Fear was attained in the early 1700's. Brunswick
Town was officially recognized as a center of trade for the region in 1731, with the creation '
of the Port of Brunswick. A rival community, now known as Wilmington, was founded
upstream and drastically challenged the development of Brunswick Town. The determination
of local leaders to see Brunswick Town survive as a center of trade, stimulated a desire for
the formation of a separate county. Through the efforts of these leaders, on March 9, 1764, '
Brunswick County was officially formed from parts of New Hanover and Bladen counties. '
In the early days, rice was the most important crop in the county. Lumber and pine
derivatives, such as turpentine and resin, were also an important part of the economy.
Industry today includes a large nuclear power plant and chemical plants for producing
synthetic fibers, fertilizer and citric acid. Wood for paper mills is an important product and
significant amounts of woodlands are owned by paper companies. Fishing and tourism are
vital parts of the economy of Brunswick County. Large areas on Bald Head Island, Oak
Island, Holden Beach, Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach are used for summer residences
as well as year-round residences (Soil Conservation Service 1986). Emerging factors in the
Brunswick County economy include golf, sod production and the horticulture industry (fruits,
vegetables, and ornamental plants) (Carolina Business March 1995).
According to statistics compiled by the office of State Budget and Management, Brunswick
County continues to be the second fastest growing county of all 100 counties in the state of
North Carolina. From the 1960's to the present, the county has witnessed steady increases
in the number of newcomers, including a significant proportion of retirement population.
3-2

I
11

1

l

11
The racial composition of Brunswick County is predominantly white. Approximately 81.1
percent of the 1990 population was recorded as white, 18.1 percent black and 0.8 percent
of other races. Brunswick County is bordered on the west by Columbus County with a total
population of 49,587, to the north by Pender County (28,855), and to the east by New
Hanover County (120,284). Brunswick County is bordered on the south by South Carolina
and the Atlantic Ocean.
Retail sales in Brunswick County in 1990 totalled $339,802,000. The retail economy of
Brunswick County is highly seasonal in nature. From a seasonal low of approximately $20
explodes to levels in excess of $30 million per month during the peak summer season.
million during the months of December, January, February and March, the retail economy
No railroad lines are located within the project study area. Amtrak passenger service is
available at Fayetteville, approximately 117 miles from the study area. Brunswick County
Airport serves private aircraft in the area. Commercial airline service is available at the
New Hanover International Airport in Wilmington and at the Grand Strand Airport in Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina. Currently there is no public transport service or private carrier
serving the project area other than taxicabs.
Long Beach, the largest town within Brunswick County, is approximately 35 miles from
Wilmington, 117 miles from Fayetteville, and 158 miles from Raleigh. US 17, the major
thoroughfare of the region, is approximately 15 miles north of the study area and crosses
Brunswick County from a northeast to southwest direction, linking Wilmington to Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina. Other routes that connect to US 17 are NC 211 which crosses the
project study area, NC 87 and NC 133.
3-3
3.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 Population Characteristics
Brunswick County and its five island havens are among the quietest resort areas in the state.
The beaches have great family appeal because the local officials have worked hard to
preserve the ecology of the beach and dunes. Their efforts to protect the elements of
solitude and open sands have attracted permanent residents as well as visitors to the islands.
Oak Islands's three communities are village like in feeling, a characteristic of the entire
county (Morris 1993). The project study area includes portions of Long Beach, the largest
of Oak Island's communities, and is encompassed by Lockwoods Folly and Smithville
townships.
Beginning in the 1960's, Brunswick County experienced a period of unprecedented growth.
According to statistics compiled by the Office of State Budget and Management, Brunswick
County continues to be the second fastest growing county of all 100 counties in the state of
North Carolina. This trend is projected to continue through the year 2010. The population
growth of Brunswick County is considerably more than the growth of the state of North
Carolina as a whole. The highest percentage of growth has occurred in the beach areas and
on the mainland near the Intracoastal Waterway.
Although not all of the townships within Brunswick County have grown at the same rate,
Lockwoods Folly and Smithville townships have experienced growth similar to that of the
county. The coastal town of Long Beach, surpassing even the brisk growth of Brunswick
County, has more than doubled its population since 1980.
Table 3.2.1 compares the population trends of Brunswick County and North Carolina with
the trends of Lockwoods Folly and Smithville townships and Long Beach. While such census
3-4

I
I

I

1
a.
x
z
3
0
F
w
z
x a
F Ox
? d
?xU
U
x
ewa
W
.•aC7Z
OOA
z
dOOF
FWoo
UE?u
OaxU
W Fes"
O ?
z
ca a
z x
W W
F
z
0
c
.a
a
a

z
z
z N r
00 r-
00 r
>`c r
0
=N
¢ ¢ ¢ Q, X ¢ ¢ ¢ 00
z z z ? ? z z z °°
r
O
N..?
Os r
N oU
O o
O S
N-
?n 00 ?o ?n r Q Q Q M
O ? 00 oOO, lc? Z z z m
o rn n o 00 °o y
cc
O
a ? N
cc
,s

aN
a ?

00 ?t r kn 1- 00 rn kn r
M 00 00 r O vl
cr 00
m ,O
O N
7 N
r ,O Vl C
00 001-- CJ

;::;0 ?._.
?•?
ao
?U
a

a
3
L
3
x
F y T H y T
:1 Gq C ?' GG c
.,

'O H
v o
.-7 U
1
?
'O F
? o
.a U
X
OL

3
14

L

C
_
3
14
c
c
o z z
a cn H a H
t
information is based on year-round populations, it must be taken into account that due to the
seasonal nature of the coastal areas, other considerations exist which may affect the
population characteristics at any given time. Seasonal population considerations include;
property-owning summer residents, overnight visitors who rent beach accommodations for
the duration of their stay, and day visitors who come to the area to spend a few hours of
recreation on the island.
The racial characteristics of Brunswick County are comparable to the statewide percentages
of North Carolina, although, as a continued rapid influx of white residents have flocked to
Brunswick County, the percentage of black population has shown a consistent decline. The
white population of Brunswick County in 1990 was 41,303 persons a 50.9% increase from
1980. In comparison, North Carolina had a white population of 5,008,491 persons in 1990,
an increase of 12.3% from 1980. During the same time period the non-white population in
Brunswick County increased by 15.1%0, which is consistent with the increase of North
Carolina of 14.0%. It is interesting to note that while the black population of Brunswick
County increased by 11.2% between 1980 and 1990, the other non-white population showed
a dramatic increase of 235.8%. Of this other non-white population, the highest percentage
are Native American Indians, followed by Hispanics. Lockwoods Folly and Smithville
townships are predominately white, with a small percentage of non-white residents. The
Town of Long Beach has an even smaller non-white population (0.21 %), substantially lower
than the percentages for either the townships, the county, or the state. Table 3.2.2 compares
the racial characteristics of Brunswick County and North Carolina with the trends of
Lockwoods Folly and Smithville townships and Long Beach.
Population trends show that the retirement population of Brunswick County has steadily
increased. As shown in Table 3.2.3, Brunswick County has a higher percentage of residents
3-6

I

LJ
1
W
a
a
? Q
con O
A
QU
z5Q
x
?
z
OQ
NOS
?xz
FpU
U?
x?
Wp
U per,
xx
Q
z
UO
a F„
Q
U
Q
x
t? V V OC N O V' ?
W Q V

-O- N c, o
Z
F
- 1? - 00 [? O M Vt
C W O W G1 _
-y N N
ao
?
S ?
F -
O
0
a
a

?D f? M O V1 O M ?
m o? ? ?? N

m
00 ?O ? N M 00 ? ?D
W - ? O O O+

O G1 ? - T vt ?O N ? ^ O
? ? V' ? Gz7 O N ? v
F z ? N ? N N `
,
O

C N? ? ?? ?? T 5 M W 00 V
r? O o - ?; :.7 0. m ? o
x N ? S `? ?O N ?O

O O
?
0
a ^' ? M V ^• ? ? vi W a\ a\ N V

Q N ^? ? N ? N Q

m -
s
1? ? W v} O W M W 01 M

w
?
?
? 00 V1 O N
n ? W ? ? r Vl K Vl ^

x N ? x
3 ? 3
3 3
F T ?-' T
1
?
i 3 a c ? 3
o m
c
? [- U F U Q
'O iC ? A Y id ? A y
'O N U N
F >F ?F UE- 3 > N
3
Y
a
t '?-
c
0
s '?-,
Y
?
c t
u ?? 0 0 0 0 0 .E o 0

w
.a
a
x
F
a
?z
>U
of
wx
Az
N U
rim F
?zo
U
U
a3
oz
xx
?a
W ..
I??I
zz
O?
FF
a
x
a
a
el s &? s s
C, -It c;% N N O
O
* ?O N M o0
M C\ O
xz
F,
?o
oa
O
N
?O
a ? ao

NO
N
°
o 00
x
7 ,--? 00 N In ?c W

?t N N O ?c ?o 00
x r 00 N

3z
zo
x
U

z
m
°
?
0
0 00

,.'O °
N
-
r
..
00 0
0
0
o
?
<t
c

d m
1 00 %C?
W
U
p
'
O Nt 00
r 7
00 00
o 7
m N 00
. W Q r
;i:o a x
..cn
xz
F?
F
Vj r
O

I v'1
r
o0 N
r
N 00
N
?O 00
ao
Q
i
O
00 C) \0 0 ? s

a 00 O \0 00 N ?D O
V) r r a, In
Q
Gs'
W ,
•,
?x
A?
z
°
03
?O

F
x
o
a N
oo
N
kn r
?c
00 Zt ..

r N
o v? } F
o kn o
.-. N V1 ?o F
q
a
0
a.
a`

' over the age of 65 than does the state of North Carolina. From 1940 until 1990, the
percentage of total population 65 years or over within Brunswick County more than tripled.
3.2.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics
Brunswick County had a labor force of approximately 18,355 persons in 1990 and an
unemployment rate of 7.9%. The statewide unemployment rate of 4.1% for the same year
was substantially less. Reasons for the higher unemployment rate may include the large
retirement population entering the labor force after arriving in the county, the population
growth outpacing the ability of the local economy to provide jobs, and a large number of
jobs within the county being held by "in" commuters from surrounding counties. Of the
townships encompassing the project study area, Lockwoods Folly Township had the lowest
' unemployment rate in 1990 (5.4%) and Smithville township had the highest (7.3%), as
I shown in Table 3.2.4.
' The employment characteristics of Lockwoods Folly and Smithville townships, Long Beach,
and Brunswick County are, to some degree, different from statewide averages as shown in
Table 3.2.5. The percentage employed in wholesale trade and manufacturing within the
study area is less than that of North Carolina, while the percentage employed in retail trade,
construction, transportation, communication, and other utilities is greater. The Carolina
' Power and Light Company Nuclear Plant and Sunny Point Military Terminal account for the
' higher percentages employed in transportation, communication and utilities. The rapid
growth and development of the county has caused the work force involved in construction
to increase substantially. The majority of employed persons residing in Long Beach work
in the retail trade industry which appears to be largely tourist dependent.

1 3-9
x
0
w
A
wQ
z
00
w?
zU
x
E- E-
z 04
Naz
w 'Z
mAz?
E?..az
w
u o
a O
o C.?
x
OU
g?
?z
a0
QPo
a
U

m r p v
a o
,^ M
r ?p o ?

? M
`tSi ^I M
r M o M
Cl
°o

oc?
o
e

a

..y N
o a` o M
N M O ?
M

?

'-1 N
z
?
Q
U
U
3

° a

C
°
°
n ¢
z

a
¢
U a

C
E

a
cn o v o
?. Q
m z
A
z
-It
F
z
xa
00
wU
w?
O?
wa
z co
O?
Fa
..?
azo
aOQ
F
zax
?,aF
axz
o?
OA
oo z
t-0?
a
a
ao
>w
UA
O
O
x
U
O
a
:t? I r- I ?I 71- 11
M ?p M
s

c

L T
G
C
° p C
w O
U
b o
? x

L L I
? C

° ?
a m z

I
LJ

1

0
1

I
x
z
CZ
wa
a O
>U
x
Fx
rr F
?i
?O
A
?z
aF
oz
w0
BOO
Nox
M?U
U.
H?a
O?
?x
a?
Ow
z
ao
Fa
AO
zz
?o
zw
?F
O
a
a
w

Q a o r ?r N N - ? ? c
^' z ri r 1 ?: 7 vi r M
O F
ti N - N
y
C a 0 iD - C O N L^. O N
O
z Q Li M M [? yJ N Vl r Gp
? N
7 N ?D O M N ?D O
G1 N 00 N V1 Q\ t?l
x, o s e e
V ^?y el M p? N °0 r V N -- O
?..~:Z ? M ? ? N o0 Vt N 7 ?

,
:U
? ? p? O V N N W ?
.
i
.C7
C\
N
M
N
?D
?
!n
T N
N

V p? 7 r N 7 r N 00
O
It `. - O 7 M M vt M r
O W - N N
°3p
?o
o
F'
?
?p
r
N
V7
^
?p
a
r o
N r ?
N 7
Vl U
M vl
O? oo
M N
H
s s s° s o s s
W.? M 7 °0 00 O? V M M 00 0
0

" F
?? F r °
? M a` r o o rn

„? r ? N c, ?n ? v oo r C
l/]"'? U1 M - N O 'V Vl M
A - - N N
. z
°
o3
s
a o

..tea
o.
a
r A Q\ O O O M N °? N ?
w N ? v, O - ? O r ?

T m C
`n C G U N

W m Q .? ? C G

p 7 F ti
O .. L. G E .: U ^
W U U Q
L L G
m C C U
G O rd _
ca ?
G L ?
w v = U a 3 a w z a F

Per capita personal income for North Carolina increased by approximately 150% between
1970 and 1980 and by another 75% between 1980 and 1988 to a level of $14,297. Income
levels grew at a slightly slower rate for Brunswick County during the two periods as shown
in Table 3.2.6. Lockwoods Folly Township had a per capita personal income that was
slightly less than that of Brunswick County in 1990, while Smithville Township had a per
capita personal income that was substantially higher than that of Brunswick County.
TABLE 3.2.6
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME FOR BRUNSWICK COUNTY
AND NORTH CAROLINA
PER CAPITA INCOME FOR LOCKWOODS FOLLY AND
SMITHVILLE TOWNSHIPS, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, AND NORTH CAROLINA
1990
Lockwoods Folly Township $10,334
Smithville Township $14,126
Brunswick County $11,688
North Carolina $12,885
As seen in Table 3.2.7, the mean commute time in minutes for Brunswick County (22.2
min.) is slightly higher than that of North Carolina (19.8 min.). The employed residents of
Lockwoods Folly Township had slightly longer commuting times than the statewide average
3-12
1
1
1
1
1
A
z
a?
Op
CG
AV
ox
O
3a
U O
O I"az
o?
w?
F
FV
N
QFZ .?
W 0.
z?
00
3F
Ow
F a
C7 ?
zx
O
zz
a ?
0:F
U:
CC-
O.Q
W

a X O .n c a Vl
o x
3

r
z
;w z
M t? M N

W
0
.a
s
3
F
T T
3
F'
U C
c
'? y Y
J
td
o =
L 3 U
?
ti C
` L
m z
s
00
a
M ?
e
M ?

T
C
7 N
C
U
o
Y

3 U

C

m` z
in 1990, while the commuting times for Smithville Township were slightly shorter. The
largest percentage drove to work alone and very few used public transportation. In 1980
there were slightly more commuters going. out of Brunswick County than were coming in.
This is attributable to the employment opportunities associated with the Wilmington urban
area to the north.
3.2.3 Neighborhood and Community Cohesion
The project study area begins at the intersection of Middleton Avenue and Beach Drive
within the Town of Long Beach. Middleton Avenue is a dividing line between the areas
known as Mid Town and the West End of Long Beach. The homes in this area are
predominately conventional, single-family dwellings; consistent with the low-rise, family-
retirement beach community atmosphere of the island. One business, a convenience
store/gas station, is located on Middleton Avenue at the Davis Canal bridge.
The project study area crosses land that is undeveloped until it reaches NC 211 and the
intersection with SR 1500 (Midway Road). This area is known locally as Midway because
it is the half-way point between Southport and Supply. However, it is referred to as Smith
on state road maps. Rural homesteads and small farms are scattered in this area. A
convenience store/gas station is located on the west side of SR 1500 at the intersection with
NC 211.
3.3 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
3.3.1 Existing Land Use
The project study area lies south of NC 211 from SR 1500 (Midway Road) at Smith to SR
1104 (Beach Drive) in Long Beach. The area surrounding the intersection of NC 211 and
SR 1500 is rural and residential in nature and comprised mainly of single-family dwellings.
3-14

I

F

1
1

I
A convenience store/gas station, Midway Trading Post, is also located at this intersection.
The project area spans in a southerly direction across large vacant and undeveloped tracts
of land, owned by approximately five property owners. The study area then crosses a large
parcel of land along the Yellow Banks, on the north side of the Intracoastal Waterway. This
parcel is owned by the State Property Office, with a permanent easement granted to the
United States Army Corp of Engineers, to be utilized for dredging operations. The study
area then crosses the Intracoastal Waterway onto Oak Island and follows SR 1105 (Middleton
Avenue) to SR 1104. Middleton Avenue is lined with conventional, predominately single-
family dwellings and scattered vacant lots. Another convenience store, the Beach Pantry,
is located at the corner of Middleton Avenue and East Dolphin Drive.
The expanded project study area follows West Oak Island Drive from the intersection with
Middleton Avenue to the southwest end of Long Beach where it crosses the Intracoastal
Waterway and follows SR 1112 (Sunset Harbor Road) to the intersection with NC 211. West
Oak Island Drive is lined with single family homes and scattered vacant lots. SR 1112 is
lined with a mixture of rural homesteads and small subdivisions. The Sunset Harbor-Zion
Hill Volunteer Fire Department is located along SR 1112.
A high percentage of the property in Long Beach, particularly in the project study area, is
zoned residential. Much of the town consists of subdivided lots which have been sold to
individual owners encouraging high density development. The street pattern of this section
of Long Beach is comprised of a long, rectangular grid system, restricting east-west traffic
mobility. The properties along Big Davis Canal are approximately 50% developed. Beach
front properties are among the most popular in the project study area and most have been
developed.
3-15
A limited amount of commercial development and zoning exists along East and West Dolphin
Drive. There are no industrial land uses in the project study area.
Public and semi-public land uses in the project study area include a neighborhood and
regional public beach access site at the end of Middleton Avenue. The town maintains a bike
route which follows Middleton Avenue, for a short distance, between West Pelican Drive
and East Dolphin Drive.
The Long Beach zoning ordinance embraces an open space zoning district to provide
protection for areas of environmental concern. The Davis Canal area is designated as an
open space district.
3.3.2 Land Use Plannine
The coastal regions of North Carolina have experienced rapid growth and development in
recent years. Brunswick County continues to be one of the fastest growing counties in the
state. Factors contributing to the increased growth of the coastal area include; the
attractiveness of the natural features of the area, increased disposable income and greater
emphasis on leisure time, and a growing elderly/ retirement population. Advance planning
is imperative to protecting and enhancing the coastal area, both for the residents and the
protection of the natural elements that drew them there in the first place. Recognizing this
great need for planning, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the Coastal Area
Management Act of 1974, requiring local governments in the coastal area to develop land
use plans and update them every five years.
The first Brunswick County Land Use Plan was adopted in 1976, with updates in 1981,
1987, and 1992. Many municipalities within the county have developed independent land

3-16
I

1
I

1

1
1
1

I
use plans. The municipality of Long Beach has adopted "The Town of Long Beach, North
Carolina. 1993 Land Use Plan." The Brunswick County Land Use Plan encourages
development, as long as the natural environment is not compromised. The Town of Long
Beach desires to maintain the town's "family" oriented, retirement-resort atmosphere and
therefore encourages development only where and when adequate facilities and services to
support it are maintained. The project study area spans the jurisdiction of the land use plans
of both Brunswick County and The Town of Long Beach.
To analyze developing land use patterns and identify future land use needs, a system of land
classification is used by both land use plans. As shown in Exhibit 3.3.1, Brunswick County
has classified the land from NC 211 at SR 1500 to the extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ)
limits of the Town of Long Beach as urban transition, rural, conservation, and limited
transition. The area from the ETJ limits of the Town of Long Beach to the Intracoastal
Waterway is classified as urban transition. Most of the project study area on Long Beach
is classified as developed residential, conservation (Davis Canal) and developed commercial.
3.3.3 Transportation Planning
The proposed project is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) for planning through early 1997, design through 1998, right-of-way
acquisition beginning in 1997 and construction beginning in 1998.
No local governments develop transportation plans for the project area. The only long-range
transportation plans encompassing the study area are developed by the Statewide Planning
Branch of NCDOT. The project is included in the Brunswick County Thoroughfare Plan and
is considered the number one priority.
3-17
3.3.4 Emergency Evacuation Planning
Evacuation Need and Planning
The "Brunswick County Hurricane Evacuation Plan" was developed to provide for an orderly
and coordinated evacuation in order to minimize the effects of hurricanes on residents and
visitors of Brunswick County. An underlying objective of the plan is to minimize physical
damage, injury and loss of life in the event of a hurricane threat.
The "North Carolina Emergency Response Plan in Support of the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant" was developed to provide for an orderly and coordinated evacuation in the event of
an accident at Carolina Power and Light's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, commonly known
as the Brunswick Nuclear Plant.
In case of an accident at the Sunny Point Military Terminal, the Army is the lead agency and
will handle any necessary evacuation of the terminal. If it would become necessary to
evacuate areas of Brunswick County, the Army would contact the Brunswick County Office
of Emergency Management who would invoke the "Brunswick County Multi Hazard Plan".'
The Multi Hazard Plan is the County's general evacuation plan which would be used in all
situations except for a hurricane or an accident at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant.
Sunny Point is not licensed as a commercial port, therefore, by law it can only be used as
a loading and unloading facility. Although the Army transports highly enriched spent
nuclear fuel rods through this terminal, the likelihood of an accident is minimal since the
cargo cannot be stored there.
Evacuation Clearance Time
The measure of public safety that can be attained in the event of an emergency is the evacua-
3-18
r .o i t ?¦ r? r ..? +? . r r ..? A .? r .r ?¦ r

?2
> I
11
'
I
o r r m
o
?g m m m
0 o z
z z
C C > >
m f*1 f?l
N u
)
m o

m ?
z z

m o
0
C -
IM
A
m
m
z
D
d
m
w
v
D
z
v
m
1
II
1
0 0
in
N
3
rn
I
D
r
D
z
1
A
0
A
m
D
z
I \ / J /

1
I' :1 I 1

I
I a ::
?1 II ?G
I
0c
0
OD U.
oc

oc

H
ii S
I
I I? g

L II A
I
I
I
I
1
r
0
m 1 `
D;
=
R:
i?
1
I
/
I
rll5i
0
0

N m
N CD
2
p
O® Q
? x13
? n _
M' Q
?CD
m AD zp
Er
O
x °o o%D
< o
Q
N =
Q
?? P=o
.
m
m Q
N (
1)
W -
w?
m
0
0

5.
3z
m w
n
CDs
Co
o
(D ^?
rt 0
RIVER
I :I,

LOOKWOODS FOLLY INLET /
z _... _.
m /
1
-a3miwgal
\'. N J
O
1 100
I?
=1
Z
m
v
I I?JV
N ?
I I o °o
O
.g
I?
a
fN;
o ?I
j I
1
A I
jl
i!
?sl z?` M1e.
0
I I C\ _ I
w /a
i'/ 000
I .
N O
/a
CA 0 SR
0
Fn
2
Ov
rn
0
0
c
0
0
1
1
/
/ 0 00
\' C O
n O
00 W

J \ >
m(D

'o U)
mz
o
0
O
ti
1
i
\ N co
O Ln
O 0
I 00
\ 0OD
O
00
\
\
i
1
>o
(P V
00
O
c
W A
J
000
OD J
00 00
Z ? y
z
mz
ti Z
w w= m m m m? m r w m w m m m m i
? m = w wwm? mim m mmmmmm mm
mm mim m' m mm mm r m mm mm m mm

m
?D
r

m (a

? m
N ug
3
?A

a 2
ka
E
? 3
Jim o N m N N
g 3
o
xo AO w b S

C (n
to4a? I
? g D

?°m
w
3
E
<

rn
a C7
y ,ri m N
a 3
g
_ m 3
Z a
m NN is
3

m fn N
o
;
c z

G ?
_ w
!
? ? ?0
N 3
?
n N

r --- ----- -------
A
--
n
G
r2 I
cg mN
I g Z
V
I IO D f ?
13 N?'
?7 3N 1 ?'

s G b
ry?L T
v
? 3
0
9'

?i -c
D >
HE? N N

-j `D

330 -

M-K- g 23

F 'm
Z
=ao r - - -g
O A
A (n
%* M
Zm 3
3
<

V
f N
3 0A
°s?
cZ
o-
;

-x- -1F
I nD
In
O
D
A ?
z
y
o? S p?

CD y
CD

7&
m
A
N O
2 Q
8
o
A
TT
W `?` Tye

`v m M
Z
0
4
M 0
;L
=r ID
0

? O

1
/
W

X y N a
N

10 M
ID
LA " ?* 0

r ? ? r ? ? i ? ? r i ? !1 r ? t ? ? ?
m = r = = m = m = = w = = = m m m
® 0
* m
m x
x 0
0 z
m --[
m
g
n
D
r
mm
G
0
m
Cl)

0
1n
D
r
El* *
= n
c =
0 0
= r
m N
(n

LOU(WOODS FOLLY INLET

?
i
i om_..._
I
z-4
I I I / ',

-.1 I l

? I
I ., ?xA 1
S 1
D I ?l II sR
I
r z
m
zz I r ?..

Il
?
I
?
;9j ?
n
?
I
I
?° tills ? a I
sd 1105
(MID LETON AVE)
I I
m -o ?T
m 71 U)
0 D
C: D :d
z
m
m
n
m
I m
D
I ?
z
z
i m
n
r
I ::i
m
\ I
N ?
0
F
3
3
m I
I
II
co
m 9:: 1>
I 1
?
! .
q<T

0 O !` i
x8
! I I \'9i?gT'`
9
1
= 4
M
Y .
m
t\?
D a;
/
m

to Is

':

o
I

L-A

a
0o
m l ° I
v

is .a° Aso 8°

?N
110

+
rs
a
? •1 I'
/a c p a D

I Di j I V
I
r s ,?$0. ym s
?
n

w
C
03
/ l

o u I

x z 1
I? ( I
F `1
I j
jc=
coo
CD
\^
W /
?l Q
-3
13 ??

?l m
ID Q 0
`Y
N 0 0
m
x SD
s
Q (D

J
I
I
mm
s. $
7 Dz
m w0
n
-Im
Q
0 om
m M
M A
RIVER
1
/ J
/ a
\
1
\
\
qq, -
SR
1111 xo
W
1
x
11??n? 1 ?n eb !
I
I
\
/
\6Fq
SWARP
e ®.
z
o/

?n
/D': ? °
:%?? m?
m
4 s
Qog ?

N
ao

e
l: .y
_.m
a

gm r
\ m ®.
i
. I
e n
(A
y
00,
0 Z
?§ C
90 m
oN

s
?_ a m
epg
?C
9 P °
? (?)
y ZD
m i m = m m m = m = m = m = = m ?

m D!W D O
0
?1 y! Z M

-0
Z n O
O m
Z
(? ?0 p m
m -i rr7 -i z
c) A
r m m M

X
S
Ur
W
Oi
J
C13
w CD
O
A
an ?
7 CM
Z
O
Q
m ?
0
C.
M
? N
RN
3 OZ
m ?0
M=
n
D -m
0
o
? rt
N A
--
y
G-?
Long Beach
Atlantic Ocean
1
i01

C+

X
s
c
GJ
a
J

O
O
CL
o
9'
N
I
I
V/
W
O
Q.
o
CIO
z
R o
Sr O
C) pr
0
m F
Q
n„
1
3
m FZ
0
O
? ao
°o
m ?
A. 2
i
Long Beach
Atlantic Ocean

tion clearance time. This is the time required for all evacuating vehicles to reach a safety
area. Clearly, the less time required, the higher the level of public safety.
' Although the National Hurricane Center can track approaching hurricanes several days in
advance, the precise location and time the hurricane hits the coast, as well as its severity,
cannot be determined until much later. For a variety of reasons it is not practical to issue
evacuation warnings until evacuation is considered necessary. Therefore, such warnings may
not be issued until just hours before the hurricane is expected to strike.
' In the event of an accident at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant there may be little if any
notification that evacuation is necessary, and evacuation may be ordered without warning.
According to the "Brunswick County Hurricane Evacuation Plan" and the "North Carolina
Emergency Response Plan in Support of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant", it is estimated
' that current evacuation times would range between 4.5 and 8 hours depending on the season
and weather conditions.
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Schools
1 The Brunswick County school system is comprised of five elementary schools, four middle
schools, three high schools and the Brunswick Learning Center. All public school students
residing in the project study area attend Southport Elementary School, South Brunswick
Middle School and.South Brunswick High School. Students residing in the Sunset Harbor
area attend Supply Elementary School, Shallotte Middle School, and West Brunswick High
School.
1 3-20
Three school buses travel twice a day along each of the primary roads in the study area.
These roads include NC 211, SR 1500 (Midway Road), Middleton Avenue, and Oak Island
Drive.
Brunswick Community College is located in Supply with satellite campuses at Southport and
Leland. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington is the nearest four-year college.
3.4.2 Churches and Cemeteries
No churches or cemeteries are located within the project study area. As shown in Exhibit
3.4. 1, churches of various denominations are located within the surrounding area. Churches
in close proximity to the study area include:
• Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall
Approximately 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) north of NC 211 on SR 1500
• Midway Apostolic Church
Approximately 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) west of the intersection of
NC 211 and SR 1500
• Oak Island Presbyterian Church
Approximately 1.4 kilometers (0.9 miles) east of Middleton Avenue on
East Oak Island Drive
3.4.3 Parks and Recreation
Long Beach, the longest beach on Oak Island, has eight miles of coastline on one side and
the Intracoastal Waterway on the other side. Many boaters, skiers and fisherman are
attracted to the Intracoastal Waterway. The coastline provides unlimited recreational
opportunities in a family-oriented atmosphere for children as well as adults.
3-21

' In July 1991, the Town of Long Beach adopted an Ocean and Estuarine Access Plan that
identifies 55 oceanside access sites, 10 Estuarine access sites and two comprehensive
recreational facilities; Long Beach Recreational Center and Middleton Park. Other town
maintained facilities include:
' • a cabana
• handicapped beach access facilities
' a scenic walkway
' • a crab dock
• a canoe ramp and two boat ramps
• the Robin Schuster Park at the end of Oak Island Drive
• the Malcom Register Memorial Park at 52nd street
' a neighborhood park at 21st street
The town also maintains a.bike route which is approximately 8 miles long and extends past
' 34 of the town's shoreline access sites.
The Long Beach Recreational Center employs full-time year-round recreational personnel.
Many community functions are held at the recreational center, including classes and special
events for residents of all ages. Twice a week the recreation center houses a nutritional
' lunch program for area senior citizens.
' Brunswick County provides recreational parks and services at various sites throughout the
county. The Smithville Park located on NC 133 is closest to the project study area. Other
attractions in the Southport/Oak Island area include numerous championship golf courses,
the Orton Plantation and Gardens, the Brunswick Town State Historic Site, the Southport
' Maritime Museum, and the CP&L Visitor Center. The Southport-Fort Fisher Ferry may be
1 3-23
taken to visit the Fort Fisher Civil War Museum and the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort
Fisher.
3.4.4 Additional Community Services
The Town of Long Beach operates a full-time police department. Fire protection is provided
to Long Beach by two fire stations manned by a 28-member volunteer fire department. Fire
Station One is located at the Municipal Building Complex on Oak Island Drive. Fire Station
Two is currently located on Oak Island Drive between 1st and 2nd Street Southeast,
however, it will soon be replaced by a new fire station at Middleton Avenue and Oak Island
Drive. The mainland is served by the Southport Volunteer Fire Department.
Emergency medical services are provided to Oak Island by the Long Beach volunteer rescue
squad, based near Fire Station One. The mainland is served by the Southport Rescue Squad.
A mutual aid agreement exists between the rescue squads of Long Beach and Southport and
the Brunswick County Medical Emergency Services.
Two hospitals are located in close proximity to the project study area; Dosher Memorial
Hospital in Southport and Brunswick Hospital in Supply. Specialized medical care is
available in Wilmington at the New Hanover Regional Memorial Hospital and the Cape Fear
Memorial Hospital. Mental health services are provided for the county by Southeastern
Mental Health, located in the Bolivia Government Complex.
3.4.5 Archaeological and Historic Architectural Properties
Archaeological Resources
Presently, there are no archaeological sites in the study area listed in the National Register
of Historic Places. Based on the results of the archaeological and historical background
3-24

I

11

I Places, included on the National Register Study List or considered to be 50 years of age or
report prepared for the project, the probability of archaeological sites occurring within the
study area is low. The most probable location for archaeological sites is along the rims of
the Carolina Bays. If the Preferred Alternative impacts any of the Carolina Bays in the study
area, an archaeological survey of the bay and the rim area will be conducted.
Historic Architectural Properties
A historic architectural resources survey was conducted and the results were compiled in
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
(36 CFR 800) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Phase
1 Reconnaissance Level Survey is presented in "Phase 1 Architectural Reconnaissance
Survey, Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County", (Mattson and Associates, January
20, 1995).
The methodology for the survey consisted of background research into the historical and
architectural development of the area and a field survey of the area of potential effect for the
project (APE). The field survey was conducted to identify all properties at least 50 years
of age.
The study area contains no properties currently listed in the National Register of Historic

I older.

L
3.5 UTILITIES
3.5.1 Electric Power Transmission
The Brunswick County Electric Membership Corporation provides electrical service for the
project study area. As shown in Exhibit 3.5.1, a 30.5 meter (100 foot) power transmission
3-25
line right of way easement follows the west side of SR 1500, crosses NC 211 and extends
in a north-south direction towards Long Beach. The transmission line, which carries a
voltage of 69 kilovolts, crosses the Intracoastal Waterway to a substation on Oak Island.
Brunswick County Electric Membership Corporation is currently in the process of purchasing
right of way along East Yacht Drive for another power transmission line to the Oak Island
Station.
The Town of Long Beach has implemented a program to locate all utilities underground
within the next 10 to 15 years. The Brunswick County Electric Membership installs lines
underground as required.
3.5.2 Water Service
The Brunswick County Water System serves municipalities and unincorporated areas
throughout the county. Brunswick County draws its water from the Cape Fear river and the
Castle Hayne Aquifer. A water treatment plant is located on the southern side of NC 211,
approximately 4.7 kilometers (2.9 miles) east of the intersection with SR 1500.
The Town of Long Beach obtains its treated water from Brunswick County and operates its
own water distribution system. All areas of the town are provided with water service. The
system includes two elevated 300,000 gallon water storage tanks. The majority of the water
lines are 6 inches or larger. Exhibit 3.5.1 shows the approximate location of water
distribution lines crossing the project study area.
3.5.3 Sewer Service
Due to the size and the scattered development patterns of Brunswick County, a centralized
sewage treatment plant is not provided. Municipalities are individually addressing the issue
3-26

' of sewage treatment for their communities. The residences and businesses in Long Beach
' rely upon septic systems for sewage disposal.
1 3.5.4 Natural Gas Service
' Natural gas service is not available within the project study area.
1 3.5.5 Communications
Atlantic Telephone provides telephone service to the portion of the study area located along
NC 211 and SR 1500. A remote office hub is located on the western side of SR 1500 near
' the intersection of NC 211, situated between an electric power sub-station and a convenience
store/gas station.
Southern Bell provides telephone service to the Long Beach area. Exhibit 3.5.1 shows the
approximate location of buried copper filled cables and fiber optic cables within the project
I study area
1 3.5.6 Railroads
' As previously discussed in Section 1.6.2, no railroad lines are located within the project
study area.
' 3.6 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.6.1 Floodplains and Floodways
Brunswick County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
Intracoastal Waterway is designated as Zone AE by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) with a 100-year base flood elevation of 3.66 meters (12 feet) while the
' remainder of the study area is designated Zone C as an area of minimal flooding.
1 3-28
The area between the Intracoastal Waterway and NC 211 is a relatively flat and poorly
drained soft sandy area with dense undergrowth and several Carolina Bays. Stormwater is
carried from the area by way of shallow, poorly defined swales to the Intracoastal Waterway.
At the proposed crossing of the corridors over the Intracoastal Waterway, the 100-year base
flood is contained within the waterway's banks. Due to the projects close proximity to the
Atlantic Ocean, the greatest risk of flooding would be due to a hurricane, rather than due
to stormwater discharge.
The 100 year floodplain for the study area is shown on Exhibit 3.6.1.
3.6.2 Hydrology and Drainage
One existing bridge is located within the project limits, Bridge No. 206 on SR 1105 over
Davis Canal. This is a 5-span treated timber bridge with a total length of 48.95 meters (161
feet) and a clear roadway width of 7.21 meters (24 feet). The existing bridge built in 1963
is decayed and in poor condition. Some scour is present at the bents.
Davis Canal is an estuarine stream only navigable to small boats. The bridge is on a tangent
alignment with a 90 degree skew to Davis Canal. The highwater indicated on the piles is
3.5 meters (12 feet) below the top of the cap.
3.6.3 Geology. Topography, and Soils
Brunswick County lies on the lower Coastal Plain of North Carolina, with soils formed from
coastal plain sediment or sediment deposited by streams. Drainage is often poor due to low
gradients, especially in Carolina Bays and other depressions in the landscape.
3-29

i

1
I
Geology
The project area occurs on two geologic formations of the Coastal Plain physiographic
region. Most of the project area lies on the Waccamaw Formation, Tertiary-aged
marine-deposited sediments, composed mostly of unconsolidated fossiliferous sands, silts,
and clays (Brown 1985). Beginning 1.0 to 1.4 kilometers (0.6 to 0.9 miles) north of the
Intracoastal Waterway, the Waccamaw Formation is overlain by Quaternary-aged deposits
of unconsolidated gravels, sands, and clays, originally deposited in marine or lacustrian
environments (Brown 1985). The dividing line between these formations is an ill-defined
scarp, located on the north side of Ash Swamp and continuing westerly through the entire
project area. Oak Island is composed completely of Quarternary-aged deposits. After the
Tertiary-aged sediments were deposited, about 16 Carolina Bays formed on the surface of
these deposits.
Topography
Elevation in the project study area ranges from mean sea level (MSL) to a high of 19.0
meters (63 feet). The maximum elevation of about 19 meters (63 feet) occurs between the
two largest Carolina Bays in the central portion of the project area. North of this point, the
elevation drops to about 14 meters (45 feet) at Midway, a slope of about 2 percent. South
of this point, the elevation drops to sea level at the Intracoastal Waterway, a slope of about
8 percent. Descending the scarp to the Quaternary-aged deposits largely accounts for the
steeper slope. Soils in the southern portion of the project area are better-drained, except for
Ash Swamp and the area surrounding an unnamed creek.
I
Soils

I
JI
Soils mapped in the study area are shown in Table 3.6.1. The Kureb-Wando association
includes excessively drained soils that are sandy throughout and occur on nearly level to
3-31
TABLE 3.6.1 ,
SOILS MAPPED IN THE STUDY AREA (USDA SCS 1989, BARNHILL 1986)
`HYDRIC SERIES SYMBOL DRAINAGE
CLASS FLOODING
FREQ.' FLOODING.
- DUW INCLUSIONS:
(SOILS)'
Croatan CT Very Poor Rare-Common Verv Long 25% (To. Mu, Pn)
Croatan, Flooded CT Very Poor Frequent Long
Croatan, Periled CT Very Poor Rare
Dorovan Do Very Poor None-Common Very Long 10% (Mk)
Leon" Lo Poor None-Rare Brief-Long 20% (Mu. Tot, Ma)
Leon. Flooded" Lo Poor Rare-Common Brief-Long
Muckalee Mk Poor Frequent Brief
Murville Mu Very Poor None-Rare 20% (To, CT, Lo)
Pantego Pn Very Poor None-Rare 20% (To, We, Ra)
Pantego, Flooded Pn Very Poor Common Long-Very Long
Pantego, Ponded Pn Very Poor None
Rains Ra Poor None 15% (Wo. Pn, Ly, GT)
Rains, Flooded Ra Poor Common Brief
Torhunta To Very Poor None-Common Brief 25% (Pn. Mu, CT, To)
"UPLAND SERIES SYMBOL DRAINAGE.CLASS LONGLEAF INCLUSIONS (SOILS)'.
SITE ,
INDEX (50)
Baymeade BaB Well 65 20% (BnB, Krb, Fo, On, Lo)
Kutch Krb Excessive 52 159 (Wall, Boll, BaB. Ma, Lo. Mu) '
Mandarin Ma Somewhat Poor 60 20% (Lo, Tm) '
Newhan NhE Excessive -- 20% (BO, YaB)
Tomahawk Tin Somewhat poor to 70 20% (Fo, Lo, We, BaB) ,
Moderate
Wando WaB Excessive 70 20% (Pa, Krb, Ma, BaB. Lo)
Woodington" Wo Poor 20% (Fo. Ra, Lo, To) '
* BnB = Blanton, BO = Bohicket, Fo = Foreston, Gt = Grifton, Ly = Lynchburg, On = Onslow, PaA = Pactolus.
** Leon and Woodington do not appear on the USACOE list (Environmental Lab 1987) but are on the NC Hydric soils list (SCS 1989). ,
3-32 ,

sloping uplands. The Leon-Murville-Mandarin association includes soils that are very
' poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained with a weakly cemented subsoil. The
published soil map suggests that approximately 37 percent of the entire study area includes
' hydric soils (e.g., Pantego, Murville, and Muckalee). The soil maps also indicate that about
25 percent of the area includes soils which are dry (such as Kutch and Mandarin). About
38 percent of the study area is mapped as Leon, which may demonstrate hydric soil
characteristics. At numerous locations, observed soil traits do not match characteristics
' published (Barnhill 1986) for the mapped units. Hence, much of the area mapped as Leon
does not fit the characteristic Leon profile, which includes a black layer (5YR 2/1) at 35 to
' 43 centimeters (14 to 17 inches). Instead, soils in these areas often appear to be either
Woodington, which is gray (10YR 5/1) at that depth, or Mandarin, which is dark brown
' (7.5YR 3/2) at that depth. A large area mapped as Rains and an adjacent area mapped as
I Murville also do not match the characteristic soil color profiles.
' Generally, field observations concur with the description of "Pine Barrens" soils offered by
Ashe and Pinchot (1897). They note that "the soils are almost pure sand, containing very
little clayey ingredients; loose, coarse-grained, dry on the surface, even soon after a rain,
fresh below but becoming dry to a considerable depth, and usually with no differentiable
subsoil. But in the smaller areas there is a top-soil of sand, often shallow, especially around
' the edges where stiffer loams form a more fertile subsoil" (p. 152). On-site examination and
' sampling revealed that extensive areas outside the large Carolina bays and isolated
depressions are excessively drained. In some places, deep sands are seemingly incapable of
' sustaining any but minimal vegetation growth. Hydric soils and wetland considerations are
discussed further in Section 4.1.
' The large amount of dredge spoil deposited along the Intracoastal Waterway on the mainland
1 3-33
creates a uniquely artificial landscape feature. Similar to a sand dune in structure, the area
has in some places given rise to early successional invaders but remains largely barren and
subject to wind induced movement. Frequent recreational traffic and ensuing disturbance
also counters potential vegetation establishment.
3.6.4 Mineral Resources
A number of sand and gravel mines are located in Brunswick County, but none are in the
project study area. The Yellow Banks confined (diked) disposal facility (CDF) is located
along the north side of the Intracoastal Waterway and covers approximately 50 hectares (123
acres). The Yellow Banks CDF is a disposal site for maintenance dredging along this section
of the Intracoastal Waterway. The US Army Corps of Engineers, in their Environmental
Assessment dated September, 1995, propose to use dredged material from Yellow Banks to
create and restore sea turtle nesting habitat along 3,720 meters (12,200 feet) of beach front
on Oak Island that has experienced excessive erosion over the past 20 years. Other benefits
to their proposed project will include erosion protection of oceanfront development and
increased disposal capacity in the Yellow Banks CDF. Exhibit 3.6.2 identifies the
approximate location of the Yellow Banks CDF.
3.6.5 Hazardous Materials Sites and Underground Storage Tanks
A survey was conducted to identify known and potential hazardous materials sites, hazardous
waste generators and underground storage tanks (USTs) within the study area. Because no
single comprehensive source of information is available which identifies all known and
potential hazardous materials sites and USTs within the study area, the survey consisted of
the following tasks.
• Conducting a field investigation within the study area to identify and ,
investigate sites with evidence of underground storage tanks or a potential of
I
3-34

containing or utilizing hazardous materials.
' Evaluating aerial photography and tax maps to identify land uses and property
information within the study area.
'
'
, • Examining records at the following agencies:
' North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
' Groundwater Section
Division of Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Section
Hazardous Waste Section
' Superfund Section
• Contacting representatives of the following agencies:
1 - Brunswick County Solid Waste Management
- Brunswick County Fire Marshall
' - Brunswick County Department of Emergency Management
- Brunswick County Landfill
- Brunswick County Inspections
As a result of the survey, two potential underground storage tank sites were identified within
the study area. Exhibit 3.6.3 identifies the approximate location of each identified site. A
' description of each investigated site follows.
Site No. 1: Midway Trading Post
NC 211 at SR 1500 (Midway Road)
Mike Richards, Ltd., Tank Owner
' Tank ID #: 0-022965
2-8,000 gallon gasoline tanks, installed 1986
Both tanks:
' Material: Steel
Interior Protection: Cathodic Protection
Exterior Protection: Unknown
There is also an above ground, 500 gallon, diked, kerosene tank at this location.
Site No. 2: Beach Pantry
' S. Middleton Ave. at E. Dolphin Dr.
Acme Oil Co., Inc., Tank Owner
Tank ID #: 0-022862
2-4,000 gallon gasoline tanks
3-36
All tanks:
Material: Steel
Interior Protection: None
Exterior Protection: Paint
According to an employee of the Beach Pantry, the two recorded 4,000 gallon tanks were
removed early in 1995 and were replaced with a new 10,000 gallon tank and a 8,000 gallon
tank.
An examination of records at the Solid Waste Branch and Superfund Branch revealed that
1) no dump sites or sanitary landfills exist within the study area, 2) no sites listed on the
CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environment Response Compensation and Liability Information
System) exist within the study area and 3) no sites listed on the NC NPL (National Priority
List) exist within the study area. The project study area lies within a ten mile radius of
Carolina Power and Light's Brunswick Nuclear Plant which is listed on the North Carolina
Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory and on the CERCLIS.
3.6.6 Air Oualitv
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions from internal combustion
engines. The impact resulting from the construction of a new highway or the improvements
of an existing highway can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and
lead (Ph) (listed in order of decreasing rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide. Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For these reasons, the analysis
presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of
the project.
3-37
1

I

1
1
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two
concentration components are used, local and background. The local component is due to
CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO emissions
from cars operating on streets further from the receptor location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source computer modeling and
the background component was determined by the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were determined
separately, then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for comparison
to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where
they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen
dioxide that are of concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide.
Automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However,
regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements may be offset by the
increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to
occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers
downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources
3-39

I
in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere; and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture ,
reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical-oxidants. Since there are '
no major urban areas in or adjacent to the project study area, it is not perceived that
hydrocarbons and dioxides will present a problem. 1
I
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of particulate '
matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter '
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominately the result of non-highway sources (e.g.,
industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur '
dioxide from cars are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded. t
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is '
added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. New cars with catalytic t
converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States '
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasolines. The composite average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.528 grams ,
per liter; in 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and
as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced. Because of these reasons, it is not
expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded. '
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC (2.0) - A Modeling ,
Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used '
3-40 '

' to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project. Receptor
' sites were chosen to be the minimum right-of-way line throughout each alternative where the
highest CO concentrations would be expected to occur and the public has the closest access.
This represents the "worst case" for any receptors. Receptors were analyzed on each side
i
i' of the right-of-way between major intersections for each studied alternative. Exhibit 3.6.4
shows the location of each receptor site.
' Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a level
roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors,
I, and meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the highest peak hour from
average weekday traffic projections. The modeling analysis was performed for a "worse
I case" condition using 360 wind directions at one (1) degree intervals to determine the highest
I' CO concentrations. The "worst case" was found to be 0-10 degrees from the roadway
depending on the distance to the receptor. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
' calculated for the years 1994, 2000, and 2020 using the EPA publication, "Mobile Source
Emission Factors," and the accompanying MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer
' model. Table 3.6.2 shows the MOBILESA and CAL3QHC input parameters.
1
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts per
' million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management, NCDEHNR, indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable
for most areas of North Carolina if local CO monitoring data is not available.
1
Results of the air quality analysis are presented in Section 4.6.5.

1 3-41
TABLE 3.6.2
MOBILE5A/CAL30HC INPUT PARAMETERS
MOBILE5A:
PARAMETER
Region
Anti-Tampering Program
Inspection/Maintenance
Ambient Temperature
Traffic Speeds
Vehicle Mix
Calendar Years
Operating Mode
ASTM Class
CAL30HC:
PARAMETER
Averaging Time (ATIM)
Settling Velocity (VS)
Deposition Velocity (VD)
Source Height (HL)
Wind Speed (U)
Wind Direction
Stability Class (CLAS)
Mixing Height (MIXH)
Receptor Locations
Receptor Height (ZR)
Persistence Factor
Surface Roughness
Background -1 hour
Concentrations - 8 hour
Traffic Volumes
INPUT
Low Altitude
Yes
No
49.0°F
Posted or Capacity Based
Default
1994, 2000, and 2020
20.6% Non-Catalytic Cold Start
27.3% Hot Start
20.6% Catalytic Cold Start
B
INPUT
60 minutes
0 cm/sec
0 cm/sec
0
1.0 Meter/Second
0° - 360° a 10° Intervals
Class F - Rural
400 Meters
Right of Way, See Text
1.8 Meters
0.61
108 cm
1.8 Parts Per Million
1.1 Parts Per Million
Peak Hour Projections
Source: Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities -March 1995 - NCDEHNR, Division
of Environmental Management, Air Quality Section.
3.6.7 Noise
A noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed project on noise
levels in the immediate project area. This investigation includes an inventory of existing
noise-sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study
area. It also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
3-42
r
to determine the traffic noise impacts expected from the proposed project. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic
noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Characteristics of Noise
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction. The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to
relate sound pressures to some common reference level, using the decibel (dB). Sound
pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
v Because the A-weighted scale closely describes the response of the human ear to sound, it
r is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-
weighing are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this section, references will be made to
dBA, which means an A-weighted decibel level.
Sound pressure levels in this report are referred to as Leq(h). The Leq, or equivalent sound
level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same
' energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic
noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Noise Abatement Criteria
To determine if highway noise levels are compatible with various land uses, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to
1 3-44
I
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures
are set forth in accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, U.S.
Department of Transportation, FHWA, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise
and Construction Noise. A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses
is presented in Table 3.6.3. A noise impact occurs when noise levels either approach or
exceed the criteria levels for each activity category or when the existing noise levels
experience a substantial increase. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has
determined the approach value to be one dBA less than the FHWA noise abatement criteria
for each category.
TABLE 3.6.3
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
ACTIVITY CATEGORY ' LEQ (h) DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY
A 57 (Interior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the
are is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds,
active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not
included in Categories A or B above.

D Undeveloped lands.
E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals,
and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772, US Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic
Noise and Construction Noise.
In accordance with the NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines, noise abatement will be
considered when either of the following conditions exist:
3-45
a
1. The predicted design year noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA noise
abatement criteria, or
2. The predicted design year noise levels substantially exceed existing noise
I
levels (greater than or equal to 15 dBA for less than or equal to 50 dBA
existing noise levels, or greater than or equal to 10 dBA for greater than 50
dBA existing noise levels).
Ambient Noise Levels
I
Ambient noise is noise which results from the natural and mechanical sources of human
activity and is considered to be usually present in a particular area. Ambient noise levels
were measured to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise levels for residences and other noise-sensitive receptors.
I
Ambient noise measurements were taken along the proposed project at representative
locations using a GenRad 1988 Precision Integrating Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer.
When measuring along existing roads, the microphone was located 7.5 or 15 meters (25 or
50 feet) from the center of the nearest lane of travel at an elevation approximately 1.5 meters
(5 feet) above the existing ground. The noise levels were recorded for a 20 minute period
during anticipated peak traffic periods. Traffic counts were taken at each measurement site
during the sampling periods. Differences in the measured noise levels are attributed to
1 variations in site conditions and traffic volumes. The locations and measured exterior Leq
noise levels are shown in Exhibit 3.6.5 and listed in Table 3.6.4.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise
prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
actually measured. The calculated noise levels were within 0.1 to 6.0 dBA of the measured
' 3-46
TABLE 3.6.4
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Receptor' Location Description Mic to CL Noise
Area ..
o Near.
of
Level
Lane (Fr),: (dBA)
1 1/2 mile from NC 211 Logging Road N/A 36.6
2 NC 133 near north end of runway at Brunswick Grass ROW, 15 65.8
County Airport Field
3 NC 133, between bridge and intersection of NC ass ROW, 15 64.0
133 & SR 1104 rd
4 SR 1104, 150' east of NE 65th Street cant Lot 15 60.8
5 NC 211, between SR 1500 & NC 133 ass ROW,
t 15 62.5
metery
6 SR 1500 between first two curves from NC 211 ROW,
Grass 15 63.1
rd
7 NC 211, west of SR 1500, 150' of Horizon Street ass ROW, 15 63.5
Field
8 SR 1190, between SE 42nd Street & NE 41st Grass ROW, 15 64.5
Street Yard
9 SR 1190, between SE 15th Street & 16th Street Grass ROW, 15 . 63.1
Church Yard
10 SR 1105, between SR 1190 & Yacht Drive Grass ROW, 15 48.8
Yard
F71 SR 1105, between White Lane & SR 1190 Grass ROW, 7.5 57.7
Yard
noise levels for all of the locations where noise measurements were obtained along existing
roadways. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, stop-and
go traffic movements and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly spaced"
vehicles and single vehicle speed.
Ambient noise levels were estimated using the noise monitoring location that most closely
resembled that of the subject receptor by roadway typical section and traffic volumes, or by
location and related site conditions if not associated with an existing road
3-47
o-

a
211
?
\
n
V
MILITARY OCEAN
TERMINAL
SUNNY POINT
0
n. I
Uu `?.Mll?
0 /
\ 1

-ZI
S
? `5ti5
I
BRUNSWICK
NUCLEAR POWER F
?zz /?.
\
SUNSET `?----
HARBOR / - YACNTOR. ilk :` ?\ a SOUTHPOltt
/ WEST
\ \..._...?.. / WEST OAK ISLI
Q )?
v i
SIR 1104 (WEST BE
y ::
ATLANTIC OCEAN) 11 North Carolina
• Department of Transportation
0 Environmental Assessment
i
Second Bridge to Oak Island
LEGEND Brunswick County, North Carolina
I
• NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
a, Noise Monitoring Locations
Exhibit 3.6.6

Results of the Noise Analysis are presented in Section 4.6.7.
3.6.8 Prime, Unique, and Important Farmlands
Existing agriculture uses in the study area may or may not be classified as Prime, Unique,
and Statewide or Locally Important Farmlands. Farmlands are classified by soil type, not
by land use. However, land occupied by an urban use is not considered to be a special status
farmland, regardless of soil type.
According to the US Council on Environmental Quality (1976), prime farmland is defined
as land having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing
food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops. Prime farmlands are those having the soil
quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high
yields of crops when properly managed, including water management. Prime farmland
includes cropland, pastureland, rangeland and forestland; but not land converted to urban,
industrial, transportation or water uses. Unique farmlands are those whose value is derived
from their particular advantages for growing specialty crops. Statewide and locally
important farmlands are defined by the appropriate state or local agency as important for the
production of food, feed, forage, fiber or oilseed crops.
Prime, unique and important farmlands are listed in "Important Farmlands in North
Carolina," USDA, SCS, 1992. In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of
1981, a farmland conversion form (Form AD-1006) was provided to the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) for review. A copy of Form AD-1006 is included in Appendix A.2.
s
' 3.7 NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant communities within each alternative corridor were identified from aerial photographs
1 3-49
and ground-checked on site. Forest community types for relatively undisturbed ("natural")
forests follow Schafale and Weakley (1990), and community types for disturbed forests
follow Eyre (1980). With few exceptions, plant nomenclature follows Radford et al. (1968);
thus, author citations of scientific names are not provided.
Within each community, a list of the predominant plant species and general site description
was developed on-site. These lists are not exhaustive, but they probably include sufficient
numbers of species that over 95 percent of the total standing plant biomass is identified. For
communities dominated by trees, approximate age-class was estimated. Tree ages estimated
to be over 60 years were checked using an increment borer. Typical wildlife communities
were researched generally via review of appropriate literature (e.g., Bull and Farrand 1977,
Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985). On-site observations of habitat conditions refined
estimates of suitability for typical and protected wildlife. Vegetation community conditions,
proximity to type changes and distance to water were factors used to characterize wildlife
habitats and to estimate quality for all species considered. Technical results of field
examinations are documented in Blank and Braham (1996).
3.7.1 Biotic Communities
Ashe and Pinchot (1897) refer to the "narrow belt lying between the vast coastal swamps and
the coast in the counties of Brunswick, Onslow, and Carteret" as part of the "Pine Barrens"
(p. 152). Within these pine barrens, however, a wide variety of localized conditions occur
and generate variable plant communities which also support varied animal communities.
Brunswick County as a whole is dominated by forest land. Only 26 percent of the county
is not forested (calculated from data in Johnson 1990), and forest management is an
important industry. Brunswick County ranked seventh in total volume harvested in the
3-50

1980's from the 21 Southern Coastal Plain counties. Pine-dominated forests, particularly
loblolly pine, are most common today in Brunswick County as a whole, occupying 99,387
hectares (245,582 acres), nearly one-half of the county. Bottomland forests are the
second-most common, occupying about 41,046 hectares (101,424 acres), about 18 percent
' of the county. Oak-dominated forests are least common, occupying about 24,345 hectares
(60,156 acres), about 11 percent of the county. Previously, various longleaf pine
communities dominated much of Brunswick County (Pinchot and Ashe 1897) on sites
currently occupied by loblolly pine.
The study area crosses diverse communities ranging from sparse and barren open areas to
thickly vegetated Carolina bays and natural drains or depressions. Habitats range from
exceedingly dry to exceedingly wet, with frequent ecotonal changes. Pond pine and longleaf
pine are dominate overstory species in wetter areas, while plantations of slash pine and
loblolly pine dominate dryer areas. Pocosin, pine savanna, pine flatwoods, and wet pine
flatwoods communities all occur.
Terrestrial Communities
Land in the project area can be classified into three land-use categories: developed,
cultivated, and forest. These three categories are further sub-divided and discussed in the
sections that follow.
Developed Land: Developed land is characterized by areas repeatedly disturbed by humans,
preventing natural recovery of vegetation. Three basic types of developed land occur within
the study area: urban, right-of-way/roads, and spoil bank. The amount of developed land
is nearly the same in all three corridors.
'.
1 3-51
Urban: The presence of structures, homes, businesses, and sheds identifies
Urban areas. Urban areas include surrounding land that is managed to benefit
the development, especially paved city streets, driveways, parking areas,
gardens, and landscaping. A few scattered homes or businesses occur north
of NC 211. Complete urbanization occurs south of the Intracoastal Waterway
on Oak Island. In all three corridors, urban lands are limited to the corridor
ends and occupy about one-half of the developed land category.
Landscaping in the developed land category consists typically of widely-spaced
trees, especially loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), eastern
redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica),
southern red oak (Quercus falcata var. falcata), laurel oak (Quercus
laurifolia), laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana), and live oak (Quercus
virginiana). On Oak Island these trees are remnants from the time when the
area was covered with Maritime Evergreen Forest. Flowering shrubs are often
planted beneath these trees. Various azalea hybrids (Rhododendron spp.),
pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), various cultivars of holly (Ilex spp.,
especially I. cornuta 'Burfordii'), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), oleander
(Nerium oleander), and crape-myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) are most popular.
The herb layer consists largely of mowed grasses, especially fescue (Festuca
sp.), paspalum (Paspalum sp.), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). In all
cases, the vegetation is secondarily important, when compared with the
structures, and the vegetation is highly modified by human activity.
Right-of-Way/Roads: Developed land also includes a powerline right-of-way
3-52
11
and unpaved roads that traverse the corridors. The powerline runs from
Midway to Oak Island through the study area. The vegetation under the
powerline is frequently mowed, precluding development of a stable natural
community. Vegetation in the right-of-way contains sprouts and seedlings of
species found in the adjacent forest communities. All roads are narrow
"woods roads," not paved, only 2 to 3 meters (6.2 to 9.3 feet) wide and
I negotiable only with 4-wheel drive vehicles.
Most roads are located on small ridges, the driest portions of the study area, and are
covered with either bare sand or pine needle litter. If vegetation is. present, it
generally grows in the middle of the road between the tire tracks, and consists of
weedy plants, especially Bermuda grass, goose grass (Eleusine indica), sandspur
(Cenchrus sp.), nut sedge (Cyperus spp.), plantains (Plantago spp.), and dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale). When these roads cross small streamhead seepages, the road
surface turns to muck, where rushes (Juncus spp.) replace the species listed above as
the most important plants. These crossings are seasonally flooded for long periods,
and episodically flooded in summer and fall after heavy rains. Most of these
streamhead seepages qualify as jurisdictional wetlands.
N Spoil Bank: The developed land category further includes spoil banks located along
the north shore of the Intracoastal Waterway, where spoil was pumped after dredging
the navigation channels in the Intracoastal Waterway and lower Cape Fear River.

Overall foliar cover of vegetation on spoil banks is only about 35 percent, due to the
di
i
d
i
unfavorable so
l con
t
ons cause
by the spoil itself and frequent redisturbance from
11
1 3-53
recreational off-road vehicles. But foliar cover at any one place varies from zero to
100 percent.
Areas located immediately north of the Intracoastal Waterway, especially a strip of
vegetation about 15 meters (50 feet) wide, have 100 percent foliar cover. This strip
grows on the artificial sand levee created to contain dredge spoil. The levee rises
steeply above the Intracoastal Waterway to a height of about 8 meters (25 feet). The
south slope measures over 100 percent and is not completely stable. Mass wasting
occurs as the levee naturally slides slowly into the Intracoastal Waterway, as
evidenced by several uprooted dead trees on the slope surface. The north side of the
levee has been filled with dredge spoil to a height of about 8 meters (25 feet), a
height equal to the levee itself. Thus, the entire spoil area roughly approximates a
large sand dune. The levee is covered with loblolly pine, laurel oak, eastern
redcedar, black cherry (Prunus serotina), water oak (Quercus nigra), and live oak.
Basal area of these trees averages about 23 mZ/hectare (100 ft2/acre), and larger trees
are about 40 years old.
The understory vegetation of this strip contains waxmyrtle, winged sumac (Rhus
copallina), and yaupon (Ilex vomitoria). The vine layer is especially well-developed.
It commonly grows on and over the tree and shrub layer, creating a thick tangle. The
vine layer contains greenbriers (Smilax bona-nox and S. rotundifolia), muscadine
(Vitis rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and peppervine
(Ampelopsis arborea). The ground layer contains mostly dead leaves and an
occasional vine listed above. Along edges where sunlight is greater, indigo bush
(Amorpha herbacea) and primrose (Oenothera laciniata) occur.
3-54
I
North of this strip the spoil bank becomes increasingly non-vegetated, until at the
northern fringe it largely lacks vegetation. In this transition zone, trees occur as
scattered individuals over a weedy ground layer, frequently re-disturbed by off-road
vehicles. Bare sand often occurs between trees. The following species were
observed in this transition zone: live oak, eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides),
eastern redcedar, black cherry, loblolly pine, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana),
tooth-ache tree (Zanthoxylum americana), ground cherry (Physalis sp.), prickly-pear
(Opuntia compressa), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), winged sumac, Virginia
creeper, poison-ivy (Rhus radicans), peppervine, dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum),
gaillardia (Gaillardia pulchella), muscadine, summer grape (Vitis aestivalis),
pepper-grass (Lepidium sp.), primrose, greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), sandspurs,
sea-myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and
I?.
waxmyrtle. In addition, black willow (Salix nigra) occurs locally in small
depressions.
Cultivated Land: Cultivated land is characterized by land used on a regular basis for annual
crops or pasture. Cultivated land is the least common land-use category in the study area
' and pasture is the predominate use of this cultivated land. Fescue, orchard grass (Dactylus
glomerata), and paspalum (Paspalum spp.) are the predominate forage grasses. Since
cultivated land is intensively managed by mowing and sometimes herbiciding, natural
conditions do not occur. Cultivated land will therefore not be discussed further in this
' section.
Forest Land: The forest land category is defined by trees and/or large shrubs that form a
more-or-less continuous canopy. Forest land in the study area is subdivided into five broad
community types: pine plantation, longleaf pine, pocosin, bottomland hardwoods and coastal
1 3-55

scrub. Like many places in Brunswick County, no oak-dominated forests occur. Except as
described below for bottomland hardwoods, each community type is composed of several '
individual communities which often occupy small areas less than 0.1 hectare (0.2 acre) in
size. Since the same communities occur repeatedly, an overall mosaic pattern of
communities exists, especially for longleaf pine. Individual communities are not mapped '
separately, due to their small size.
r
Pine Plantation: The Pine Plantation type is characterized by plantings of slash pine
(Pinus elliottii), loblolly pine, and one small area of longleaf pine. The pine
plantations were established about 28 years ago and were bedded before planting.
The pine plantations were established on many soil types, especially Leon, Murville,
Mandarin and Kureb. Areas with very poorly drained soils, largely Croatan and
Torhunta, were not converted to plantations. Most plantations were planted in slash ,
pine, which is not native to North Carolina.
Before conversion to plantations, these sites probably supported various longleaf pine
communities, especially pine/scrub oak sandhill, wet pine flatwoods, and pine
savanna. Some of the understory of these previous communities persists, and it '
undoubtedly accounts for the high species diversity noted below.
A large section of the plantations in the study area burned catastrophically in 1993.
Today burned areas contain standing dead slash and loblolly pine trees. Scattered
volunteer longleaf pines survived the fire, and understory plants now about one meter
(three feet) tall have regrown from sprouts.
Plantation success and the regrowth of natural (volunteer) understory vegetation in
3-56 ,
I
plantations varies considerably, depending on soil type. Plantations on Kureb and the
drier phases of Leon soils have not been successful. Planted pines on these dry,
infertile soils have grown only three to five meters (10 to 16 feet) since planting in
g about 1967. Slow growth has precluded forming a well-developed canopy, so direct
sunlight often reaches the forest floor. As a result, scattered longleaf pine, turkey
oak (Quercus laevis), bluejack oak (Quercus incana), and live oak have volunteered
' among the planted pines. In addition, shrub and ground layers have developed
naturally below these trees. Foliar cover of the shrub and ground layers varies
between 25 and 50 percent. On dry soils, plants occur as scattered individuals or
small clumps of individuals separated by bare white sand or pine needle litter. The
shrub and ground layers contain pinelands three awn (Aristida stricta), creeping
blueberry (Vaccinium crassifolium), dwarf waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera var. pumila),
inkberry (Ilex glabra), fetterbush (Lyonia mariana), grassleaf gold-aster (Heterotheca
graminifolia), sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), sand myrtle (Leiophyllum
buxifolium var. buxifolium), broomsedge, jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens),
jointweed (Polygonella polygama), and reindeer moss (Cladium sp.).
Plantations on moist soils, especially Mandarin, Murville and wetter phases of Leon,
are more successful. Even though furrows created by bedding have caused
considerable disruption, the understory of these plantations is relatively species-rich
with more foliar cover, when compared to plantations on dry soil and to plantations
' in general. Foliar cover averages 70 percent, and height ranges between one and
three meters (three and nine feet). This thicker understory largely accounts for the
darker color and greater texture observable on aerial photographs.. Wildfires
mentioned above have probably helped to maintain understory species diversity by
reducing shade and other competition from planted pines. Limited disjunct areas on
'' 3-57
the wettest plantation sites qualify as jurisdictional wetlands.
On moist soils, longleaf pine, pond pine (Pinus serotina), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua) occasionally volunteer among the planted pines, forming
a low-density second canopy. Pond pine and longleaf pine both often survived the
1993 fire, and today these species provide a sparse overstory. Below the canopy a
sparse to dense small tree and shrub layer occurs. It contains live oak, redbay
(Persea borbonia), creeping blueberry, waxmyrtle fetterbush (Lyonia lucida),
gallberry (Ilex coriacea and L glabra), chokeberry (Sorbus arbutifolia), titi (Cyrilla
racemiflora) and jessamine.
A relatively species-rich ground layer occurs whenever overtopping vegetation layers
allow sunlight to reach the forest floor. The ground layer contains little bluestem
(Andropogon scoparius), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), nut-sedge (Cyperus sp., possibly C. strigosus), chalky bluestem
(Andropogon capillipes), pinelands three awn, sand myrtle false asphodel (Tofieldia
sp.), meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamonea),
coinwort (Centella asiatica), blue flag (Iris virginica), and candyweed (Polygaga
lutea). Venus flytraps (Dionaea muscipula) and pitcher plants (Sarracenia flava)
occur in the burned slash pine plantation in an area, about 2012 meters (6600 feet)
south of NC 211. Pinelands three awn was more abundant in furrows between
planting rows than in the rows themselves.
Longleaf Pine: The Longleaf pine type is characterized by dominance of natural
longleaf pine in the overstory. Associate species in the Longleaf pine type vary
considerably, principally because of differences in soil type, soil moisture, and fire
3-58

frequency. Typical host soils in the study area include Kureb, Leon, Mandarin, and
Tomahawk. Sites on Kureb soil and the drier phases of Leon soil are well-drained
to excessively well-drained. Sites on Mandarin and Tomahawk soil are somewhat
poorly drained in winter but are well-drained in summer.
All longleaf pine stands in the study corridors have a long history of more-or-less
frequent, low-intensity wildfire. Sites with annual fires in summer typically have
more understory grasses than sites that burn less often and/or in winter, which have
I? more understory shrubs. The most recent fire in the study corridor occurred in 1993,
' in the northern portion of the study area. Scorched tree bark in all longleaf pine
stands indicates that fire has occurred at all locations within the last 10 years.
Soil and fire differences produce several different longleaf pine communities, making
the longleaf pine type the most vegetationally complex type in the study area. Four
' more-or-less distinct longleaf pine communities exist: Pine savanna, wet pine
flatwoods, pine/scrub oak sandhill, and coastal fringe sandhill. Idealized examples
of each community are described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Prior to
conversion, most areas currently in plantations were forested with longleaf pine. The
area occupied by an individual longleaf pine community can be quite small, only 0.1
hectare (0.2 acre), with an equally small but different community adjacent. This
pattern occurs repeatedly, creating an overall mosiac of small communities. These
four communities are described below.

All longleaf pine communities in the study area are uneven-aged, containing longleaf
r pine trees in at least three different age classes. This situation exists because all
stands have relatively open canopies that allow regeneration beneath older trees.
1 3.59

Most large longleaf pine trees are about 50 years old, but sapling-sized and '
grass-stage trees occur also. In addition, widely scattered among these trees, are
about ten trees over age 120 years. A few of these old trees are scarred from
turpentine extraction. '
Longleaf the stumps occur in the understo of many longleaf leaf
pine ry y g pine stands at a
density of about 250 stumps/hectare (100 stumps/acre). Although decay partly
obscures some rings, most stumps contain roughly 180 growth rings.
Many stumps also showed scars from turpentining. Collected data suggest that the
study area was extensively turpentined and that most turpentined trees were
subsequently harvested about 50 years ago. Most longleaf pine trees that are 50 years
old today are probably offspring from the "original" pine cover. Many pine stumps
contain lighter wood.
Pine Savanna: The Pine savanna community in the study area generally occurs on
Leon soils. In general, these sites are drier than the "typical" pine savanna site
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990), but many are relatively undisturbed. The
largest single pine savanna occurs about 609 meters (2000 feet) south of NC 211.
Pine savanna also occurs as small patches only fractions of a hectare in size, scattered
within other longleaf communities. The highest quality (least disturbed) pine savanna
occurs in small areas along the south rim of the large Carolina Bay.
Pine savanna is essentially a two-layered community, characterized by a relatively
open canopy of longleaf pine with a ground layer dominated by grasses. The ground
layer contains pinelands three awn, little bluestem and panic grass. Together they
3-60

comprise 50 to 70 percent of the foliar cover. Twenty to 40 percent of foliar cover
is comprised of creeping blueberry, inkberry, sand myrtle, St. John's wort
(Hypericum sp.), pixie-moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var. barbulata), yellow-eyed
grass (Xyris sp., probably X. caroliniana), yellow star-grass (Hypoxis hirsuta),
meadow-beauty, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), grassleaf gold-aster and
deertongue (Carphephorus sp.). The remaining ten to 30 percent of ground cover is
either bare sand or pine litter.
A midstory of small trees typical of most other forest communities is lacking, but the
i
understory of pine Savannas is generally species-rich. The list above is relatively
short, probably because the pine savannas here are somewhat drier than the "typical"
savanna, and they simply contain fewer species. Also these sites were observed early
in the growing season, before monocots with grass-like leaves, like selected orchids
(Calopogon and Clistes) and star-grass (Aletris), became much more noticeable in
flower.
Wet Pine Flatwoods: In the study corridors, the wet pine flatwoods community
generally occurs on Leon and Tomahawk soils, and many sites are relatively
undisturbed and of good quality. This community occurs mostly in the southern
i portions of the study area, north of the spoil bank. It also occurs in small patches,
less than one hectare, scattered within the other longleaf pine communities. The
highest quality wet pine flatwoods occurs outside the corridors along the south rim
I of the large Carolina Bay
The wet pine flatwoods community is a two-layered community. In the study area,
' the overstory contains widely-spaced longleaf pine with small numbers of pond pine,
1 3-61
water oak, and swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) intermixed. With
increases in soil organic matter content, the wet pine Flatwood community grades into
one of the Pocosin types described below.
Shrubs with a foliar cover varying between 60 and 90 percent dominate the
understory. Locations on the drier phases of Leon and Tomahawk soils have lower
foliar cover that grows not more than one to two meters (three to six feet) in height.
This cover includes wild olive (Osmanthus america), dangleberry (Gaylussacia
frondosa), American holly, yaupon, gallberry, dwarf waxmyrtle, creeping blueberry
and fetterbush. In addition, herbs that provide 10 to 40 percent of foliar cover occur
scattered among the shrubs. These herbs include pinelands three awn, little bluestem,
bracken fern and yellow eyed-grass. On the wetter phases of Leon and Tomahawk
soils--those that grade into Croatan and Torhunta soils--percent foliar cover is higher
and vegetation grows taller, up to three meters (10 feet). In addition to the species
listed above, the following species occur: redbay, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana),
loblollybay (Gordonia lasianthus), waxmyrtle, gallberry, fetterbush, titi, giant cane,
rush- featherling (Pleea tenuifolia), false asphodel and wild bamboo (Smilax
laurifolia). These wetter sites are transitional to jurisdictional wetlands in pocosins,
described below. The thicker understories also account for areas with greater texture
and darker color on aerial photographs.
Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill: The pine/scrub oak sandhill community occurs on the
driest soils in the study area. Kureb and the drier phases of Leon are typical host
soils. As with other longleaf pine communities, the canopy is dominated by longleaf
pine, but a sparse subcanopy of turkey oak, bluejack oak, blackjack oak, and scrubby
post oak (Quercus margaretta) occurs also. In addition, small sassafras (Sassafras
3-62

i albidum) and persimmon trees occur--probably sprouts from underground roots
,i repeatedly top-killed by periodic fires.
Foliar cover of the shrub and ground layers ranges between zero and 35 percent. The
r; shrub layer contains inkberry, sweetleaf (Symplocos tinctoria), creeping blueberry
and dwarf waxmyrtle. The ground layer contains mostly pinelands three awn, but
also scattered stinging nettle (Cnidoscolus stimulosus), Carolina ipecac (Euphorbia
ipecacuanhae), greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), bracken fern, grassleaf gold-aster and
goat's rue (Tephrosia virginiana). Places without shrub or ground cover are covered
either with white sand or pine litter.
Coastal Fringe Sandhill: The coastal fringe sandhill community occurs on Kureb,
Mandarin, and Leon soils. Except for the presence of sand live oak (Quercus
virginiana var. geminata), this community is similar to the pine/scrub oak sandhill
community. This similarity makes differentiation between these communities
sometimes difficult. The coastal fringe sandhill community was noted whenever
several sand live oak trees occurred in close proximity. The coastal fringe sandhill
community occurs principally in the southern portions of the project area, north of
the spoil bank. It also occurs in patches of less than one hectare scattered within the
other longleaf pine communities. The highest quality coastal fringe sandhill
community occurs outside the corridors along the sand ridge on the southern rim of
the large pocosin near the center of the study area.
Longleaf pine dominates the overstory, but a sparse to moderately dense subcanopy
r of wild olive, turkey oak, bluejack oak and especially sand live oak occurs. Sand live
oak sometimes occurs in small colonies which exclude all ground vegetation, probably
1 3-63
because of root competition and smothering by leaf litter.
Foliar cover of the shrub layer averages about 30 percent. It contains sparkleberry,
fetterbush, sand-myrtle, myrtle-leaved holly (Ilex cassine var. myrtifolia), gallberry,
sweetbay, dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa) and creeping blueberry. Foliar
cover of the ground layer varies between 30 and 50 percent. It contains mostly
pinelands three awn, but it also includes jessamine, grassleaf gold-aster, pixie-moss,
lead plant, black-root (Pterocaulon pycnostachyum), bracken fern, deer-tongue, St.
John's wort and milkweed (Asclepias sp., probably A. humistrata).
Pocosin: The Pocosin Type occurs on organic soils or soils with a histic epipedon,
mostly Croatan, Murville, Muckalee, and Torhunta. These sites are invariably
jurisdictional wetlands, and most wetlands in the study area are vegetated with
pocosin. Two basic pocosin communities occur in the project area: Streamhead
Pocosin and High Pocosin. Descriptions of idealized examples of each community
are provided by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Eyre (1980) does not distinguish
among communities dominated by pond pine, lumping them all into the Pond pine
type (#98).
Pocosin communities depend on wildfire to mineralize nutrients held in organic matter
and to help maintain species diversity (Christensen 1988). Only pocosins in the
northern portion of the study area show evidence of recent fire, the wildfire of 1993.
In fact, old fire plow lines along the ecotone separating some longleaf pine
communities from pocosin communities probably indicate management efforts to
prescribe burn only the longleaf pine. As a result, most pocosins in the study area
are thickly overgrown. Human travel through them is impossible without cutting a
3-64

trail. Lack of fire has lowered overall quality of the pocosin communities, by
favoring a few species of shrubs and lowering overall species-richness. Schafale and
Weakley (1990) hypothesize that fire is more frequent in Streamhead Pocosins than
in other pocosin communities. The ecotone separating pocosin communities from
adjacent communities, especially longleaf pine, provides potential habitat for several
protected plant species.
I
Streamhead Pocosin: The streamhead pocosin community occurs above
the 7.6 meter (25 feet) contour line, along the headwaters of small
streams. Water movement in streamhead pocosins is largely by
subsurface flow through shallow more-or-less dendritic depressions that
cross the landscape. Well defined drainage channels with intermittent
-' or permanent flow are lacking in this community, except for the
streamhead located approximately 2317 meters (7600 feet) south of NC
' 211 and on the west edge of the study area. When the elevation of
streamheads drops below about 7.6 meters (25 feet), defined drainage
channels with intermittent or permanent flow have generally developed,
and the vegetation changes to bottomland hardwoods.
The overstory of streamhead pocosins contains pond pine, loblolly
pine, red maple (Acer rubrum), loblollybay and sometimes swamp
blackgum. Overstory dominance is highly variable, probably owing
to varying levels of disturbance when the adjacent pine plantations were
established. Probable disturbances include trampling by large
machinery and selective harvest of merchantable trees, especially pond
pine and possibly all pondcypress (Taxodium ascendens). The larger
1 3-65
I
pond pine trees are about 30 centimeters (12 inches) in diameter at
breast height (dbh) and between 55 and 60 years old.
A well-developed shrub layer invariably occurs, owing to the lack of I
wildfire. Average foliar cover exceeds 90 percent and includes I
inkberry, honeycup (Zenobia pulverulenta), fetterbush, redbay,
sweetbay, titi and red chokeberry. The vine layer contains wild r
bamboo which grows on and over other vegetation, tying it together, '
and making human travel very difficult. The ground is mostly covered
with dead leaves to a depth of about 10 centimeters (4 inches), although I
scattered Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), giant cane and
chalky bluestem along edges where more sunlight reaches the ground
layer were observed.
High Pocosin: The high pocosin community typically occurs on either '
Murville or Croatan muck soils. High Pocosins in the study area occur
either in Carolina Bays or Ashpole Swamp. Small areas of High
Pocosin may actually classify better as either Pond pine Woodland or
Bay Forest (sensu Schafale and Weakley (1990)), but they are not
treated separately in this report owing their small area and similarity
to High Pocosin.
Species composition of the High Pocosin community is similar to the
Streamhead Pocosin. The overstory generally contains only pond pine,
but sometimes also loblollybay and red maple. Except in Ashpole '
Swamp, individual pond pine trees are generally widely spaced; many
3-66

areas have only about 80 trees/hectare (32 trees/acre). This allows
' complete dominance of intervening areas by the shorter, small
tree/large shrub layer, which contains redbay, sweetbay, loblollybay,
i
i
d
llb
t
t
an
ga
erry. The overall appearance is a short canopy of bays
about 3 meters (10 feet) tall with occasional "emergent" pond pines
rising above. This canopy structure probably results from selective
removal of merchantable pond pine and fire suppression favoring the

I small tree/large shrub layer. Wild bamboo occurs everywhere,
'
I growing on and over all other plants.
i'
The shrub and ground layers are covered only with dead leaves in areas
i ith
ll
d
l
d
ll t
/l
h
b l
Wh
w
a we
-
eve
ope
sma
ree
arge s
ru
ayer.
ere sufficient

' sunlight occurs, the shrub layer develops containing fetterbush,
waxmyrtle, red chokeberry and sometimes honeycup. The ground layer
' contains Virginia chain fern, giant cane and sphagnum mosses
(Sphagnum spp.).

Bottomland Hardwoods: One bottomland hardwoods community occurs
within the study area, the coastal plains bottomland hardwoods (Blackwater
Subtype). Schafale and Weakley (1990) have described a typical community.
Eyre (1980) does not describe a similar community, but his Willow
- Oak--Water Oak--Diamondleaf (Laurel) Oak (Cover Type #88) and
' Sugarberry--American Elm--Green Ash (Cover Type #93) are most
comparable. In pre-colonial times, a somewhat similar community occurred
on these same sites, except that pondcypress was probably more abundant and
' individual stem quality of trees was higher.
1 3-67
The coastal plains bottomland hardwoods community is distinguished by
topographic position and a mixed-species canopy of various wet-mesic
hardwoods. In the project area, this community develops along Mercers Mill
Pond, an unnamed creek that drains into the Intracoastal Waterway, and the
eastern parts of Ash Pole Swamp. With one small exception in the
northwestern part of project area, the bottomlands hardwood community
occurs below the 8 meters (25 feet) topographic contour along small perennial
streams. The community occurs only on Muckalee and Murville soils, which
are often water-saturated in late winter and early spring, and episodically at
other times of high rainfall. Unlike many places in North Carolina, none of
this community in the study area has been artificially drained. Most of this
community qualifies as jurisdictional wetlands.
The upper canopy of the bottomland hardwoods community contains swamp
blackgum, sweetgum, laurel oak, water oak, red maple, American elm (Ulmus
americana), loblolly pine, redbay and sweetbay.
All bottomlands, except the young stand in the northern part of project area,
contain scattered large, decayed stumps, and many canopy trees that are
crooked and poorly formed. Such evidence suggests that the most
merchantable trees, probably including pondcypress, have been selectively
harvested--a practice that has lowered stand quality. The sub-canopy of the
bottomland hardwoods community contains saplings of some upper canopy
species and also musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly, titi and
waxmyrtle. Dominance of the upper and lower canopies is relatively low
owing to the harvesting.
3-68
I
' With a foliar cover that varies between 35 and 60 percent, the shrub layer is
1 well developed, largely the result of the low density overstory. The shrub
layer contains doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris var. axillaris), pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum and V.
' atrococcum), fetterbush and especially gallberry. The vine layer contains
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison-ivy, muscadine, crossvine
i (Anasostichus capreolata), jessamine and climbing hydrangea (Decumaria
I' barbara). Foliar cover of the ground layer is low, about 5 percent, owing to
dominance of other layers. Most of the ground surface is covered with dead
leaves. Unlike some bottomlands, ground layer species in bottomlands in the
corridors do not appear limited by flooding. The ground layer contains sedge
(Carex spp. ), wild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia), spotted pipsissewa (Chimaphila
maculata), netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), Virginia chain fern and
partridgeberry (Mitchella repens).
Coastal Scrub: The coastal scrub type, the least common woody community
in the study area, is composed of two communities: salt scrub and coastal
fringe evergreen forest, both described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Coastal scrub occurs only on Oak Island. Located along Davis Canal, coastal
scrub communities occur upslope of saltwater tidal areas. The two
communities composing coastal scrub are lumped together because of the very
small area occupied by each, their juxtaposition and the moderately large
' number of species in common.
I Species of salt scrub communities are more tolerant of salt-laden winds than
' species of the coastal fringe evergreen forest, although neither community
1 3-69
tolerates tidal flooding. Sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens) waxmyrtle, southern
redcedar (Juniperus silicicola), marsh elder (Iva frutescens) and gounndsel-tree
grow adjacent to the brackish marsh in places subjected to salt winds. These
plants have only leaf litter and bare sand beneath them. Behind this protective
fringe the following additional plants occur: loblolly pine, laurel oak, laurel
cherry, redbay and black cherry. Beneath these trees, only leaf litter and
scattered wild onions (Allium sp.) occur. A vine layer containing Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier and Virginia creeper, grows on
and over other plants.
Terrestrial Wildlife
In the project study area, wildlife habitats range from saltwater aquatic to streamhead
pocosin across a relatively shallow topographic range. Though exhibiting complex
interspersion, wildlife habitats can be roughly divided according to the associated soils
underlying them. According to Barnhill (1986), three broad soil associations typically occur:
Dorovan, Muckalee. Murville, Panteeo, and Torhunta soils provide habitat for
white-tailed deer, black bear, raccoons, fox, rabbit, bobcat, opossum, birds and other
wildlife.
Baymeade, Leon, and Mandarin are better drained soils than the preceding series but
they provide habitat for the same wildlife species. Some understory vegetation has
developed in most of these areas.
Kureb and Newhan provide poor habitat for wildlife. Sparse understory vegetation
and droughty conditions create little forage. Tree growth is extremely slow. Only
a very few birds were observed in these areas and very few signs of other species.
Generally, the highest and driest sites demonstrate poor productivity, with growth rates and
3-70

' stand densities exceedingly low, almost no midstory and only rarely any groundcover. In
' contrast, the wettest sites are thickly vegetated, typically producing multiple canopy layers
and a tangle of vines. The diversity of plant communities resulting from subtle differences
in hydrologic regimes provides marked differences in the ability to support wildlife.
However, many species of wildlife occurring in this vicinity will move among various
adjacent habitats in order to obtain food and cover. Specific habitat needs of protected
species are addressed in Section 3.7.4.
Where fires have occurred, pine savanna and wet pine flat conditions have been somewhat
maintained, so habitats are open and often parklike. Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura)
were occasionally observed in more open areas. A covey of Bobwhite quail (Quiscalus
quiscula) flushed in the pine savanna south of the central Carolina bay and quail calls were
heard in a numerous locations. In such areas a variety of songbird species such as a female
Painted bunting (Passerina ciris), male Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), numerous Pine
' warblers (Dendroica pinus) and a Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrcephalus) were
observed. Brown creepers (Certhia familiaris) were also observed and heard in a number
' of locations where pine plantations were well advanced and healthy. Few . birds were
observed in the driest and most depauperate habitats. Conversely, in the Carolina Bays thick
growth provides exceptional cover and few species were actually observed in such habitat,
though a variety of calls were heard.
Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) feces and tracks were observed in numerous locations,
especially on mesic and wetter sites where richer vegetation occurs. Beaver (Castor
' canadensis) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) signs were plentiful along Mercers Mill Creek,
I outside the study area, but these species are also likely to occur in the wetter areas within
1 3-71
the study area. Mink (Mustela vison) and Bobcat (Fells rufus) are expected to occur here,
and a brief glimpse of an animal darting across the road at some distance ahead near the
southern part of the project suggested the presence of a mink.
Species' habitat descriptions by Martof et al. (1980) suggest that as many as 11 frog and toad
species, 7 lizard species, 9 salamander species, 15 snake species and 9 turtle species could
or are likely to occur in habitats observed in the study area. Only a few representatives of
either the amphibian or the reptilian classes were actually observed: an Eastern box turtle
(Terrapena carolina), a Timber rattlesnake (Crotulus horridus) and a Carolina anole (Anolis
caroliniensis). Pine woods treefrogs (Hyla femoralis) were heard in numerous locations.
Records reported by Palmer and Braswell (1995) indicate that a number of reptiles have been
observed in the vicinity within habitats occurring in the study area. These species included:
Brown snakes (Storeria dekayi), Glossy crayfish snakes (Regina rigida rigida), Pine woods
snakes (Rhadinaea flavilata), Timber rattlesnakes and Green anoles (Anolis carolinensis),
Corn snakes (Elaphe guttata) [dry pocosins], Green anoles, Eastern slender glass lizard
(Ophisaurus attenuatus), Eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis), Ground skink (Scincella
lateralis), Southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), Brown snakes, Corn snakes,
Glossy crayfish snakes and Pine woods snakes, Mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus),
Northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea copei), Corn snakes and Six-lined racerunner
(Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), Southeastern five-lined skink, Ground skink, Carolina pigmy
rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius miliarius), Eastern glass lizard, Diamondback terrapins
(Malaclemys terrapin), Eastern chicken turtles (Dierochelys reticularia reticularia) and
Yellow rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata).
A flock of White ibises (Eudocimus albus) was observed from several locations, typically
heading toward or away from the Intracoastal Waterway and the more aquatic areas of the
3-72

study area. Few other large birds were seen over much of the project area.
Along the Intracoastal Waterway, Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritas),
Common crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and a variety of gulls were observed. Both Turkey
' vultures (Cathartes aura) and Black vultures (Coragyps atratus) were perched in trees on the
north side of the channel and observed circling above the Intracoastal Waterway. Along
' Davis Canal, Brown pelicans (Pelecanus erythrohynchos), Horned grebes (Podiceps auritus),
a Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), Snowy egrets (Egretta thula) Black vultures and
Turkey vultures were sighted.
Table 3.7.1 presents a general ranking of existing habitats in the corridors and their relative
suitability for supporting a variety of wildlife.
Aquatic Communities
' Freshwater Streams: Freshwater habitat encompassed in the project area is limited to small
depressions and a few streams. None of the perennial freshwater streams in the study area
contain either free-floating or rooted vascular aquatic vegetation. However, several
liverwort colonies (possibly Frullania sp.) were growing on tree bases at the edges of
streams in the bottomland hardwoods community.
Within the study area's relatively small streams only Least killifish (Heterandria formosa)
and Mosquitofish (Gambusia afnis) were observed. In the upper reaches of nearby Mercers
' Mill Pond Creek, White perch (Morone americana) and the American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
might be found. These sluggish waters may also support the Mud sunfish (Acantharchus
' pomotis) and Banded pygmy sunfish (Elassoma zonatum), both of which especially occur in
dark-stained coastal streams. The absence of vegetation in the study area's streams means
1 3-73
TABLE 3.7.1
RELATIVE VALUE OF HABITAT TYPES IN THE STUDY AREA
VEGETATION COMMUNITY NUTRIENT STATUS HABITAT
VALUE
Bottomland Hardwoods Richly varied High
Streamhead Pocosin More fertile than peatland Moderate
ocosins
High Pocosin Extremely nutrient poor Poor to
Moderate
Pine Plantation Variable b site Variable
Longleaf Pine Relatively fertile Moderate
to High

Pine Savanna Relatively rich and productive Moderate
habitat to High

Wet Pine Flatwoods Relatively fertile Moderate
to High
Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill Relatively infertile Poor to
Moderate
Salt Marsh Highly roductive High

Brackish Marsh Highly productive High

Coastal Scrub Salt stress is dominant Poor
characteristic
the aquatic freshwater habitat is unlikely to support the Swamp darter (Etheostoma
fusiforme), Taillight shiner (Notropis maculatus), or Tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), all
of which typically require rooted vascular vegetation.
Saltwater Tidal Areas: Two communities occur in estuaries, areas flooded at least
occasionally by saltwater: Salt Marsh and Brackish Marsh. These communities show strong
zonation determined by the extent of flooding. They occur as more-or-less linear or
concentric zones that always occur in the same order, when moving upslope from tidal
creeks. Idealized examples of each community are described by Schafale and Weakley
3-74
I
' (1990). Compared to other areas on the East coast, the small tides of less than one meter
' (3 feet) in the project area limit estuarine development. Estuaries occur only adjacent to
Davis Canal on Oak Island. The shores adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway north of Oak
Island are sandy and lack vegetation.
Other than the salt marsh and brackish marsh habitats just discussed, a preponderance of
' aquatic habitat encompassed by the project area is marine habitat. The saline waters in the
I' project area may support Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), Black drum (Pogonias
cromis), Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Rainwater killifish (Lucania parva), Snook
(Centropomus undecimalis) and White perch. Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus)
i
juveniles may be found in nearby estuaries, and Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) use these areas
as nursery grounds.
In the coastal waters, prominent species would include Sand perch (Diplectrum formosum),
I, Sand tilefish (Malacanthus plumieri), Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Spotted seatrout,
' Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), Atlantic croaker, Striped and Bay Anchovies (Anchoa
hepsetus, Anchoa mitchilli).
Davis Canal and the lower reaches of Mercers Mill Pond Creek may also contain Sheepshead
' minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) and Bayou killifish (Fundulus pulverus), as well as Blue
crabs (Callinectes sapidus), Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and shrimp (Penaeus
sp.).
Anadromous species occurring in this part of North Carolina include the Alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and Gizzard shad. Within the project
' area, the only waters capable of supporting anadromous fish occur in Davis Canal and the
1 3-75
Intracoastal Waterway. Although the study area includes HQW zones and tributaries of
larger systems, all freshwater streams within the study area appear too small and shallow to
function as spawning grounds for anadromous species.
3.7.2 Water Resources
Named water resources in the study area are documented in publications detailing the
Lumber River Basin (NCDEM 1993 a,b) and are located in sub-basin 03-07-5.9. Though
subject waters do not drain to the Lumber River, these publications cover a wide geographic
area including several unconnected drainages in southeast North Carolina.
Streams, Canals, and Impoundments
Overall, much of the study area drainage pattern is ill-defined, constituting a complex of
sand ridges separating numerous Carolina bays and linear depressions. Surface waters are
typically dark-stained, highly acidic, and sluggish. Numerous isolated, intermittent pools
occur, frequently in low spots along jeep trails where compaction has apparently interfered
with drainage. Elsewhere, the deep sandy soil proves exceedingly porous and is quick to dry
out even after heavy rainfall. Much of the study area appears and and depauperate, typical
of what Ashe and Pinchot (1897) refer to as "Pine Barrens".
All waters in the study area either arise in the project vicinity or are tidal; no impoundments
occur on the mainland. Mercers Mill Creek, also referred to as Mercers Mill Pond (on the
Lockwoods Folly USGS Quad Sheet) and Mill Creek (NCDEM 1993), arises south of NC
211 and runs southwest to its confluence with the Lockwoods Folly River. Two unnamed
creeks drain the southern portion of the mainland study area and enter the Intracoastal
Waterway. One of these creeks drains southeast through Ash Swamp. The other creek,
having several forks, drains southwest. The northeastern extremity of the study area drains
3-76

easterly to Polly Gully Creek and Beaverdam Creek, both of which are outside the study
I ' area. Due to the complex and ill-defined drainage pattern, determining the areas of

particular stream basins is problematic.
I ' Water Quality
In the study area two types of water quality classification are pertinent: those that designate
tidal-saline systems and those that designate the upland freshwater systems.
I'
The Atlantic Ocean's waters "contiguous to that portion of the Lumber River Basin extending
from the Cape Fear River Basin to the North Carolina-South Carolina State line" are class
SB (NCDEM 1993 a,b). The Intracoastal Waterway, "including all sloughs, sounds, inlets
and connecting channels" is class SA. Hence, Davis Canal, crossed by Middleton Avenue
on Oak Island, is classified as "SA". SA and SB refer to tidal salt waters. SA identifies
waters classed for "shellfishing for market purposes", which are also classified as High
Quality Waters (HOW). SB identifies waters for "primary recreation". Both SA and SB
also encompass the "SC" classification for "aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife and secondary recreation".
IJ
Mercers Mill Creek, the only separately classified stream near the project study area, carries
two classifications. Below SR 1112 to the Lockwoods Folly River it is class SA. Above SR
1112, it is class C Sw HQW. "C" is the lowest use classification. It designates waters
suitable for "aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture". "Sw" refers to swamp waters, construed as waters with low velocity. "HQW"
designates "High Quality Waters, which are waters that are rated as excellent based on
biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special
I studies" (NCDEM 1993).
1 3-77
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management has demarcated two regions of the study area as HQW
watersheds. One area surrounds the headwaters of Mercers Mill Creek; the other area
includes the headwaters of Ash Swamp.
No BMAN sites are located within the watersheds this project could affect. The only sites
within the 03-07-59 basin are somewhat distant. One is located on the Shallotte River near
Shallotte (N10), almost 24 kilometers (15 miles) west. The other site (#11) is about 12.9
kilometers (8 miles) up the Lockwoods Folly River, near Supply. At both BMAN sites,
ratings are "Good/Fair". Waters within the project study area appear to warrant at least this
rating due to the stability of the surrounding natural communities and the streams' relative
isolation from potentially degrading inputs.
3.7.3 Waters of the United States
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) separates Oak Island from the mainland. Davis
Canal (also referred to as Montgomery Slough on the Lockwoods Folly USGS Quad Sheet)
divides the west end of Oak Island into two parts: a narrow shoreward peninsula and a
wider, higher section that parallels the Intracoastal Waterway. All waters surrounding the
island are tidal.
Wetlands

Wetlands occurring in the project area are of two distinct types: tidal estuarine and palustrine
(Cowardin et al. 1979). Occurring at the boundary between marine and terrestrial
environments, tidal estuarine wetlands are easily identified as salt marsh or brackish marsh
in this project's vicinity. Approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of tidal marsh occur ad-
3-78
i
' jacent to Davis Canal at the project's south end.
t
The salt marsh community occurs adjacent to tidal creeks in areas flooded by salt water with
each high tide. Salt marsh invariably qualifies as jurisdictional wetlands. The community
contains only one vascular plant species, smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora), tolerant
of salt levels exceeding 30 parts per thousand. Foliar cover averages 65 percent with soil
or smooth cord grass litter between plants. The soil surface is invariably covered with a thin
film of benthic microalgae and phytoplankton, both mostly diatoms. Considerable amounts
j? of debris, especially plastic bottles and lumber, are present.
The brackish marsh community invariably occurs upslope of the salt marsh in areas
' irregularly flooded, principally by unusually high spring or storm tides. The community is
' also composed of only one plant species, black needle rush (Juncus roemerianus), a species
tolerant of salt levels ranging from 0.5 to 30 parts per thousand. Foliar cover averages 75
' percent. Upslope, the Brackish Marsh grades abruptly into Coastal Scrub, a terrestrial
community.
The types of palustrine wetlands occurring include coastal bottomland hardwoods, pocosins,
and a number of scattered pockets within pine plantations. Although nearly all of the pine
r plantations were bedded before planting, certain areas retain wetland characteristics and
' functions. Pine savanna and wet pine flatwoods communities in the study area are drier than
typical for these communities and do not qualify as jurisdictional wetlands.
' National Wetland Inventory maps, the Soil Survey of Brunswick County (Barnhill 1986), and
field reviews were used to identify potential wetlands in the project study area. The
' presence of the following species was used also as an indicator of wetlands: loblollybay,
I redbay, sweetbay, bamboo greenbrier, pond pine and swamp blackgum. Wetlands identified
1 3-79
in the study area are shown on Exhibit 3.7.1.
Quality and function of wetlands differ and attempts to assign relative value to differing
wetlands focus on a number of recognized functions (DEM 1994). The functions are water
storage capacity, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life
value, recreation and education (DEM 1994). Of these six functions, only two really pertain
to most of the palustrine wetlands encompassed in the corridors: (1) wildlife habitat and (2)
recreation and education. The lack of flowing water proximal to most of the wetland areas
for most of the year precludes or diminishes their value for the other four functions. The
density of vegetation in the Carolina Bays and linear depressions throughout the area
decreases access for recreation and educational purposes. As wildlife habitat, these areas
are probably excellent cover for a variety of species, but access by hunters is somewhat
limited.
However, all of the six functions pertain to the tidal marsh areas. The tidal wetlands support
a wealth of organisms, and their importance as nursery grounds for marine fish and shellfish
species are widely recognized. They buffer the adjacent land from the effects of tidal
fluctuation and through their retention ability effectively remove pollutants from the water
column.
3.7.4 Rare and Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973. In the case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be
required, for example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed
3-80
11
action does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the
' absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the
ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and
other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance
' with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq).
North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide
populations are in decline.
Federally-Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service's Raleigh Field Office has identified the species listed in
Table 3.7.2 as known to occur, currently or historically, in Brunswick County. Records in
the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) office have been reviewed, and evidence has been
gathered during several extended field expeditions. Based on these efforts and published
sources of information (e.g., USFWS 1992), specific descriptions of each species, its habitat
' needs, and the status of potential habitat in the project area follow.
The Eastern cougar (Fells concolor cougar) is a large (up to 9 feet), tawny-colored feline.
The eastern cougar "needs a large wild area with an adequate food supply for survival. It
feeds mainly on deer, but its diet may also include small mammals, wild turkeys, and
' occasionally domestic livestock" (Parker and Dixon 1980). Persistent hunting of the cougar
and reduction of deer herds during the early 1900s effectively eliminated the animal, but
growth of white-tail deer populations in the past 40 years has perhaps allowed cougars to
survive (Parker and Dixon 1980). Parker and Dixon say biologists are unsure where in the
historical range, from eastern Canada south into Tennessee and the Carolinas, the eastern
' cougar occurs in the United States; however, "significant reports of sightings persist in North
I and South Carolina and Tennessee".
1 3-82
TABLE 3.7.2
FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
FOR BRUNSWICK COUNTY
SPECIES STATUS'' HABITAT
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor couguar) E Large wild area with sufficient
prey
Manatee (Trichechus manatus) E Sluggish rivers and shallow bays
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E Pines> 60 yr old for nesting, > 30
foraging
Peregrin falcon (Falco peregrinus) E During mitgration
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) T Large open-crowned perch trees
Wood stork (Mycteria americana) E Cypress swamps and marshes
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) T Bare, dry sandy areas on beaches
and inland
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) E Marine, open ocean
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) E Marine and shallow coastal waters
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) T Marine and shallow coastal waters
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) T Marine, open ocean
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) T(S/A) Coastal marshes, rivers, swamps
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Lower sections of rivers and
coastal waters
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulafolia) E Wet pine flatwoods and boggy
savannas
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) E Pine savannas with longleaf or
pond pine
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) T Fore dunes of barrier islands
-c= enuangerea; r = mreatenea; bA=status aue to similarity or appearance to another species.
In its current state the entire study area north of the Intracoastal Waterway could only
marginally serve as habitat for the eastern cougar. The project study area is somewhat
connected with other large and relatively unoccupied areas, though habitat corridors typically
cross roadways and include outlying areas of rural residences and farmlands. Frequent
intrusions into the area by members of hunting clubs and recreational vehicle users lessen
the "wild" character, therefore the suitability of the area as habitat, hence the probability that
3-83
i
I

Ll
1
n
V
I
cougars will inhabit the area. Yet, a recent mountain lion attack along a suburban California
jogging trail raises awareness that these opportunistic large cats may be adapting to more
fragmented habitats and returning to abandoned territories. Sightings in the mountains of
Western Maryland were apparently documented recently with a short videotape, though local
wildlife experts differed in their interpretation and explanation of its veracity.
Manatees (Trichechus manatus) are large aquatic mammals that graze on aquatic vegetation
and are often referred to as "sea cows." Slow moving, yet somewhat graceful swimmers,
manatees are gentle and frequently encountered by humans. According to Parker and Dixon
(1980) manatees "inhabit sluggish rivers, sheltered marine bays and shallow estuaries" and
require access to fresh water and channels at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) deep. While the
manatee was once subject to commercial hunting for its meat, oil, and leather, the greatest
current threat derives from collisions with boats and barges. Because the waters occupied
by the manatee are heavily used by humans, regulating commercial and recreational boating
traffic is crucial to manatee survival.
The manatee's critical habitat identified by the USFWS occurs mainly in Florida, and only
in summer does the manatee move as far north as North Carolina's southern coast. Manatees
have been sighted in North Carolina waters 49 times since 1977 (NHP records). In August
1976, one was observed near CP&L's power plant at Southport (NHP record), but the most
recent sighting was in the Trent and Neuse Rivers during October 1994.
The Peregrin falcon (Falco peregrinus) is a medium-sized migratory raptor having long
pointed wings and a long tail. The Attic peregrin is paler and smaller than the American
peregrin (Falco peregrinus anatum). It summers (and nests) in the treeless tundra of Arctic
North America and migrates to Argentina (Parker and Dixon 1980). The journey takes the
3-84
bird through the eastern, central and Gulf Coast regions of the United States. Like the
American peregrin, the arctic bird was historically affected by chlorinated pesticides in its
food and environment. Falcon reintroduction efforts have been moderately successful and
the ban on harmful pesticides has decreased the threat to the population's reproductive
system.
Because peregrin falcons chiefly migrate along the coast and use "open country, especially
along rivers, also near lakes" the project study area could be a stopover point for the birds.
However, Arctic falcons are not expected to use this area any appreciable amount of time.
The Wood stork (Mycteria americana)--a large white and black-feathered bird, 40-44 inches
tall with a 66 inch wingspan--is found on or near the coast, breeding chiefly in cypress
swamps and also in mangroves (Bull and Farrand 1977). Often seen perching motionless on
bare branches or stalking slowly through marshes in search of food, individuals are
sometimes seen circling high in the air on rising thermal currents.. They typically nest in
enormous colonies, laying 2-3 eggs on huge stick platforms in trees. Numbers have declined
drastically as a result of land development, lumbering, and draining of feeding grounds.
No large cypress stands occur in the project study area. Small pockets of cypress and
scattered individual trees occur, but no "cypress swamps" are extant.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) (Picoides borealis) are mostly black and white birds
with barred backs and wings and a large white cheek patch. Compared to other wood-
pecker's, RCWs are mid-sized (about 8 inches long) and superficially resemble several other
species, such as Hairy (Picoides villosus) and Downy (Picoides pubescens) woodpeckers.
The RCW males' small red spot behind the eye inspired the name "cockaded"..Otherwise,
3-85
i
' these birds are nondescript in appearance, and their habits tend to make them less
conspicuous than other woodpeckers. The species' most notable characteristic is its
dependency on very old live pine trees, which the birds excavate in a unique manner, so the
' trees exude sap around cavity holes. RCWs establish colonies that include a number of adult
' and nearly mature birds besides the primary breeding pair.
i
' RCW nesting colonies usually occur in mature pine (preferably Longleaf) stands with open
' understories, contiguous with areas where pines dominate the surrounding forest to provide
suitable foraging habitat. "Suitable habitat consists of pine or pine-hardwood (50 percent
' or more pine) stands 30 years of age or older" (Henry 1989). Although some colonies may
be found in pine stands where midstory hardwood encroachment has occurred, this situation
' is relatively rare. Periodic burning regimes typically are needed to maintain suitable habitat.
I,
An abandoned RCW cavity site exists just south of NC 211, approximately 3 kilometers (1.9
i,
miles) west of Midway (NHP records). The project area is dominated by pine stands, most
I, being plantations of slash and loblolly established after the natural longleaf and pond pine
timber was removed approximately thirty years ago. Where natural stands remain, age class
' and average stand diameters must be considered to determine the amount of potential habitat.
These data for the three corridors are presented in Section 4.7.1.
Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are large, dark brown soaring birds with wingspans
reaching six feet. They typically require large bodies of water with abundant fish
populations and roosting habitat in proximity to this food supply (Luukkonen et al. 1989).
According to Luukkonen et al. (1989), "good perch trees are the most important
' characteristics of forest stands for eagles". Eagles appear to prefer large, open-crowned
I perch trees, and eagle roost habitat requires large trees with open structures at low densities.
1 3-86
Studies have shown that the critical flush distances for eagles are 137.2 meters for motorized
boats, 220 meters for walking approaches. "Other researchers have reported that eagles
were not significantly disturbed by normally occurring auditory activities such as vehicular
traffic, human vocalization, or logging practices . . . . " (Luukkonen et al. 1989).
The Intracoastal Waterway, Lockwoods Folly River and Atlantic Ocean are all proximal to
the project study area. Large, isolated, open-crowned pines occur throughout the area. The
area therefore does provide suitable roosting habitat. NHP records do not indicate any bald
eagle activity in this vicinity and no individuals were observed during field examinations.
The Piping plover (Charadrius meiodus) is a sparrow-sized, dry sand-colored bird. It is
mainly a northern shore species that winters as far north as the Carolinas and south to the
West Indies and Mexico (Bull and Farrand 1977). Found in "bare, dry, sandy areas, both
inland and on the coast", it is difficult to see on the beach. Bull and Farrand comment that
coastal resort development has destroyed many former nesting sites.
Extensive "bare, dry, sandy areas" exist in the study area, especially in the spoil deposits
along the Intracoastal Waterway. Hundreds of acres of Kureb soil where sparse cover occurs
could also provide refuge for wintering birds. Any possible occupied sites on the beach
would not be affected by the proposed project.
The Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a fin fish usually less than 3 feet long,
colored dark above and light below, and having five rows of sharply pointed plates along
either side for protection. It inhabits lower sections of larger rivers and coastal waters along
the Atlantic seaboard from Canada to central Georgia. According to Parker and Dixon
(1980) "it may spend most of the year in brackish or salt water and move into fresh water
3-87

only to spawn". Feeding on invertebrates and some plant material, the shortnose sturgeon
is endangered because of pollution, over-fishing and construction of dams on rivers it uses
_,
for spawning.
1
Natural Heritage Program records note that 7 shormose sturgeon individuals were found in
the Cape Fear River during a 1990-1992 capture-release study. This is the only identified
occurrence in North Carolina. No habitat occurs in the study area.
Four marine turtle species have been noted in Brunswick County: Leatherback sea turtle
i, (Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), Green Sea Turtle
(Chelonia mydas), Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). All four species are large,
migratory ocean-dwelling turtles. The Leatherback, not considered common along the NC
coast, is an open ocean species sometimes moving into "shallow bays, estuaries and even
' river mouths". Kemp's ridley prefers shallow coastal waters and was "formerly common
in summer around Carteret County and known in Dare County". The Green sea turtle,
which "prefers fairly shallow waters inside reefs, bays and inlets," is now common only in
the Caribbean, though it "was once a common visitor along parts of the North and South
Carolina coasts". The Loggerhead "frequents open ocean waters as well as bays, lagoons,
salt marshes, creeks, ship channels and the mouths of large rivers".
Of the four turtle species, Kemp's ridley and the Loggerhead have both been observed on
Long Beach, therefore outside the project limits. These two species may find the
Intracoastal Waterway and Davis Canal marginally suitable habitat. They could conceivably
enter and traverse either water body, but they would not typically be found on the mainland
portion of the study area.
1 3-88
The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is a large reptile 1.8 to 3.7 meters (6
to12 feet) long with a rough hide and rounded broad snout. Its status in North Carolina has
O
improved, having been changed from endangered (Parker and Dixon 1980) to threatened.
It is found in coastal marshes, swamps, river systems, canals and lakes from Dare County,
NC, to Corpus Christie, Texas. Its varied diet includes mammals, herptiles, fish and birds.
Although marked increases in numbers have followed the alligator's protection from hunting
and protection of its wetland habitat, its similarity in appearance to the American crocodile
keeps it listed as T/SA.
Alligators have been observed in Davis Canal and at Big Cypress Bay, west of the study area
(NHP records). The mainland lacks sufficiently deep water bodies and streams to harbor
resident alligators. However, individuals could traverse the impact area in search of suitable
resident habitat.
Roughleaf loosestrife (Lysimacia asperulifolia) is a distinctive rhizomatous herb, reaching
heights of 30 to 50 centimeters (12 to 20 inches). Upper stems and leaves may be stipitate
glandular. Leaves are opposite or whorled, lanceolate and sessile. Flowers are
yellow-colored, borne in racemes, and present in May and June.
Roughleaf loosestrife generally occurs in the wet pine flatwoods and pine savanna
communities. The wet pine flatwoods community occurs in numerous scattered locations
throughout the study area, especially south of NC 211. Therefore, potential habitat exists for
roughleaf loosestrife. Roughleaf loosestrife also occurs in the pine savanna community on
wet mineral soils with seasonally-high water tables. Potential habitat for roughleaf
loosestrife occurs in the pine savannas located in numerous scattered locations in the project
area south of NC 211.
3-89

' In addition, roughleaf loosestrife could possibly persist in areas currently in pine plantations,
' since an unusually species-rich understory was noted in several places, and since some of
this plantation was probably pine savanna prior to conversion.
' Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) is a slender herb, reaching heights of 40 to 70
centimeters (16 to 28 inches). Leaves are alternate and ternately compound or ternately
i
' decompound. Individual leaflets are revolute, either linear, lanceolate, or oblanceolate and
' they are either not lobed or slightly three-lobed on basal leaves. The white flowers are
borne in June.
I,
Cooley's meadowrue occurs largely in pine savannas, characterized by a sparse canopy of
' longleaf pine or occasionally pond pine growing on wet mineral soil. Pine savanna occurs
in numerous scattered locations throughout the study area. Survival of the species is greatly
enhanced when these sites burn frequently with low-intensity fire.
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is a trailing herb with thick fleshy alternate
leaves that are ovate and slightly emarginate, and the petioles are winged. Flowers occur
I from June to October in axillary fascicles.
' Seabeach amaranth occurs in upper beach and dune grass communities on the oceanside of
barrier islands. In the upper beach community, it normally grows above mean high tide in
sand soil which is continuously blown and reshaped by ocean winds. Salt-spray winds and
blowing sands predominate. The soil is invariably composed of excessively well-drained
sands, shells and shell fragments. Associate vegetation is sparse, mostly sea oats (Uniola
paniculata), marsh elder (Iva imbricata), morning glory (Ipomoea) and pennywort
' (Hydrocotyle spp.). The dune grass community, located on the landward side of the upper
1 3-90
beach community, also occurs on sand soils. Sea oats dominates this community, but smaller
numbers of bear-grass (Yucca filamentosa), croton (Croton punctatus), sandspur and other
species occur also.
The upper beach and dune grass communities are completely lacking from the study area,
since the project does not cross Beach Drive to the active dunes on Oak Island. Thus, no
typical habitat occurs for seabeach amaranth, and it is extremely unlikely that seabeach
amaranth occurs in the project area.
State-Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program elements list for Brunswick County includes
190 species toward which some level of attention is directed because of species' rarity or
significance as part of the ecosystems where they occur. Table 3.7.3 lists only species that
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program classifies as endangered or threatened. Many
of the species appearing in Table 3.7.3 have been discussed above because they are federally
protected species.
Federal Species of Concern
Eight animal species and twenty plant species are currently listed as federal species of
concern in Brunswick County, as shown in Table 3.7.4. The rare skipper (Problema
bulenta) and two of the plant species, savanna campylopus and awned meadowbeauty, have
not been observed in Brunswick County in 20 years. The previously known location near
Southport for savanna campylopus has been destroyed and the species extirpated from that
site (Weakley 1985). "Dune blue curls," is apparently a nomen nudum--a name not validly
published according to the rules of nomenclature. Typical habitat for all 28 species and the
occurrence or lack of this habitat in the study area is indicated in Table 3.7.4. Suitable
3-91
1

1
1

i

I
TABLE 3.7.3
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED
(NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM 1995)
SPECIES STATUS' HABITAT
Eastern Cougar (Fells concolor couguar) E Large wild area with sufficient prey
Florida manatee (Trichechus manams) E Sluggish rivers and shallow bays
Dismal swamp shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri) E Mesic succession: cane, 10-15 yr. old
forest
Red-cocdaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E Pines >60 yr. old for nesting, >30
foraging
Arctic peregrin falcon (Falco peregrinus
tundrius) T During mitgration only
Bald Eagle (haliaeetus leucocephalus) E Large open-crowned perch trees, near
waterbodies
Wood stork (Mycteria americana) E Cypress swamps and marshes
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) T Bare, dry sandy areas on beaches and
inland
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) E Marine, open ocean
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepiodochelys kempi) T Marine and shallow coastal waters
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) T Marine and shallow coastal waters
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) T Marine, open ocean
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) T(S/A) Coastal marshes, rivers, and swamps
Shormose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Lower sections of large rivers and
coastal waters
Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei) T Quiet and clear or dark stained sloughs
and streams
Eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana floridana) T Deciduous lowland forest, swamps, and
marshes
Gull-billed tern (Strena nilotica) T Sparsely vegetated estuarine islands
Waccamaw spike (Elliptio waccamawensis) T Lake Waccamaw and adjacent river
Magnificent rams-horn (Planorbella magnifica) E Two old mill ponds elsewhere in
Brunswick County
Greenfield ramshorn snail (Helisoma eucosmium) PE Nothing known, except it's found in
Elodea mats
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) PT Fore dunes of barrier islands
3-92
TABLE 3.7.3 - CONTINUED
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES LISTED
(NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM 1995)
SPECIES STATUS' HABITAT
Savannah indigo bush (Amorpha georgiana) T Coastal fringe sandhill and associated
habitats
Harpers fimbry (Fimbristylis perpusilla) T Sand or mud bars in and adjacent
streams, etc.
Carolina grasswort (Lilaeopsis carolinensis) T Pine savannas
Golden crest (Lophiola aurea) E Pine savannas with sparse longleaf
canopy
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulaefolia) E Wet Pine Flatwoods and Boggy
savannas
Pinebarren smokegrass (Muhlenbergia torreyana) E Sandy, dry areas
Loose watermilfoil (Myriophyllum laxum) T Small depression ponds
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassium
caroliniana) E Wet savannas
Pineland plantain (Plantago sparsiflora) E Wet savannas
Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) T Pine savannas
Snowy orchid (Platanthera nivea) T Pine savannas
Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa)' T Cypress and pine savannas, clay-based
Carolina bays
Sun-facing coneflower (Rudbeckia heliopsidis) E Moist pine flatwoods and woodland
borders
Plymouth gentian (Sabatia kennedyana) T(S/A) Sand or mud bars in and adjacent
streams, etc.
Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra) E Savannas
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) E Pine savannas/barrens, pocosin
ecotones, near water
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) T Wet savannas
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) E Pine savannas with longleaf or pond
pine
Dwarf bladderwort (Utricularia olivacea) T Small depression ponds
*E= endangered; T= threatened; P= proposed; SA=status due to similarity of appearance to another species.
3-93 '
1
I'
I'
I,
1
I'
I'
i
TABLE 3.7.4
TYPICAL HABITAT AND HABITAT OCCURRENCE OF FEDERAL SPECIES
OF CONCERN IN BRUNSWICK COUNTY
Agrotis buchholzi Pyxie moth Pine barrens Yes Yes Yes
w/Pyxidanthera
barbalata occurring
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Open pine woods Yes Yes Yes
Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow Moist or dry grasslands No No No
Elassoma boehlkei Carolina pygmy Clear, dark-stained Marg. No Marg.
sunfish streams
Heterodon simus Southern hognose Well drained sandy Yes Yes Yes
snake pine-oak woodland
Noturus sp.2 Broadtail madtom Still, bottomland waters Marg. No Marg.
Planorbella magniftcum Magnificent rams- Mill ponds with plants No No No
horn snail
Rana capito capito Carolina gopher frog Dry Oak-Pine and Pine Yes Yes Yes
savannas
Problema bulenta Rare skipper' Brackish riverine No No No
marshes
Triodopsis soelneri Cape Fear three Cypress swamps No No No
tooth
Amorpha georgiana Savanna leadplant Coastal Fringe Sandhill, Yes Yes Yes
confusa Pine savanna
Balduiana atropurpurea Honeycomb head Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Campylopus carolinae Savanna campylopus Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap Pine savanna, Wet Pine Yes Yes Yes
Flatwoods
Mesic Pine Flatwoods, No No No
Sandhill Seep
Fimbristylis perpusilla Harper's fringe rush Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice Small Depression Pond, No No No
Small Depression
Pocosin
3-94
TABLE 3.7.4 - CONTINUED
TYPICAL HABITAT AND HABITAT OCCURRENCE OF SPECIES
CONSIDERED FOR FEDERAL LISTING AS ENDANAGED OR THREATENED
IN BRUNSWICK COUNTY
SPECIES COMMON NAME HABITAT HABITAT IN
ALTERNATIVE
A S C
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Myriphyllum laxum Loose watermilfoil Small Depression Pond,
Natural Lake Shoreline No No No
Oxypolisternata Savanna cowbane Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of- Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
parnassus
Sandhill seep
No
No
No
Plantago sparsiflora Pineland plantain Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Rhexia aristosa Awned Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
meadowbeauty
Cypress savanna
No
No
No
Rhynochospora thornei Thorne's beaked-
rush Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sun-facing
coneflower Roadsides and Right-of-
Way Yes Yes Yes
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Solidago verna Spring-flowering Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
goldenrod
Sandhill seep
No
No
No
Sporobolus teretifolius Wireleaf dropseed Pine savanna Yes Yes Yes
Tofieldia glabra Carolina asphodel Pine savanna, Wet Pine
Flatwoods Yes Yes Yes
Sandhill seep No No No
Trichostema species 1 Dune blue curls Coastal Fringe Sandhill Yes Yes Yes
Coastal Shrub Yes Yes Yes
Salt Marsh Yes Yes Yes

3-95
!_l
habitats for the Carolina crawfish frog, Bachman's sparrow, and the Pyxie moth exist.
Carolina pygmy sunfish habitat is marginal at best. Potential habitat for the 18 plant species
is typically associated with either wet pine flatwoods or pine savannas. None of these
species were observed during field investigation, except for Venus flytrap which was found
' in several places. No typical habitat exists for pondspice and loose watermilfoil--plants of
small depression ponds.
3.7.5 Natural Areas
I' The project study area traverses the Longleaf Rim unit of "The Boiling Spring Lakes
Wetland Complex". This Longleaf Rim unit was studied by the Nature Conservancy's North
Carolina Field Office as a possible preservation area, but all land encompassed remains in
' private ownership, thus without protected status. No defined natural area preserve exists.
I
' The Longleaf Rim unit "is characterized by many large and small Carolina bays
' superimposed on broad, low, non-alluvial flats and a relict dune and swale system" (LeBlond
1994). Much of the area supports woody pocosin vegetation, and various subtypes of the
longleaf community occur intermixed across the landscape. However, considerable longleaf
acreage was converted to slash pine and loblolly pine plantations approximately 30 years
ago, with widely varying results. Tree growth of these introduced species has generally been
' slow.
In 1993, wildfire raged across the Longleaf Rim unit, enhancing habitat for native fire-
dependent plant species that had suffered because of historic fire suppression. Many
plantation trees were killed and, in places, pocosin thickets were substantially reduced. Pond
' pine and longleaf typically survived, and regeneration can be observed in many areas.

1 3-96
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
i This section of the report presents a discussion on the probable effects, both positive and
¦ negative, for Alternatives A, B, and C. Potential mitigation for these impacts are also
¦ discussed.
4.1 LAND USE IMPACTS
' This section is based on the report "Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Technical
Memorandum" which is incorporated by reference into this Environmental Assessment. The
analysis focuses on two geographic regions: the project study area and the Induced Impact
Area. The project study area is defined as the Middleton Avenue area of the island and
mainland directly impacted by the proposed second bridge and two-lane collector roadway
Alternatives A, B, and C. The Induced Impact Area is defined as Oak Island which includes
the three municipalities of Caswell Beach, Long Beach, and Yaupon Beach and the proximate
mainland. The mainland area is basically a Y-shaped area which includes the NC 133
M Corridor (Long Beach Road), extending to the junction of NC 133 and NC 87 and includes
the entrances of the CP&L Nuclear Power Plant and the Sunny Point Military Ocean
Terminal, SR 1500 (Midway Road) to the Brunswick County Government Complex and the
large tracts of land bordering the Intracoastal Waterway bounded by NC 211 to the north and
by SR 1112 (Sunset Harbor Road) to the west. The induced impact area is shown on Exhibit
4.1.1.
it The socioeconomic impacts of corridor Alternatives A, B, and C will be similar over the 20-
year planning period between 2000 and 2020; therefore, socioeconomic impacts are identified
only in terms of the Build and No-Build alternatives. This assumption is supported by the
' fact that the traffic projections for Alternatives A, B, and C are identical.
1 4-1
4.1.1 Development Trends and Land Use Plans Impacted
The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission requires each coastal town and county
to prepare a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) land use plan and update its plan every
five years. The most recent certified plans for each of the four jurisdictions within the
Induced Impact Area are as follows: Town of Caswell Beach. NC 1990 Land Use Plan,
Town of Lona Beach. NC 1993 Land Use Plan, Town of Yaupon Beach. NC 1990 Land Use
Plan, and Brunswick County Land Use Plan 1993 Update.
The extensive development plans of the St. James Plantation should also be noted because
the proposed corridor Alternatives B and C cross currently undeveloped areas of this
privately planned resort community. St. James Plantation is located on the mainland between
NC 211 and the Intracoastal Waterway. This private development company owns 2,072.47
hectares (5,119 acres) of which 688.30 hectares (1,700 acres) has been developed as a golf
course, residential community. The private developer plans to build St. James Plantation
in three phases and anticipates project completion by 2008. According to a St. James
official, the Second Bridge Alternatives will not influence the St. James Plantation build-out
by the year 2008. However, the proposed project could facilitate utility extension, affect the
layout of future Phase III development and influence the design of the community's private
roadway system.
4.1.2 Consistency with Comprehensive Development Plans
The CAMA Land Use Plans are used by local, state, and federal officials for the issuance
of major and minor CAMA development permits and for Consistency Review of all federal
and state projects within the community. Three aspects of the CAMA Land Use Plans are
considered pertinent for determining the consistency of the proposed federal or state project:
4-2

I

I
I
?r

t

I
E
I
I
I
r
1

' Areas of Environmental Concern, Land Classification, and Policy Statements regarding the
proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island.
?i
Alternatives A, B, and C lie within several types of Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs)
including Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shorelines, Public Trust Areas, and Coastal Wetlands.
Any major land disturbing activity within Areas of Environmental Concern would require
a CAMA Major Development Permit.
I? The project study area lies within the jurisdiction of the Town of Long Beach and Brunswick
County. The Town of Long Beach CAMA Land Use Plan classifies land within the project
study area as Developed Residential on the island, as Conservation for the shoreline
bordering the Intracoastal Waterway and as Urban Transition for the Long Beach.ETJ on the
mainland. The Brunswick County CAMA Land Use Plan has jurisdiction over the remaining
mainland portion within the project study area. Land bordering Alternatives B and C is
classified as Urban Transition. Land bordering Alternative A is classified as Limited
Transition and as Rural. A Carolina Bay which is part of the Boiling Springs Lake Wetland
Complex is located between Alternatives A and B and this area is classified as Conservation.
rl Alternatives A, B, and C would be consistent with the Developed Residential, Urban
Transition, Limited Transition, and Rural classifications. The land designated as
r? Conservation should be not developed at all, or if developed, done so in an extremely limited
and sensitive fashion in order to protect the wetlands and natural habitats. Alternatives A,
B, and C avoid impacts to the Conservation area.
The Towns of Caswell Beach, Long Beach, and Yaupon Beach have CAMA Land Use policy
statements endorsing the construction of a Second Bridge to Oak Island as cited below:
1 4-4

Caswell Beach: 11. (b) Transportation:
"The town of Caswell Beach supports the construction of a second bridge to provide
access to Oak Island. "
Long Beach: Transportation (a), page IV-16:
"Long Beach will meet the increasing need to move people and goods from place to
place conveniently, safely, quickly, and efficiently, particularly during the summer
months when traffic congestion is highest by:
- Mounting a concentrated campaign with Caswell and Yaupon Beaches to acquire
a second bridge for Oak Island at Middleton Avenue. "
Yaunon Beach: 11. (e) Transportation:
"Yaupon Beach supports the construction of second bridge in Long Beach, linking Oak
Island and the mainland, which would lessen traffic congestion, and possibly increase
commercial development in the Town. "
Brunswick County has consistently supported the need for an additional bridge serving the
southwest end of Oak Island as stated in the County's 1993 Land Use Plan Update.
The Brunswick County Commissioners 1996 TIP Request List prioritized the Second Bridge
to Oak Island as the most important transportation need in the County. Improvements to SR
1500 from NC 211 to US 17 was listed as the number three priority on the TIP list, which
recognized a need to accommodate the increased traffic flow to a second bridge and to
further improve evacuation routes.
4.1.3 Secondary Land Use Impacts
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines secondary or indirect effects as
follows:
Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include
growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of
land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and
other natural systems, including ecosystems. (40 CFR 1508.8)
4-5

The following secondary impacts affecting land use have been identified:
• Change in Development Rate: The Induced Impact Area and Brunswick County are
projected to grow 35.9 percent from 1994 to 2020. The Induced Impact Area year-
round population is projected to grow from 8,880 residents in 1994 to 13,933
residents in 2020, an additional 5,053 new year-round residents over the twenty-five
year period. By assuming a 4:1 ratio of seasonal population to year-round
population, it is estimated that the 2020 peak seasonal population will be 55,732
overnight and day visitors for a total summer peak population of 69,665. These
projected growth patterns are nearly twice the projected growth rate for the State of _04
North Carolina. The proposed second bridge is not anticipated to attract a greater
proportion of new residents to the area, but will impact to a minor extent where the
growth will occur. The southwest end of Long Beach and the bridge corridor on the
mainland could attract more development as the result of the second bridge.
Change in Character: The character of the Induced Impact Area will not change as
• the result of the proposed second bridge. Oak Island will remain a low-rise, family-
retirement beach community with predominately single-family houses and limited
commercial services. All three beach towns reflected this goal in their most recent
CAMA land use plans and these policies are enforced by the town's land use
regulations. In particular, the Yaupon and Long Beach building height referendum
requirement effectively eliminates high-rise development. The mainland between NC
211 and the Intracoastal Waterway will develop as golf-retirement complexes and
residential subdivisions, with or without the bridge. Some observers may regard the
development of these rural tracts as directly related to the construction of the bridge.
However, such development is a predictable change which many local officials
anticipate would happen with or without the second bridge. The major impact of the
new bridge corridor will be the orientation of these development complexes. With
4-6
a new roadway, the main entrance to the complexes would most likely occur along
this route. Without the new bridge, the complexes would have entrances along their
current NC 211 or SR 1112 frontage. SR 1500 would remain predominantly rural
homesteads even with the higher traffic volumes attributed to the bridge traffic. The
character of the NC 133/ NC 87 and SR 1112 corridors will likely not change as a
result of Alternatives A, B, or C.
• Impact on Neighborhoods: There would be development pressure to rezone some
portions of the Middleton Avenue residential street to allow commercial use.
1G • Impact on Public Image: The main "gateway' or entrance to a community greatly
influences the public perception of that town. Many now regard the Long Beach
Road Corridor as a cluttered, poorly designed, and unattractive commercial strip
which provides a negative "entrance" to Oak Island. The new bridge corridor is
viewed by many as a way to provide an aesthetically pleasing entrance to Oak Island.
The Town of Long Beach anticipates having zoning authority over much of the
bridge corridor area, especially by the year 2020. Town officials want to plan for
upscale, quality growth and to control the design of the new main entrance to their
community thus providing Long Beach and the other Oak Island towns with a better
image.
• Impact on the Beach: More day visitors will have better access to the Town of Long
Beach because of the proposed second bridge to Oak Island. According to the Town
of Long Beach CAMA Plan, this town is committed to providing sufficient public
access walkways, restroom facilities, and parking in order to accommodate the
increase in day visitors.
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines cumulative impact as follows:
4-7
"Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or
person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time. (40 CFR 1508.7)
Past actions within the Induced Impact Area include the development of existing residential
and commercial structures, the provision of a centralized sewer system in Yaupon Beach,
i the operations of the CP&L nuclear power plant and the Sunny Point Military Ocean
Terminal on the mainland, and the operation of the US Coast Guard station and the NC
' Baptist Assembly on Oak Island. These developments have occurred in accordance with the
?J local jurisdictions CAMA Land Use Plans.
Foreseeable actions on Oak Island include continued residential and limited commercial
development in accordance with the CAMA Land Use Plans and the possible provision of
a centralized sewer system in Long Beach. Other possible future actions on the mainland
include the possible closing of the CP&L nuclear power plant after 2015, the construction
of the two-lane connector from NC 211-133 to NC 87 (TIP No. R-3324), improvements to
SR 1500, further development of the Southport-Oak Island Committee of 100 Industrial Park,
the provision of a centralized sewer system by the Southeast Brunswick Sanitary Sewer
District and plans by St. James Plantation and surrounding property owners to build
additional resort and residential communities. It is anticipated that the Sunny Point Military
Ocean Terminal, the US Coast Guard Oak Island Station, and the NC Baptist Assembly will
continue operations throughout the planning period of 2020.
Foreseeable actions within the region which will impact the Induced Impact Area include the
overall growth of Brunswick County and the proposed construction of Interstate 73, the
Wilmington Bypass from US 17 North to US 17 South, and the upgrading of US Highways
I
;? 4-8
74-76. All of these transportation improvements will promote accessibility to Southeast
Brunswick County which in turn will support growth in the Induced Impact Area.
The cumulative impacts to the environment could include an increase in population and
housing densities which would encroach into the natural habitats, introduce pedestrian traffic
across the natural habitats, and increase noise and night-lighting which may reduce or disturb
wildlife, including some federal and state-protected species. Moreover, additional roadways,
residences, and commercial development would affect wetlands and reduce available habitats
for nesting and foraging thereby increasing competition among species.
These secondary and cumulative impacts to natural habitats are associated with the projected
35 percent growth rate, rather than from the effects associated with the proposed second
bridge. The mainland area between NC 211 and the Intracoastal Waterway will be
developed by 2020, with or without the second bridge, as evidenced by the development
plans of St. James Plantation. This mainland area does have the potential for containing
habitats for protected plant and animal species as cited in the "Natural Resources Technical
Report." The bridge corridor will be designed to avoid and minimize the impact to these
natural habitats; however, these habitats will likely be encroached upon by development by
the year 2020 or sooner, regardless of the proposed second bridge and corridor design.
There are federal, state, and local laws which provide rules and regulations to prevent such
secondary and cumulative impacts to the natural environment caused by unmanaged growth.
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, CAMA, NC Executive Order 15
mandate that a consistency review be preformed prior to any impact. Local county and town
zoning ordinances regulate the use of land.
4-9
4.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS
4.2.1 Chanties in Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
The residences lining Middleton Avenue would be impacted by the higher traffic volumes
and noise levels associated with a second bridge. It is anticipated that there would be
development pressure to rezone some portions of this residential street to allow commercial
use. A maximum of ten houses and one business along this avenue will be displaced by the
bridge and roadway. This should not impact neighborhood cohesiveness.
Most of the Induced Impact Area currently has zoning which would minimize the intrusion
of non-residential uses into residential areas. The only area which currently does not have
zoning is a section of the Southeast Brunswick Sanitary District, however, zoning should be
in place by the year 2000.
4.2.2 Changes in Travel Patterns and Accessibility
The proposed project would provide a second access to Oak Island and a connection to NC
211 at SR 1500 at Smith. This would provide a more direct access to US 17, a four-lane
divided highway which connects to US 74 and I-40. Accessibility would be improved to the
western end of the island. The proposed project would also improve accessibility throughout
f
the region for emergency services such as police, fire, and ambulance and a more direct
route to Brunswick County Hospital. Emergency evacuation routes would be improved and
are discussed further in Section 4.2.6. In addition, the improved conditions would benefit
tourists, school buses, commercial truck traffic, and commuter traffic. Congestion on the
existing bridge and roadway would be reduced and levels of service improved.
The new bridge will facilitate the provision of public and private utility services. The Town
of Long Beach will have better access to its mainland extraterritorial jurisdiction and to the
4-10
95.63 acre mainland site of its proposed sewer treatment plant, accessible by a four-wheel
drive path off of Sunset Harbor Road. The Town of Long Beach CAMA Plan supports the
long-range development of a sewer system, however, it is unlikely that a sewer system will
be approved and operational in Long Beach by the year 2000. Without a second bridge, the
Town of Long Beach's ability to service the mainland would be severely limited and the
town corporate boundaries would be less likely to change.
The population of Oak Island consist of a mix of permanent residents, part-time residents and
tourists. Introducing a second access to the island will change travel patterns for the entire
population mix. Currently, coming from the north and east, travelers must exit US 17 on
either NC 87 at Winnabow or NC 133 at Belville and travel between 20 and 25 miles on a
two-lane road to access Oak Island via the existing bridge on NC 133. By constructing the
second bridge and roadway from Oak Island to NC 211 at SR 1500 at Smith, a direct
connection to US 17 will be made allowing travelers to continue further on a safer, four-lane
divided highway until reaching Boliva. This route will be especially beneficial to those
traveling to the western end of Oak Island. Travelers coming from such areas as Whiteville
and other points to the west will be able to access Oak Island via the Second Bridge and
eliminate approximately 15 miles from the trip.
Day visitors would have better access to the Oak Island beaches because of the proposed
Second Bridge and there would be an increase in day visitors. All along the North Carolina
coast the number of day visitors increases as the population density increases on the
mainland and better access is provided between the Piedmont region of the Carolinas and the
coast. The 35 percent population increase of Brunswick County would put additional
demands on all of the county beaches. The proposed Second Bridge would facilitate access
and also could change beach destinations for the Shallotte area residents. The new bridge
4-11
' would considerably shorten the distance to Long Beach for these mainland residents, most
of whom now go to Holden Beach because of its proximity. Conversely, the shorter travel
distance between Shallotte and Oak Island would enhance Shallotte developing as a regional 2/
retail center for Southeast Brunswick County. 7?
4.2.3 Impacts on Specific Social Groups
Generally, the demographic trend all along the North Carolina coast has been for the
M percentage of minority population to decrease as the result of the influx of predominantly
white retirees. Only 9.2 percent of the Induced Impact Area's 1990 population was nonwhite
M of which only 0.7 percent lived on Oak Island and 8.5 percent lived on the mainland. No
minorities would be relocated by the construction of the Second Bridge and this proposed
project would not adversely impact any social groups, including the elderly and handicapped,
minority, low income, or ethnic groups. The project does, however, have the potential to
benefit the elderly and handicapped on the island. The proposed Second Bridge would
I reduce traffic congestion and improve the response time of law enforcement, fire protection
and emergency medical services.
4.2.4 Relocation Impacts
The estimated number of residential and business relocations is shown in Table 4.2.1. Each
of the alternatives would relocate the same residences and businesses.
' It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing would be
available prior to construction of federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
1 4-12
TABLE 4.2.1
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS
ALTERNATIVES!A,B, ANDC
OWNERS TENANTS TOTAL MINORITIES
Residences (Families) 10 0 10 0
Businesses 0 1 1 0
Churches 0 0 0 0
Total 10 1 11 0
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to
assist displaces with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent, and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of
ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will
compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to
tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-17). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating
to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is
assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
4-13
\1

.1
`r
C

1
I
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory services
without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will so
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe and sanitary standards. The displaces are
given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of
displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices or replacement housing offered will
i? be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and be reasonably
accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced businesses, non-profit organizations and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation
r regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of
replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant
housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information
concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced
persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the
costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and
farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for
Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement
dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals and other closing costs and, if
4-14
would be desirable and could accommodate projected increases in evacuation clearance
volumes through 2020 without an increase in the time required to fully evacuate Oak Island.
In the event of a hurricane both bridges would be used to evacuate the island thus doubling
the evacuation capacity. The combination of the existing bridge and the second bridge
should accommodate projected increases in evacuation clearance volumes through 2020
(11,700 vehicle increase, from 16,800 in 1994 to 28,500 in 2020) without an increase in the
time required to fully evacuate the island. This additional evacuation capacity would reduce
the risk of injury for island inhabitants and users.
In the event of an accident at Brunswick Nuclear Plant two options are available. The first
option is to use both bridges to evacuate the island. However, this would force evacuee's
using the existing bridge to proceed toward the accident site before leaving the area of
danger. The second option is to use only the second bridge to evacuate the island thus
allowing evacuee's to proceed away from danger as they exit the island.
Finally, the fact that Oak Island which is the most densely populated area of Brunswick
County is served by just one bridge is another concern. The Oak Island swing bridge was
demolished by a barge in 1971. Such an incident today would isolate Oak Island which had
an estimated 1994 year-round population of 5,886 and peak summer population of 37,995.
The consequences would be more severe if a disaster happened in 2020 with the projected
summer peak population of nearly 70,000 and there was only one evacuation route off the
island.
4.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Second Bridge to Oak Island should have positive economic impacts. The following
4-17

411 sections discuss specific components of the economy.
J
4.3.1 Regional and Local Economy
Initially, the Second Bridge to Oak Island would affect the area economy by providing
increased employment during the construction period, thereby resulting in additional income
generation. Based on the Federal Highway Administration procedures for estimating
construction related employment, each one million dollars of construction expense creates
an average of 9.75 on-site jobs and 12.7 off-site jobs. Based on the estimated construction
cost, Alternative A would create approximately 130 on-site jobs and 169 off-site jobs;
Alternative B would create 120 on-site jobs and 156 off-site jobs; and Alternative C would
create 123 on-site jobs and 160 off-site jobs. Minimal revenue loss during construction for
off-road businesses is anticipated. There should be only minor interruption of traffic along
NC 211 and SR 1500
On a longer term basis, the proposed project would enhance the local economy by providing
better access between Oak Island and the mainland. The local economic base consists of
mainly resort services such as motels, beach house rentals, restaurants, convenience stores,
gift shops, and privately-owned golf and recreational facilities. Most of these services are
geared toward the vacationing public and, as such, are dependent upon the seasonal flow of
visitors for their sustenance. Better access provided by the Second Bridge would enhance
the tourist economy.
4.3.2 Existing Highway-Related Businesses
'V Highway-related businesses are businesses that depend on pass-by traffic, such as
convenience stores and gas stations, or the highway for transporting goods and services such
I as trucking companies. A convenience store/gas station located at the intersection of SR
1 4-18

Impact on Property Values: The proposed project would also enhance the value of
some lands, particularly along the new bridge corridor and at the intersection with
NC 211. Some local officials speculated that a second bridge would also increase the
land and property values for the Town of Long Beach.
Impact on Government Revenues: Local government revenues would be enhanced by
the higher property values associated with the bridge corridor. The cost of providing
public services would be lowered by the reduction in travel costs and the ability to
provide services more efficiently.
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
4.4.1 Schools
None of the proposed alternatives would directly impact schools in the project study area.
A second bridge would give the Brunswick County Board of Education fresh alternatives for
providing the most direct and efficient school bus transportation system for area students
which may affect school attendance zones.
4.4.2 Churches and Cemeteries
As discussed in Section 3.4.2, churches of various denominations are located within close
proximity to the study area. Churches located both on the island and on the mainland may
benefit from the increased accessibility that would be provided to permanent residents and
tourists with a second bridge. No churches or cemeteries would be relocated by any of the
alternatives.
4.4.3 Parks and Recreation
As previously discussed in Section 3.4.3, there are many recreational facilities located near
the project study area. These facilities would benefit from the increased accessibility pro-
4-21
i
I vided with a second bridge.
4.4.4 Archaeological and Historical Properties
Archaeological Resources
Presently, there are no archaeological sites in the study area listed in the National Register
of Historic Places. Based on the results of the archaeological and historical background
r report prepared for the project, the probability of archaeological sites occurring within the
study area is low. The most probable location for archaeological sites is along the rims of
the Carolina Bays. If the Preferred Alternative impacts any of the Carolina Bays in the study
' area, an archaeological survey of the bay and the rim area will be conducted.
.? Historic Architectural Properties
Based on the results of the historic architectural survey, there are no properties listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurred with
this determination by letter dated February 23, 1995.
4.4.5 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
None of the alternatives would require property from any parks, wildlife refuges or
recreational land or significant historic sites as defined in Section 4(f) of the 1966 US
Department of Transportation Act, as amended. A letter of concurrence from the FHWA,
concerning the Intracoastal Waterway public access site at the end of Middleton Avenue, is
included in the Appendix.
I
4.5 UTILITY IMPACTS
4.5.1 Electric Power Transmission
i Each of the three build alternatives will cross a 30.5 meter (100 foot) power transmission
1 4-22
I
line right of way easement as shown in Exhibit 3.5.1. Brunswick County Electric
Membership maintains the transmission line which carries a voltage of 69 kilovolts. No
relocation of the powerline will be required by Alternatives A, B, or C. An electrical power
substation, located at SR 1500 (Midway Road) next to the Midway Trading Post, is outside
of the proposed right of way and will not be affected.
4.5.2 Water Service
Along Middleton Avenue, all three build alternatives would cross water distribution lines at
Beach Drive, Dolphin Drive, Pelican Drive, Oak Island Drive, and Yacht Drive, as shown
in Exhibit 3.5.1. Another water distribution line runs parallel to the east side of Middleton
Avenue between Beach Drive and Yacht Drive. Although not anticipated, portions of this
water line may require relocation if conflicts arise during construction. Short term
interruptions to service may occur. A water storage tower located on Middleton Avenue
near Pelican Drive would not be impacted.
The 1992 Brunswick County Land Use Plan, "Year 2010 Systems Recommendations",
includes a future 16 inch water trunk line coming from the water treatment plant, located on
the southern side of NC 211 near Beaverdam Creek, following NC 211 westward to the
intersection of NC 211 with the proposed roadway. It would then turn southward to follow
the proposed roadway and would be carried along the proposed bridge into Long Beach. ,
4.5.3 Sewer Service
There will be no impacts to sewer service within the project study area because all residences
and businesses rely upon septic systems for sewage disposal. It is unlikely that a sewer
system would be approved and operational in Long Beach by 2000, but it is probable that
a sewer system will be operational by the year 2020. The system may be constructed
4-23 ,

I independently by the Town of Long Beach or in concert with the other Oak Island and
mainland municipalities. Local officials do not anticipate that the lack of a sewer system in
Long Beach would deter development through 2020 as evident by the current building boom.
The Town of Long Beach CAMA Land Use Plan stated that it would take approximately 75
years for Long Beach to be fully developed. The lack of sewer system does affect which
residential lots may be developed, but given the substantial number of vacant lots, the overall
rate of residential development is not anticipated to be deterred through 2020.
4.5.4 Natural Gas Service
' Natural gas service is not available within the project study area.
4.5.5 Communications
Atlantic Telephone provides telephone service to the portion of the study area located along
NC 211 and SR 1500. As shown in Exhibit 3.5.1, fiber optic telephone cables, copper
telephone cables, and cable television cables run along both NC 211 and SR 1500 in this
area. All three build alternatives would cross cables that run along NC 211. A remote
telephone office hub, located between the electric power substation and Midway Trading Post
on SR 1500, would not be affected.
BellSouth provides telephone service to the Long Beach area. All three build alternatives
`i
would cross buried copper filled cables at Oak Island Drive, Dolphin Drive, and Beach
Drive. These cables may require relocation if located within the proposed construction
limits. However, no disruption of service would be experienced by area residents.
4.5.6 Railroads
I No railroad lines are located within the project study area.
1 4-24
4.6 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.6.1 Floodplain Impacts
As part of National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA has determined floodway boundaries
as a tool for floodplains management. Based on FEMA's definition, the 100 year floodplain
is divided into a floodway and floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream
plus any adjacent floodplain areas that need to be kept free of encroachment so the 100 year
flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum federal
standards limit such increases to one foot, provided hazardous velocities are not produced.
However, when a detailed flood study is performed, site specific elevation limits of flood
height increases are established. The area between the floodway and the 100 year floodplain
boundaries is the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the
floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water surface elevations
above FEMA's published floodway elevations.
As previously shown in Exhibit 3.6.1 the proposed alternatives cross the 100 year floodplain
of the Intracoastal Waterway at the same location. There would be no floodplain
encroachment at the Intracoastal Waterway for any alternative, the proposed bridge will span
the waterway and its associated floodplain.
4.6.2 Hydraulic Impacts
The proposed action would increase the overall stormwater runoff from the existing roadway
system because of the increase in pavement surface. However, the proposed project would
not make a significant difference in the hydrology of the study area.
Pipe culverts would be designed to assure there would be a minimal increase in the water
surface elevation during the base flood. They would be designed such that any increase in
4-25
I
backwater elevation would not exceed the allowable increase as published by the FEMA
detailed flood study for the area. Pipe sizes and elevations will be determined during design.
Both the Davis Canal and the Intracoastal Waterway are estuarine waterways subject to tidal
influences, therefore it is expected that backwater elevations and velocities would not
increase as a result of the proposed project. The Intracoastal Waterway will be spanned by
a fixed high rise bridge with a vertical clearance of 20.0 meters (65 feet) over mean high
' water. The Davis Canal bridge will be replaced in its existing location and at its existing
elevation. Limits within which activity could take place would be restricted to that necessary
for the conduct of work and would be defined. Under the conditions described herein, any
impacts to the natural and beneficial floodplain values associated with the project would be
' negligible.
Potential impacts to the floodplain of the water courses throughout the project area as a
i result of erosion will be mitigated through strict adherence to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation's, "Best Management Practices For Protection of Surface Waters", June
1991. This policy was developed to minimize the degradation of the state's waters through
the development of roadway projects.
4.6.3 Geoloev. Toooerat)hv, and Soils
Geology
No major alterations to the study area geology are anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
Topography
All alternatives would have approximately the same effect on the study area topography.
1 4-26
Since the project area typically consists of level terrain, the alternatives are expected to be
borrow construction projects, meaning that fill dirt would be required for the highway.
Substantial differences in the topography would occur with the construction of the bridge
over the Intracoastal Waterway to reach the required vertical clearance of 20 meters (65 feet)
for navigable waters.
Soils
No major changes to study area soils are expected as a result of the proposed project.
However, construction of a new road would temporarily disrupt the landscape, exposing
unvegetated soil to potential accelerated erosion losses. Oxidation and subsequent subsidence
of affected organic soils is another potential impact. The possibility of oxidation of organic
soils is greatest in Alternative B, which has the most organic soil. The potential is lowest
in Alternative A, which has the least organic soil. Undercutting to remove unsuitable
organic material may be required for all the proposed alternatives.
The low relief and lack of perennial streams means potential erosion impacts would be
minimal and very local in Alternative B. In Alternative C, one stream would be crossed,
so greater erosion potential impacts would be expected. The impact in Alternative A would
be greatest, since it crosses four small perennial streams where the carrying capacity of
moving water has sufficient potential to erode soil. However, since relief is minimal, no
longterm adverse impact is expected in any of the alternatives, provided proper sediment
control is accomplished during construction.
4.6.4 Mineral Resources
The Yellow Banks confined (diked) disposal facility (CDF), located along the north side of
the Intracoastal Waterway, would be impacted by all three alternatives. Coordination with
4-27

the US Army Corp of Engineers was initiated to determine the impact to the Yellow Banks
CDF. Copies of the correspondence are included in Appendix A. The encroachment onto
the Yellow Banks CDF is estimated to be 5 hectares (12 acres) for Alternatives A and B, and
6 hectares (15 acres) for Alternative C. Coordination with the COE will continue to
minimize the impacts to the Yellow Banks CDF as much as possible. No other known
mineral resources would be impacted by any alternative.
4.6.5 Hazardous Material Sites/Underuound Storage Tanks
Each site in the right-of-way of the Preferred Alternative will be monitored including
regulatory status, site visits, interviews with property owners and on-site analysis. An
i
assessment will be performed to the degree necessary to determine levels of contamination
' and to evaluate remediation options along with the associated acquisition costs. Resolution
of problems associated with contamination would be coordinated with appropriate regulatory
agencies and, prior to right-of-way acquisition, appropriate actions would be taken, where
applicable.
i' An initial assessment of hazardous materials sites and underground storage tanks located
within the project study area was completed. A discussion of the survey methodology and
the results is contained in Section 3.6.5. As a result of the survey, two (2) potential
underground storage tank sites were identified. Exhibit 3.6.3 illustrates the approximate
location of each site in relation to the proposed alternatives. Alternative A would impact
! only one potential underground storage tank site, the Beach Pantry on Middleton Avenue.
' Alternatives B and C would potentially impact the Beach Pantry as well as the Midway
Trading Post, located at the intersection of SR 1500 and NC 211. No hazardous material
sites were identified.
I
1 4-28
Following the initial assessment, a determination was made of the risk of encountering
unknown contamination at each site. These assessments were based on the likelihood that
contamination exists at the site and on the degree of concern this presents relative to the
build alternatives being considered.
The risk system identifies four degrees of risk: No, Low, Medium, and High. This
categorization is for general purposes. Sites where known spills or leakages have occurred
may not necessarily present a high cause for concern if the environmental agencies are aware
of the situation, enforcement actions are being taken, and remedial activities are either
completed or underway. The degrees of risk are defined as follows:
No Risk means that the observed conditions of the site, the state records, and the
current and previous business activity does not support a contamination risk.
Low Risk means that the business handles hazardous materials but has a clean
appearance and no violations. An example of such a business might be a gas station
with new underground storage tanks, monitoring wells, leak prevention system, no
automotive maintenance, and a clean record in the environmental agency's files.
Medium Risk indicates there is a higher concern or may include sites of known
contamination. Medium risk sites may require some follow-up prior to right-of-way
acquisition.
High Risk suggests that additional studies are recommended and that soil and
groundwater sampling and laboratory analysis may be required.
4-29
M MI M m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m
U)
A
m
D
N

-0 O D
< ?Z
m ? A
20
A m
O
D
°°-m
m r-
?
00
m
O
D m
r r
mr
D O
0 :E
F Co
Z
<
C)
0
m

r
?G ._. ? ? NC ?t
d
-Pw
61rci .

- -

?t ) ? r

m
S
c
W
ti

<D
G
A
CZIP
W n
Q.
C Q? CC]
Z
?. 0
Q
Sr
ID pr
= CA
ID
3 (D
m Z
m rt
?S
n
> m-IM
0
om

Long Beach
Atlantic Ocean

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? i ? r ? ? S ? ? ? ? ?
Y
Both of the evaluated sites located within the project study area would be considered Low
,n Risk.
4.6.6 Air Quality Impacts
The results of the microscale air quality analysis for the No-Build and Build Alternatives are
presented in this section. The CO concentrations were compiled to include the project
m roadway and background concentrations. The one-hour and eight-hour concentration
m standards as established by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are 35 ppm and 9
ppm, respectively. For the future alternatives, the design year 2020 summer peak one-hour
m concentrations range from 2.8 to 4.4 ppm for Alternative A and B, and 2.8 to 4.5 ppm for
Alternative C, and the eight-hour concentrations range from 1.7 to 2.7 ppm for Alternatives
A, B, and C. The No-Build Alternative is expected to experience one-hour concentrations
ranging from 6.1 to 20.4 ppm, and eight-hour concentrations from 3.7 to 12.4 ppm. Based
on these results, no exceedances of either criteria is predicted to occur at any receptor for
the Build Alternatives. However, the No-Build Alternative is expected to exceed the eight-
hour concentration standards, at a distance of 15 meters (49 feet) from the existing
u centerline, for six of the ten locations analyzed.
The results of the Microscale Analysis are tabulated in Table 4.6.1. This table shows the
2020 one-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations for No-Build and Build Alternatives at the
selected receptors.
The project is located in Brunswick County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Forty (40) CFR Part 51 is not applicable,
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated
r to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
1 4-30
4.6.7 Noise Impacts
Future Noise Levels
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated procedure. In general, the traffic
situation is composed of a large number of variables which describe different cars driving
at different speeds through a continually changing highway configuration and surrounding
terrain. To assess the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels is the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction
Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost
Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of
vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of the road
(curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation and barrier top elevation. The roadway sections for
this analysis were assumed to be flat, representing "worst case" topographic conditions.
Design hour and level of service "C" volumes were compared for the proposed design. The
4-31
TABLE 4.6.1
DESIGN YEAR 2020 ONE-HOUR/EIGHT-HOUR
CO CONCENTRATIONS
volume which resulted in the noisiest conditions was used with the anticipated speed to
predict future noise levels.
The computer model was used to determine the number of receptors by FHWA activity
category which, during the peak hour in the design year, would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and or experiencing substantial
noise increase. Table 4.6.2 shows the numbers of receptors expected to experience traffic
noise levels approaching or exceeding their respective FHWA noise abatement criteria or
experiencing a substantial increase in the existing noise levels. Receptor impacts for activity
Category B and C criteria for Alternatives B and C is 57 and 3, respectively, and for
Alternative A is 59 and 3, respectively.
Other information included in Table 4.6.2 is the maximum extent of the 67 dBA and the 72
dBA noise level contours, and predicted noise levels at 15, 30, and 60 meters (50, 100, and
200 feet) from the center of the nearest travel lane. The 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise level
8 contours are generally used to assess the exposure impacts on land uses. This information
can assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped
n lands adjacent to the roadway in local jurisdiction and to prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses. Table 4.6.3 indicates the predicted exterior traffic
noise level increases for area receptors.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
1. approach (within 1 dBA) or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria, or
2. substantially exceed the existing noise levels (greater than or equal to 15 dBA,
' for less than or equal to 50 dBA existing noise levels, or greater than or equal
1 4-32
TABLE 4.6.2
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
4-33
1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel time.
2. 72dBA and 67dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE 4.6.3
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
II
to 10 dBA for greater than 50 dBA existing noise levels).
I
11
a
0
Ia
I
I
I
Consideration for noise abatement measures can be applied to receptors which fall in either
category. Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied
with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures
to effectively detract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
Noise barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the sound path between a roadway and noise
sensitive areas. This measure is most often used on high-speed, limited-access facilities
where noise levels are high and there is adequate space for continuous barriers. Noise
barriers may be constructed from a variety of materials including concrete, wood, metal,
earth and vegetation.
For each of the alternatives, most of the impacted receptors are located on Oak Island
between the Intracoastal Waterway and SR 1190 (Oak Island Drive) where the proposed
facility connects to Middleton Avenue. Other isolated impacted receptors are located near
the end of the project near NC 211.
On this project, all residences and commercial establishments will have direct driveway
connections, and intersections will be at grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient
reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier
for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due
to restricted sight distance is also a concern. To provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
4-34
length would normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor.
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular highway
normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic
noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities and thus, would not be acceptable
abatement measures in their case. Abatement measures such as traffic management,
alteration of the proposed alignment, or purchase of land for use as a buffer zone are neither
reasonable or feasible with this project. All receptors approaching or exceeding FHWA
criteria and NCDOT guidelines exist under the previously described conditions. Based on
past project experience, these factors effectively negate the effectiveness of any physical
abatement measures. Therefore, no noise abatement measures are recommended for the
project.
In areas of impacted receptors where abatement measures have been considered and found
not to be reasonable, a vegetative barrier may be considered for aesthetic screening.
Summary
Although noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of roadway construction, the
proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island will not substantially deteriorate the surrounding
acoustic environment. By the Design Year 2020, the number of receptors approaching or
exceeding the criteria is estimated to be 62 for Alternative A and 60 for Alternatives B and
C. All of the receptors that approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria have driveway
connections. Therefore, noise barriers are not considered reasonable and are not
recommended on this project.
4.6.8 Farmland Impacts
The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 is to minimize the extent
4-35
!'a
,o
la
to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of
farmland to nonagricultural uses. In accordance with Section 658.4 of the Act, a Form AD-
1006 was submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) to determine whether the project is subject to the Act. A copy
of the completed form is included in Appendix A.2.
The SCS identified a total of approximately 223,061 hectares (550,960 acres) of farmable
land in Brunswick County of which 99,485 hectares (245,728 acres) are farmland as
identified by FPPA. Approximately 2 hectares (6 acres) of prime and unique farmland
occurs within Alternative A, 7 hectares (18 acres) within Alterative B and 5 hectares (12
acres) within Alternative C. Statewide and local important farmlands also occur within the
alternatives. Alternative A contains 6 hectares (16 acres), Alternative B contains none, and
Alternative C contains 1 hectare (2 acres) of statewide and important farmlands.
The proposed alternatives were evaluated to determine the effect of the project on farmlands
and to determine the suitability of the project for protection. The SCS measured the relative
value of FPPA farmlands within the corridors for Alternative A, Alternative B and
Alternative C and scored the alternatives 18, 17 and 10 points, respectively. Based on site
assessment criteria, such as the amount of land in nonurban use within one mile of the
project and the proximity of the project to an urban area, a site assessment score of 37 was
determined for Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C. The combined scores of
Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative C are 55, 54 and 47, respectively.
The USDA recommends for projects with scores totaling 160 points or more, that protective
measures be considered. Based on Form AD-1006, no protection measures for farmland are
recommended on this project.
4-36
4.7 NATURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Existing terrestrial and aquatic resources, as well as habitat for protected species in
Alternatives A, B, and C are described below, along with the impacts from potential
right-of-way within the alternative corridors. Because the proposed corridors are 150 meters
(492 feet) wide and the proposed right-of-way is only 30 meters (98 feet) wide, the impacted
areas are substantially less than the particular corridor's area. Further details concerning
the natural resources studies can be found in Blank and Braham (1996). Table 4.7.1 presents
a general comparison of current land-use conditions in the three second bridge alternative
corridors.
The amount of developed land is nearly the same in all three corridors. Alternatives A and
B both have about 18 hectares (45 acres), and Alternative C has about 19 hectares (47 acres).
The difference among the corridors is largely due to differences in the area of
right-of-way/roads and spoil banks.
The difference among corridors in right-of-way/roads areas is small. Alternatives A and B
have about 2 hectares (4 acres) each, and Alternative C has about 3 hectares (8 acres). In
all three corridors, roads occupy about one-quarter of the developed land category. All three
corridors cross the spoil bank at the same approximate location have about the same area of
spoil bank, about 5 hectares (13 acres). In each corridor, spoil bank occupies about
one-quarter of the developed land category.
With about 8 hectares (20 acres) only 7 percent of Alternative A is cultivated and with about
4 hectares (10 acres) each only 5 percent of Alternatives B and C is cultivated.
4-37
?o
n
I
O
m
a
IjR
.m
II
m
w
4.7.1 Biotic Communities
The proposed project would interrupt an otherwise forested area with a graded and
compacted road corridor that would level the microtopography and permanently replace
vegetation with impervious surface cover. These changes would (1) reduce available habitat
for plants, (2) fragment plant communities, (3) increase surface runoff that must be
accommodated by residual plant communities, (4) possibly alter plant-water relationships by
changing the natural subsurface water movement, and (5) reduce available wildlife habitats
by the amount of area impacted.
Terrestrial Communities
Reduction of plant habitat would correspondingly reduce the size of local plant populations.
Impact from habitat reductions will be most significant on longleaf pine communities (Table
4.7.2 and 4.7.3). They contain the greatest number of native species, and the amount of
longleaf pine forest in North Carolina has declined the most since the time of European
settlement. Today, only about sixteen percent of the area originally occupied by longleaf
pine remains (Barnett and Dennington 1992). Approximately 4% of Alternative A, 20% of
Alternative B and 38% of Alternative C is composed of longleaf pine. Alternative A, which
contains 4.4 hectares (11 acres) of longleaf pine, would minimize growing space losses to
longleaf pine communities. Alternative C would provide the highest losses, since it contains
4-38
TABLE 4.7.1
AREA OF EACH CORRIDOR BY LAND USE AND AQUATIC CATEGORIES

TABLE 4.7.2
FORESTLAND IN PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS

BY FOREST TYPE
AND AGE CLASS ,
AREA IN CORRIDOR
FOREST TYPE AGE CLASS
A B C
ha ac ha ac: ha ac
Pine Plantation 1-29 66.7 165.0 27.1 67.0 22.7 56.0
30-59 -- -- -- -- -- --
Over 60 -- --
Bottomland Hardwoods 1-29 0.4 1.0
30-59 -- --
Over 60 5.7 14.0 3.2 8.0 3.6 9.0
Longleaf Pine 1-29 -- -- -- -- -- --
30-59 -- -- 12.5 31.0 21.8 54.0 ,
Over 60 4.4 11.0 7.3 18.0 19.8 49.0
Pocosin 1-29 -- -- 10.5 26.0 8.9 22.0 f
30-59 4.0 10.0 2.8 7.0 4.8 12.0
Over 60 3.6 9.0 6.0 15.0 -- --
Coastal Scrub 1-29 -- -- -- --
30-59 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 '
Over 60 -- -- --
Total Forest All Ages 85.3 211.0 70.2 173.0 82.1 2030
.
42 hectares (103 acres) of longleaf pine, over twice the amount of Alternatives A and B.
Alternative B contains 20 hectares (44 acres) of longleaf pine.
The area of pine plantation in each corridor varies considerably, even though plantations are
the single largest land use type in Alternatives A and B and the second largest land use in '
Alternative C. Alternative A has the most plantation, about 67 hectares (165 acres) or 57
percent of the corridor. Except for small interruptions at streamheads, plantations occur ,
4-39 ,
I
I throughout the central portions of Alternative A. Alternative B has about 27 hectares (67
acres) of plantation, about 36 percent of the corridor. They occur in the central portion of
Alternative B, but they are separated into two areas by pocosin and longleaf pine.
Alternative C has the least plantation, about 23 hectares (56 acres) or 22 percent of the
corridor, which occur only in the northern third of the corridor.
The most successful plantations in the corridors occur in the central portions of Alternative
A, beginning about 2744 meters (9,000 feet) south of NC 211 and ending about 4939 meters
(16,200 feet) south of NC 211. Both Alternatives B and C once contained successful
plantations, but most of these plantations were destroyed by wildfire. In Alternative B,
burned plantations begin about 1616 meters (5300 feet) south of NC 211 and end about 1890
meters (6200 feet) south of NC 211. In Alternative C, all plantations were burned,
beginning about 1311 meters (4300 feet) south of NC 211 and ending about 3049 meters
(10,000 feet) south of NC 211.
The pine/scrub oak sandhill community occurs largely in Alternative C, about 3323 meters
(10,900 feet) south of NC 211.
In Alternative A, pocosin occupies 4 hectares (10 acres), about 7 percent of the corridor.
a It stretches from about 122 meters (400 feet) to about 396 meters (1300 feet) south of NC
i
211. This area is the only extensive pocosin in Alternative A, although pocosin also occurs
along small streamheads located at about 1829 meters (6000 feet), 2439 meters (8000 feet)
and 2744 meters (9000 feet) south of NC 211. Alternative B contains the highest proportion
of pocosin, about 11 hectares (28 acres). Pocosin occurs immediately south of NC 211, and
it extends south for about 1402 meters (4600 feet). Pocosin also occurs along a small
streamhead located about 2317 meters (7600 feet) south of NC 211, and also on part of a
4-40

Carolina Bay, stretching from 2896 meters (9500 feet) to 3293 meters (10,800 feet) south
of NC 211. Pocosin occupies 13 hectares (34 acres), of Alternative C, and as in Alternative '
B, occurs immediately south of NC 211. Pocosin also stretches from about 1524 meters
(5000 feet) to about 1829 meters (6000 feet) south of NC 211, the eastern portion of a large
Carolina Bay.
In the study corridors, the bottomland hardwoods type is not common. With 6 hectares (14 '
acres), it composes only about 5 percent of Alternative A, and with 3.2 hectares (8 acres)
and 3.6 hectares (9 acres) respectively only about 3 percent each of Alternatives B and C.
Bottomland Hardwoods occur in three places in Alternative A: about 1402 meters (4600
feet), about 5610 meters (18,400 feet), and about 6219 meters (20,400 feet) south of NC
211. The first location is the only Bottomland Hardwood community above 7.6 meters (25
feet) elevation, and the only young Bottomland Hardwoods stand. The other two locations A
are part of the unnamed stream that drains into the Intracoastal Waterway. In Alternative
B, Bottomland Hardwoods occur only along an unnamed creek located north of the spoil
bank. In Alternative C, Bottomland Hardwoods occur in two places, the eastern portion of
Ashpole Swamp and along the unnamed creek mentioned above.
Table 4.7.3 indicates the approximate amount of each type that would be impacted by right-
of-way. Relative relationships among the alternatives generally do not change. The amount
of the longleaf community impacted by Alternative C is almost twice as much as by
Alternative B, while the amount of pocosin impacted by Alternative B is only slightly higher
than the amount impacted by Alternative C. This is important because the longleaf '
community is the most vegetationally complex, it is the forest type of relatively greater value
as habitat (see Table 3.7. 1) and because extant longleaf communities have historically
suffered considerably more decline through species conversion. '
4-41 ,
i?
I
i
i
io
i
1211
TABLE 4.7.3
AREA OF FORESTLAND TYPES IMPACTED
BY RIGHT-OF-WAY
Fragmentation of forest communities is a potential concern. Fragmentation increases the
probability that uncommon species will be locally extirpated (Hunter 1990). Fragmentation
is especially problematic in areas with little forest. Fortunately, the project area between
Smith and the Intracoastal Waterway, the section where fragmentation is a potential issue,
is almost completely forested. Thus, no substantial adverse impact from fragmentation is
expected from any alternative corridor.
Trees adjacent to the outer limits of construction would lose the part of their root system that
lies inside the construction right-of-way. In addition, plants adjacent to the construction
areas may be run over or against by construction vehicles. Since trees maintain a balance
between the amount of crown and the amount of roots (Kramer and Kozlowski 1960),
removing or damaging part of the root system would cause affected trees to experience water
stress of the crown. In limited cases, the stress may not be outwardly noticeable. In
extreme cases, individual trees may die either from desiccation or wind throw. This impact
4-42
is unavoidable. It would be lowest in Alternative B, the shortest alternative, and greatest
in Alternative A, the longest.
Potential exists to foster longleaf pine restoration in conjunction with this project. Extensive
areas of slash and loblolly plantations nearby are not thriving, and longleaf and pond pines
have actually persisted in areas where the planted species have failed. The salutary effects
of recent fires on the natural communities even at the expense of the plantations can be noted
as well. Potential for successful habitat restoration appears greatest in Alternative C.
Terrestrial Wildlife
Negative impacts to animal species would predominantly be related to conversion of habitats
and due to hazards created by frequent vehicular traffic in an area where such traffic did not
occur previously. Snakes, other reptiles, and amphibians are especially vulnerable to death
on highways at night when they seek warmth provided by radiant surfaces, as evidenced by
the great many reptile specimens thus recorded (Palmer and Braswell 1995). Small mammals
and deer are also frequently victims in areas where their populations are abundant.
Predation on small mammals by raptors (hawks and owls) able to spot prey in the broad
expanse of open area alongside highways is also an observed consequence of highway
construction and right-of-way maintenance. Such predation seldom severely affects the
rodent populations and typically enhances raptor populations, although predators occasionally
are hit when diving across roads for prey in the path of oncoming vehicles.
Aquatic Community Impacts
Freshwater Streams: The lack of extensive stream systems in the project area means little
potential impact should be expected on aquatic communities. Aquatic vegetation seldom
occurs, so culverts will not eliminate this component of the biotic community. The fish
4-43

species observed and that have been mentioned as possible users of the small streams are not
likely to be adversely affected by culverts. The lack of anadromous fish in these sections
of the local streams implies no impact on such species will be expected.
Alternative B would have no impact on the aquatic community. Because Alternative C
would cross one stream and a small section of a high quality water zone while Alternative
A would cross four streams and a long section of a high quality water zone, these corridors
could pose potential threats to downstream aquatic communities. However, careful
adherence to Best Management Practices would eliminate such threats, given the low slopes
and low gradients of the systems affected.
Saltwater Tidal Areas: Saltwater animal communities will only be impacted to the extent that
I breeding grounds and forage area will be slightly reduced at Davis Canal.
(e 4.7.2 Water Resources
Streams, Canals and Impoundments
Only headwaters and small tributaries of any named systems would be affected by the
I proposed project. Few defined freshwater stream channels occur in the corridors, and these
are mostly low-gradient drains. Characteristics of these streams are shown in Table 4.7.4.
.? As indicated, Alternative A crosses four streams, Alternative C crosses one, but Alternative
B crosses none. Streams crossed will be enclosed in pipes of about 3 meters in length. No
ponds or reservoirs occur in any of the corridors. Approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles)
In n of Alternative A pass through the High Quality Water Zone surrounding Mercers Mill Creek.
Alternative C abuts a High Quality Water Zone around the headwaters of Polly Gully Creek.
Because all corridors follow the same route over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Davis
m 4-44
TABLE 4.7.4
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS IN ALTERNATIVE A AND ALTERNATIVE C'
ALTERNATIVE A3 ALTERNATIVE C
Creek Name Trib. Mercers Mill Unnamed Trib. Mercers
Mill Unnamed Ashpole Swamp
Trib.
Substrate Sandy muck Sand Sand Sand Sand
Current Sluggish Moderate Strong Moderate Moderate
Channel Width (m) 1.2-3.0 0.45 1.8 Variable 1.53 (Ditched)
Bank Height (cm) 15.0 30.5 45.7 25.4 1.53
Water Depth (cm) 10.2 22.5 17.8 25.4 5.1
Water Color Black Black Black Clear Black Clear
Water Odor None None None None None
Aquatic Vegetation Blue green algae None Liverworts None Cattails
Adjacent Vegetation Loblolly pine Sweet bay Loblolly pine Hardwoods/vin
es Hardwoods
Wetlands Associated Narrow corridor Both sides Both sides 20 cm organic
mat. None
• No streams are crossed by Alternative B
Canal, the impacted area of about one hectare (2 acres) of saltwater tidal area is the same
for all corridors. This impact is the result of footing placement and expanded earth fill
slopes at Davis Canal.
Water Quality
Low gradients and ill-defined drainage patterns in the study area indicate soil siltation and
sedimentation do not pose substantial threats to water quality. Since sandy soils predominate
in the study area, infiltration of surface runoff should be rapid in most places. Although,
highway runoff from paved surfaces always poses a non-point source pollution threat, a
Federal Highway Administration research project studying the effects of highway runoff on
water quality concluded that stormwater runoff from low to medium traffic volumes (under
4-45
J
30,000 vehicles per day) exert minimal to no impact on receiving waters. Moreover,
appropriate planning and construction using the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters will manage local runoff, so no substantial adverse effects are
expected.

Potentially, the most widespread impact on water resources could result from subtle
m hydrologic changes due to compaction of soils beneath the proposed roadway. Such
m compaction is unavoidable because native materials underlying the paved road must be
sufficiently stabilized to withstand vehicular traffic. Therefore, because surface drains are
ill-defined in this area and so much of the existing lateral movement of water appears to be
via subsurface drainage, the effects on water movement could vary considerably. Changes
in water movement could have both immediate and longterm effects on vegetation
communities and could ultimately create or degrade wetlands adjacent to the roadbed.
Placing culverts at currently defined drains would assure maintenance of surface flow.
O Location of culverts at all discernible linear depressions will be considered to maintain
existing drainage patterns.
Construction of the high-level span across the Intracoastal Waterway and replacement of the
existing span across Davis Canal will have no appreciable impact on water quality. Neither
structure will impede tidal flow of the spanned waters nor interfere with activities of the
faunal species using these waters, so anadromous fish migrations will not be affected. Com-
mercial use of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway will not be affected.
4.7.3 Waters of the United States
The USACOE 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.
m 4-46
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical
integrity of waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts
has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, 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.
The amount of wetland determined in each of the corridors is indicated in Table 4.7.5.
Table 4.7.5 indicates that Alternative B contains the most wetland, while Alternatives A and
C are very close in total area. Some of the wetland areas that occur in a corridor extend
across the entire corridor and therefore cannot be avoided. However, at a number of sites,
only a small spot of wetland occurs within the corridor boundary so the entire area might be
avoided with careful placement of a right-of-way during preliminary design.
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 USACOE, in deter-
4-47
TABLE 4.7.5
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF WETLAND IN CORRIDOR
I
a mining determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
o 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.
m
The project purpose necessitates traversing the area between NC 211 and the Intracoastal
Waterway. Because of the extensiveness of wetland between these two boundaries, totally
m avoiding wetland impacts is not feasible. Each of the study alternatives includes some
wetland areas and some of these areas span the entire corridor widths. Table 4.7.5 shows
the amount of wetland occurring in each corridor. However, careful consideration of terrain
and biotic communities during development of the build corridors has largely avoided
extensive reaches of some pocosin and bottomland hardwood areas. When such areas were
unavoidably crossed, such crossings were always positioned at the narrowest possible
n locations.
The net effects of these avoidance measures are shown in Table 4.7.6. By total area and by
type, amounts of impacts differ only slightly in the three alternatives. Alternative C impacts
the smallest area, followed by Alternative A, then Alternative B. However, the largest
wetland type impacted in Alternative A is the pine plantation type, which has lost most of
the natural habitat features of wetlands originally found in this ecosystem. This
semi-converted condition also applies to the pine plantation found in Alternative B.
Minimization
Minimization includes examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
m through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through reduction of median widths, right-
m
m 4_48
TABLE 4.7.6
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF WETLAND IN RIGHT-OF-WAY
of-way widths, and fill slopes. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to waters
of the United States include strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMPs for protection
of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide
management; minimization of instream activity; and litter/debris control. Wetlands impacts
will be minimized to fullest extent practicable during preliminary design.
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.
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 waters of the
United States. Actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established general
mitigation guidelines for restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation at 2:1, 3:1, 4:1
4-49
LJ
a and 10:1 respectively. Enhancement and/or restoration of existing, possibly degraded
tl wetlands is usually preferable to creation of new wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation, with a goal of wetland restoration, is a mitigation opportunity on
pocosin wetlands that have been converted to pine plantations. This project presents the
possibility for achieving such restoration given that all three alternative corridors encompass
m areas of pine plantation that were originally pocosin. As shown in Table 4.7.5, Alternatives
A and B include 4.3 hectares (10.6 acres) and 3.4 hectares (8.4 acres) of such plantation,
respectively. Restoration of longleaf pine and initiation of controlled understory burning
would make a desirable difference in these areas and also encourage protected plant species
and rare vegetation communities. Other prior converted lands exist proximal to this project
and present a number of viable options for compensatory mitigation. These areas are within
the conservation zone designated by the Brunswick County Land Use Plan.
NCDOT will conduct a search for a suitable site for creating or restoring marsh in the
project area. If a suitable site is not found, adjacent areas will be examined. If still
unsuccessful, out-of kind mitigation or other mitigation scenarios, such as preservation, will
be explored. Mitigation plans will be coordinated with USACOE, DEM, USFWS, WRC,
and CAMA.
4.7.4 Rare and Protected Species
Federally-Protected Species
Table 4.7.7 presents the biological conclusions for species federally listed as endangered or
threatened in Brunswick County, North Carolina. For ten of the fifteen species currently
listed, conclusions of no effect were determined based on the lack of habitat for nesting,
roosting or foraging in the project area.
j 4-50
It is reasonable to conclude that the project would not affect any of the marine turtle species
federally listed for Brunswick County. Although marine turtles might enter the Intracoastal
Waterway or even Davis Canal, construction activity would not adversely affect them. Their
more likely use of the beach for nesting would not bring them into the project area.
Likewise, the piping plover uses beach habitat and would not be affected by the project.
While building a road through the study area would decrease the area's marginal utility as
cougar habitat, it is extremely unlikely that a cougar would find its way to this area.
Sea beach amaranth, shortnose sturgeon, and wood stork habitat is not available in the
project area, so no effect would occur. Likewise, as roosting habitat for the bald eagle does
not occur in the project area, impact to this species is not anticipated.
The peregi•in falcon does not spend an appreciable amount of time in this area, therefore
impacts to the species are not expected to occur.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed recommendations for general construction
activities in aquatic areas which may be used by the manatee. The manatee is generally
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
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 year, other
requirements may be implemented only during the period when manatees are most likely to
be in North Carolina waters, currently considered to be the months of June through October.
4-51

I
TABLE 4.7.7
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING
' FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
11,
a The conditions which should be implemented throughout the year are:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the
project that manatees may be present in the project area, 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
4-52

2.
3
4
5.
that they are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of
manatees.
The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that
there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees
which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the ESA.
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
on its own volition.
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, Florida
([phone]), the Raleigh Field office ([phone]), and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission ([phone]). 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.
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:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occur in these waters during the warmer
months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if operating this
vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down if a
4-53
I
' manatee comes within 50 feet of operating equipment. A collision with and/or injury
to a manatee will be reported immediately to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at (919)
856-4520 and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission at [phone].
' 6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, or injuries to
manatees during project construction. After construction the project manager will
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees during construction.
' This report will be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office and NCWRC.
' The following conditions will only be required for construction during the period from June
1 through October 31, the period when manatees are most likely to be in North Carolina:
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake/idle"
speeds at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a
' four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water
whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barrier will be: (a) made
of material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in manner that
they cannot break free and entangle manatees; and (c) regularly monitored to ensure
I that manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to
allow manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
.m
Habitat surveys for the remaining three species were conducted. Table 4.7.8 indicates
approximately the amount of available habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW),
I cooley's meadowrue, and roughleaved loosestrife in the corridors for Alternatives A, B,
I4-54
and C.
A survey for cooley's meadowrue, in areas of habitat, was conducted by biologists July 16-
19, 1996. All areas of habitat were surveyed plant by plant for cooley's meadowrue. No
cooley's meadowrue was observed during the investigation. A review of the NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no listing of cooley's
meadowrue within the project area. Therefore project construction will not affect cooley's
meadowrue.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
A survey for roughleaved loosestrife, in areas of habitat, was conducted by biologists July '
16-19, 1996. Prior to the survey, a known population of roughleaved loosestrife was '
investigated in Brunswick County to observe its vegetative characteristics, habitat, and
flowering stage. No flowers were observed within the known population.
The survey for roughleaved loosestrife for the subject project included areas of habitat within
the corridors. No roughleaved loosestrife was observed during this investigation. A review
4-55 1
TABLE 4.7.8
AVAILABLE SUITABLE HABITAT FOR PROTECTED SPECIES
ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS

t of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no listing of roughleaved loosestrife within the project area.
1 However, a population of roughleaved loosestrife was discovered by biologists on July 17,
' 1996, within a utility right-of-way in the southern portion of the project. This population
was estimated to be approximately 15 m (50 ft) wide and 24 to (80 ft) long. The population
' is located 229 m (750 ft) east of Alternative B, which is well outside the proposed right-of-
way for this alternative. The NC Natural Heritage Program was notified of the location and
size of this population of roughleaved loosestrife. Since no roughleaved loosestrife was
' observed within the corridors, it can be concluded that project construction will not affect
roughleaved loosestrife.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
' On August 16 and 19, 1996 a survey was conducted to determine whether red-cockaded
1 woodpecker colonies exist in the study area within one-half mile of Alternative B and
Alternative C. A search of Alternative A was conducted on September 18, 1996.
Procedures generally followed those outlined by Henry (1989) with the addition of a
helicopter to facilitate the search through difficult cover.
Start holes in two locations, and one active or recently active cavity were found. Two
a loblolly pine trees located about 300 meters (1000 feet) north of the dredge spoil bank in the
southern portion of Alternative B contained start holes. One contained three holes on the
westerly side of the bole, the other contained two holes. Both trees are about 18 inches in
diameter at breast height (dbh). The active or recently active cavity is located in a flat-
topped longleaf pine tree of about 16 inches dbh in Alternative C, near Ashpole Swamp. No
colony trees or start holes were observed in or surrounding Alternative A.
m 4-56
All trees identified from the air were visited and their conditions were confirmed on October
5 and 6, 1996. In addition to the trees identified from the air, one possible start hole tree
was located in Alternative C and a number of probable historically occupied but now dead
standing cavity trees were observed. The accumulated evidence suggests ongoing activity
south and east of Alternative C, but the precise level of activity remains unknown.
The project as proposed is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" (NLAA) red-cockaded
woodpeckers because sufficient suitable habitat exists pre-project and will remain post-
project. This conclusion was derived using procedures detailed by Henry (1989) for
calculating available RCW habitat.
The summary table below presents the final values relevant to the two cluster sites of
woodpecker activity discovered during aerial surveys and confirmed with subsequent ground
truthing. Calculations for available habitat were based on aerial photo analysis, ground
based knowledge of the project study area, and standard yield tables appropriate for the sites
in question.
The values shown in Table 4.7.9 exceed the baseline requirement of 8,490 square feet of
total base area and 6,350 pine stems greater than 10 inches dbh (Henry 1989). The
calculations and resulting values demonstrate that the requirements for an NLAA biological
conclusion are met.
At least 50 acres greater than 60 years of age with 70 square feet of pine basal area and at
least 24 trees greater than 10 inches in dbh are available to each colony, and more than 125
acres of pine exist contiguous with each colony site.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
4-57
I

1
1

i

11
.1
I
I
iA
TABLE 4.7.9
AVAILABLE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER HABITAT
SITE PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS
In Alternative B 8.3 Acres of Habitat Removed
39,570 ft2 of Total Basal Area 38,506 ft2 of Total Basal Area
21,031 Pine Stems Greater Than 20,352 Pine Stems Greater Than
10 Inches dbh 10 Inches dbh
In Alternative C 12 Acres of Habitat Removed
50,015 ft' of Total Basal Area 48,646 fta of Total Basal Area
28,383 Pine Stems Greater Than 27,552 Pine Stems Greater Than
10 Inches dbh 10 Inches dbh
State-Protected Species
A number of species listed for protection by the state of North Carolina, but currently not
listed and not being considered for federal listing, may occur in the corridors. The only
animal in this group, the Eastern woodrat, prefers deciduous lowland forests and swamps.
Pinebarren smokegrass occurs in sandy, dry areas which would be impacted in all three
alternatives. Savannah indigo bush occurs in coastal fringe sandhill and associated habitats,
which mostly occur in Alternative C. Four species (Carolina grasswort, Golden crest,
Yellow fringeless orchid, Snowy orchid) grown pine savannas, which occur in both
Alternatives B and C. Of these four, Golden crest especially occurs in pine savannas with
sparse longleaf canopy, a community particularly evident in Alternative C. No surveys will
be conducted for state listed species not listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish
I and Wildlife Service.
it
?m
Species Considered for Federal Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Table 3.7.4 presents the list of federal species of concern and their habitat availability within
the three bridge alternatives. As is the case with the federally protected species, Alternative
C provides the highest quality habitat for most of these species and Alternative A provides
4-58
the least. Surveys are not required for federal species of concern and none were conducted.
4.7.5 Natural Areas
Alternatives A, B, and C would cross the Longleaf Rim unit of "The Boiling Spring Lakes
Wetland Complex". Therefore, the natural features leading to the interest in preserving this
unit would be eliminated within the right-of-way of Alternatives A, B, and C. However, no
impacts to any legally defined natural area or preserve would be incurred. Moreover, none
of the alternatives would eliminate the potential for extensive areas outside the right-of-way
to be preserved or designated as a natural area.
4.8 VISUAL IMPACTS
The introduction of any new roadway facility in an area alters the local perception of the
visual environment. The effect that a roadway project would have on an area depends on
the activities, exposure, and sensitivity of the viewers. Within the study area, critical and
sensitive visual locations would consist of the Intracoastal Waterway and residential areas
located at each end of the build alternatives.
The area surrounding the project is characterized by extremely flat topography, little relief,
a mid size forest canopy and broad, open vistas dominated by the sky. Vegetation consists
of pine plantations, savannas and various shrubs typically associated with southeastern North
Carolina. The Intracoastal Waterway is a predominant feature that crosses through the
central portion of the study area and is bordered by a dredge spoil known as Yellow Banks
on the mainland side and by residential development on the island side.
Because each of the alternatives are on new location, much of the mainland study area is
undeveloped. On Oak Island most of the study area consists of residential development, 1
4-59

' although there exists several businesses within the immediate project vicinity. Future land
' use plans for Oak Island indicate the development of the entire island. The Second Bridge
to Oak Island is being planned as an arterial roadway. As such, the vertical alignment of
the roadway would follow the contour of the land to the extent practical, with exception of
' the bridge crossing over the Intracoastal Waterway, and would meet existing intersecting
streets at-grade. With this as the setting, the impact of the new roadway on the visual
' environment from existing residential areas would be minimal.
A facility of this nature would result in the creation of views from the structure. Visual
' quality would be enhanced or improved for those using the facility. It would create a large
vista because of its elevation over the Intracoastal Waterway. Also, a view would be created
for the user of the waterway, approaching in a boat from either direction. The new crossing
of the waterway would impact the viewing experience from the waterway.
' Measures to minimize visual impacts will be taken into consideration during design of the
roadway and bridge. Overall, visual impacts may be mitigated through landscaping and
natural revegetation of the fill slopes.
4.9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
A Impacts during the construction of this project are expected to be similar to those associated
with any major roadway construction. Before construction is started, a preconstruction
conference involving the contractor, local officials, utility companies and the Division of
a Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures. It will include a
discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction to minimize
construction impacts. In addition, notification of the NC Geodetic Survey will take place
prior to construction. Any affected markers will be relocated prior to construction.
4-60
I?
The following sections present general discussions of the principal short-term construction
impacts associated with the Second Bridge to Oak Island.
4.9.1 Air Quality
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done
at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings, and not when atmospheric conditions are
such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant
surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when the control of
dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
4.9.2 Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passersby and those individuals living and working near the project, can be
expected particularly from earth moving equipment during grading operations. However,
considering construction noise is relatively short in duration and generally restricted to
daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristic of nearby structures and vegetation are believed to be sufficient to moderate
the effects of intrusive construction noise.
4-61
I
1 4.9.3 Water Ouality
r Roadway construction activities may have some temporary impacts on water quality within
the study area. Erosion of soils is the most critical water quality impact during construction.
The amount of erosion varies depending upon the size of the construction limits, roadway
vertical grades, roadway cut and fill slopes, and the effectiveness of the installed erosion
control devices. The project area is relatively flat, and therefore, it should not be difficult
I I to control erosion if the proper measures are utilized.
I Impacts to the water quality will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" (BMPs). An erosion control
?j plan will be developed prior to the initiation of construction. The plan will incorporate the
11 requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, and the
BMPs to control non-point source impacts from new highway projects. Temporary and
permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures would be utilized throughout the
a project to prevent off-site sedimentation of adjacent streams and properties.
4.9.4 Maintenance of Traffic
During construction, all local and through traffic would be adequately and safely
accommodated. All construction operations would be scheduled to keep traffic delay
minimized, and the contractor would conform to the standards of the "Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways."
Construction would be performed to comply with all federal, state, and local laws governing
safety, health, and sanitation. Procedures would apply all safeguards, safety devices,
protective equipment, and any other needed action reasonably necessary to protect the life
and health of employees on the job, the safety of the public, and property in connection with
4-62
the performance of the work. The following items would be provided, where necessary, for
the maintenance of traffic and public safety:
• Constructing and maintaining temporary detours, temporary structures,
temporary approaches, crossings, and intersections with streets and roads, as
well as using aggregates for maintenance of traffic and water for use as a dust
palliative.
• Furnishing flaggers, pilot trucks and drivers.
• Furnishing, erecting, and maintaining warning devices such as signs, auxiliary
barriers, channelizing devices, hazard warning lights, barricades, flares, and
reflective markers. If any street must be closed to traffic, traffic control devices
would be illuminated or reflectorized during hours of darkness.
4.9.5 Construction Materials and Waste
Precautions will be taken to prevent contamination of any watersheds or streams by improper
disposal and storage of materials, wastes, and accidental spillage of fuels or other harmful
substances during construction. NCDOT "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures"
and "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" require the contractor
to exercise every reasonable precaution throughout construction of the project to prevent
pollution of rivers, streams, and water impoundments. Pollutants such as chemicals, fuels,
lubricants, bitumens, raw sewage, and other harmful wastes will not be discharged into or
alongside rivers, streams or impoundments, or into natural or man-made channels emptying
into such receiving waters.
Excavated material would not be stockpiled or disposed of adjacent to or in areas where they
may runoff with stormwater into streams and impoundments. Where it is absolutely
necessary to store materials adjacent to streams, they will be stored above the mean
4-63

' highwater mark in such a manner that they would not runoff with stormwater. Disposal of
1 waste and debris will not be allowed in areas under the Corps of Engineers regulating
jurisdiction unless the Contractor has obtained a permit from the Corps' District Engineer.
Unintended soil movement by sliding and washing is another potential construction-related
impact. It is impossible to dig and move soil without having some unintended soil
movement, especially in areas immediately adjacent to and in active drainages. The amount
of accelerated erosion is directly related to the amount of steep topography, the number of
perennial stream crossings, and the length of construction time. Erosion is always
undesirable since the most fertile soil, the topsoil, is usually lost. Furthermore, sediments
A reaching streams are deleterious to aquatic life because they block sunlight and smother
organisms living in the stream bed. The amount of sediment loss is inversely related to
sediment control efforts during construction. Accelerated erosion can be limited and
n' temporary, provided proper sediment control is maintained during construction.
u
No borrow sites will be allowed in areas under the Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction
unless the contractor has obtained a permit from the Corps District Engineer. Any borrow
n pits and all ditches will be constructed to drain to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes
U unless constructed to remain as ponds. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage
O ditches.
Solid wastes will be disposed of in strict adherence to the NCDOT Standard Specifications
and Best Management Practices. The contractor will be required to observe and comply with
all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of solid waste.
IIM
Solid waste will not be placed in any land disposal site which is in violation of state rules
and regulations.
4-64
If any structures are to be removed or demolished, an extensive rodent control program will
be implemented, if needed, to prevent the migration of rodents into surrounding areas
The contractor is required by NCDOT Standards and Specifications to provide sanitary
facilities for use by his employees during construction of the project.
Where bridges or drainage culverts are to be installed, no construction materials and wastes
are to be discharged into the stream. Upon completion of construction, materials from
foundations or other excavations would be removed.
Any underground storage tanks abandoned within the right-of-way will be permanently
abandoned in accordance with 40 CFR 280.72 after notifying the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources regional office.
4.10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
This section identifies the relationship between those aspects of man's environment that will
be used to accomplish this project and how those aspects relate to the long-term productivity
of the area.
The most disruptive impacts associated with the Second Bridge to Oak Island will occur
during project construction. However, those impacts will affect only those areas within or
in close proximity to the proposed project right-of-way.
Existing residences, farms, and businesses within the right-of-way will be displaced. How-
4-65
I
' ever, adequate replacement housing, land, and space are available for homeowners and
tenants within the study area. Improved mobility and access to and from Oak Island may
j? stimulate economic and business growth and viability as well as long-term residential
interest.
During construction, some nearby residents and businesses, not directly impacted by right-of-
way acquisition, will be affected by heavy equipment use, noise, dirt, dust, and temporarily
' disruptive traffic patterns. The implementation of the Best Management Practices during
construction will help minimize these impacts.
1
Other short-term impacts, such as erosion and siltation of local tributaries may occur.
However, with the previously described erosion control measures, the siltation is not
1 anticipated to adversely affect the environment.
Natural resource impacts would consist of the destruction of vegetation and biotic
communities within the right-of-way and at staging areas, and the permanent displacement
' of wildlife species. However, the project presents no long-term threat to the survival of any
species within the study area.
The proposed project is vital to the regional transportation system. The Second Bridge to
Oak Island is a key feature of the economic development efforts within the region and state.
The Second Bridge would facilitate the movements of commuters, tourists and commodities
to and from the area. A new transportation facility could directly contribute to new
economic activity and could broaden the employment base and tourism in Brunswick County.
The major benefits of the proposed action that would enhance the long-term productivity of
1 4-66
the area include:
• Reduction in vehicle operating costs,
• Reduction in accident rates and costs,
• Improvement in emergency services,
• Enhancement of planned and controlled growth,
• Reduction in energy consumption through improved travel, and
• Improvement in emergency evacuation routes.
4.11 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
Construction of the Second Bridge to Oak Island would require certain irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of natural and human resources, as with any new roadway project.
The acquisition of additional land for right of way is considered an irreversible commitment
since it would be converted from its present use to transportation use. The additional land
acquired for the proposed project would no longer serve the natural environment and,
therefore, an irretrievable commitment would be made. Businesses, residences, and biotic
communities in the path of construction would be permanently lost. Acoustic noise within
close proximity of the new roadway would increase.
The materials used for construction and the energy consumed during construction, along with
the manhours required, are considered to be both irreversible and irretrievable. Construction
of the proposed project would also commit the State to provide operating, maintenance, and
repair costs throughout the life of the highway.
Construction of the Second Bridge project would add a critical segment to the previously
committed long-range transportation system for the region. The project is consistent with
4-67
i
the long-range transportation goals and objectives of the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program.
The commitment of these resources for the construction of the Second Bridge project would
' benefit local residents and the State by providing improved level of traffic service and
contributing to regional goals to enhance economic opportunities. These benefits would
( consist of improved accessibility and safety, reduced travel times, reductions in fuel
consumption, and greater availability of quality services, which are anticipated to outweigh
I
the necessary commitment of resources.
In summary, the irretrievable commitment of resources caused by the Second Bridge to Oak
1 Island is balanced by the anticipated beneficial effects. The project is consistent with the
' state and community goals of improving local and regional transportation service and
strengthening the area's economic base.
A summary and comparison of engineering considerations and environmental consequences
for the reasonable and feasible alternatives is shown in Table 4.11.1.
I

'!

1
1 4-68
TABLE 4.11.1
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

IMPACT

A ALTERNATIVES

B C
Length - km(miles) 9.39 (5.83) 7.55 (4.69) 8.27 (5.14)
Bridge Structures 2 2 2
Major Drainage Structures (1200mm (48") or larger) 3 0 1
Traffic Volumes (Year 2020 Summer Peak/Off-Peak) 13,700/9,600 13,700/9,600 13,700/9,600
Level of Service
Summer Peak
Off-Peak
LOS D
LOS D
LOS D
LOS D
LOS D
LOS D
Construction Cost
Roadway
Structures
$9,813,000
$3,487,000
$8,813,000
$3,487,000
$9,113,000
$3,487,000
Right-of-Way Cost $4,225,000 $3,675,000 $3,950,000
Total Cost $17,525,000 $15,975,000 $16,550,000
Relocations
Residences
Businesses
Total
10
I
I1
10
I
11
10
I
11
Traffic Noise Impacts 62 60 60
Defined Stream Crossings 4 0 1
Floodplain Encroachment - Hectares (Acres) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Prime, Unique, Statewide & Local Important
Farmlands Hectares (Acres) 8 (22) 7 (18) 6 (14)
Wetlands - Hectares (Acres) 2.9 (7.2) 4.0 (9.9) 2.6 (6.4)
Historic Architectural Sites 0 0 0
Archaeological Sites (Known) 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites/USTs 1 2 2
4-69
5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
It 5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION
5.1.1 Scoping Letter
A Scoping Letter requesting participation in the study and soliciting comments was sent in
January 1995 to the following agencies:
I US Army Corps of Engineers
? • Department of Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
f • US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
• U.S. Coast Guard
• Federal Emergency Management Administration
• NC Department of Administration
Q • NC Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History
• NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
- Division of Environmental Management
- Wildlife Resources Commission
• NC Department of Public Instruction
• Town of Long Beach
•
• Town of Caswell Beach
Town of Yaupon Beach
• Brunswick County Commissioners
' • Cape Fear Council of Governments
Written comments received from each agency are included in Appendix A. An interagency
' scoping meeting was held on February 15, 1995 with a follow-up meeting held on March 8,
1995.
1 5.1.2 Steering Committee
In order to ensure cooperation and coordination during the study process, a Steering
' Committee under the leadership of the North Carolina Department of Transportation was
formed at the initiation of the study. Committee members provided assistance, comments,
' information and review to ensure compatibility with local, state and federal planning projects
and objectives. Committee members met periodically and were represented by the following
agencies:
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
5-1
• Federal Highway Administration
• Town Manager of Long Beach
• Brunswick County Planning Director
• US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
• NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Division of Coastal Management (CAMA)
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
• Natural Heritage Program
• National Marine Fisheries
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
Steering Committee Meetings were held on May 10, 1995 and January 24, 1996.
5.1.3 Agency Field Review
On May 30, 1995 a meeting at the project site was held. At the Steering Committee Meeting
on May 10, 1995 it was determined that a field meeting would be beneficial to better
understand the project study area, especially the natural resource and wetland concerns. The
project team met on site with representatives from USACOE, DEM, WRC, the Natural
Heritage Program and the Town of Long Beach.
As a result of the field review, several recommendations were made by way of letter to the
members of the steering committee who were not present at the field review. It was
recommended that, because of their similar characteristics, preliminary alternative corridors
C101 and C102 be combined into one alternative using the best segments of each and that '
preliminary alternatives C301 and C306 be eliminated from further consideration because
of higher impacts to the environment. All the members of the Steering Committee concurred
with these recommendations.
5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I
In February 1995, a Public Involvement Plan was developed to ensure maximum public
5-2 1
I
participation in the Second Bridge to Oak Island Corridor Study and Environmental
Document. The major components identified in the plan were as follows:
• Mailing List
• Newsletters
>< • Toll-Free Phone Hotline
• Area Newspaper Monitoring
• Small Group Informational Meetings
• Local Officials Informational Meetings
• Citizens Informational Workshops
• Public Hearing
• Steering Committee
• Scoping Letter
• Agency Coordination
1
t 5.2.1 Mailing List
' A computerized mailing list consisting of local officials, civic and business groups,
governmental agencies and interested persons was initiated at the beginning of the study and
continually updated throughout the study process. The mailing list was used to notify the
public of the project events, as well as dates, times and locations of the Citizens
Informational Workshops. The mailing list contains 260 names.
5.2.2 Newsletters
Two newsletters were prepared during the study and mailed to persons on the mailing list.
The newsletters contained information about the study process, the toll-free hotline number
and the date of the next Citizens Informational Workshop. Copies of the newsletters are
' contained in Appendix A.
1 5-3
5.2.3 Toll-Free Phone Hotline
A toll-free phone number was published in each newsletter, displayed at each workshop and
made available to local organizations and agencies. Responses to questions and comments
were provided either immediately or within two business days.
5.2.4 Small Group Informational Meetings
The project team was available throughout the study process for presentations to
neighborhood organizations, civic groups and local organizations. The public was informed
of the team's availability for meetings through the newsletters and workshops. During the
study process two small group meetings were requested.
The NC Division of Emergency Management - Department of Crime Control and Public
Safety invited members of the project team to give a presentation on the Second Bridge to
Oak Island project at the Public Officials Conference. The conference was held on April
18, 1996 at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant. It was sponsored by the State of North Carolina,
Brunswick County, New Hanover County, and CP&L. Over 100 people were in attendance
from the sponsors and area municipalities. A 15 minute presentation of the project
description, history, status, planning process, alternatives and evaluation factors was given.
Displays presented the three detailed study alternatives and other project information.
The Mayor of Long Beach requested a presentation for the local Rotary Club. On June 19,
1996 representatives of the project team made a presentation and answered questions for the
Rotary Club members at the Sandfiddler Restaurant in Southport, North Carolina.
5.2.5 Citizens Informational Workshops
Two Citizens Informational Workshops were held during the study process. A brief
5-4
I
summary of the workshops is provided as follows:
The First Citizens Informational Workshop was held on March 23, 1995 from 4:00 to 7:00
pm, at the Town of Long Beach Recreational Center. The Local Officials Informational
Meeting was held earlier the same day. The sign in sheet included 146 names. A total of
64 written comments were received during the workshop or mailed in following the
j. workshop. Displays available for review included mapping showing environmental
constraints such as wetland areas and six preliminary alternatives. Also, exhibits showing
descriptions of the planning process, evaluation factors overview and proposed typical
' sections were available. Verbal comments received during the workshop were
overwhelmingly in favor of the project and mainly centered around the time factors involved
in construction. The written comments are summarized below:
1 Of the 64 written comments received during and after the workshop, 55 comments
were in favor of the project and 9 were against.
• The need for an evacuation route off the island in the event of a disaster such as a
hurricane or a nuclear accident at the Brunswick Nuclear Plant were of prime
importance to those that favored the new bridge.
• Travel time to surrounding areas would be reduced for some residents of the island
and this was a favorable consideration.
• Some comments indicated a reluctance to change the nature of the island which is
primarily that of a quiet, family-oriented community with no major development.
• The potential disruption of wetlands and natural habitats was an issue with some
1 respondents.
• Most felt that improved safety, increased traffic capacity, and improved access to Oak
?. Island were the most important factors of consideration.
1 5-5
The Second Citizens Informational Workshop was held on November 28, 1995 from 4:00
to 7:00 pm at the Long Beach Recreational Center with 80 people signing in. A Local
Officials Informational Meeting was also held earlier in the afternoon. The three preliminary
alternatives were presented. The majority of comments were in favor of the bridge. Most
people stated that they would like to see it built as soon as possible for reasons of reduction
in travel time and safety in the event of a hurricane or nuclear disaster. Nineteen comment
sheets were received during the meeting. A summary of the comments follows:

Build which ever alternative would expedite construction of the project. The bridge
is needed as soon as possible.
Either Alternative A or B would be acceptable.
Alternative C is preferable because this route would be less expensive to construct
than B and shorter than A.
Alternative B is the most direct route.
The road should turn west after crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and
connect with the Sunset Harbor Road.
Alternative A appears to conserve wetlands.
Alternative A is in the proximity of land the town owns as a potential site for a
wastewater disposal plant.
Whichever route provides the least disturbance to the wetlands and other geographic
features.
The bridge is not necessary for development purposes.
Alternative B is the most direct route. However, if the environmental impact due to
wetlands will slow the project then use the route that will impact the least wetlands.
Opposed to the building of the second bridge.
Alternative A would be on higher land much of the way, avoiding some of the
wetlands and pocosins.
5-6
I
1 5.2.6 Local Officials Informational Workshops
1 Prior to each Citizens Informational Workshop, a brief project summary and update was
given to the local officials. The presentations focused on the information to be presented at
the workshop, the study process and the current project schedule.
I
I
I
I

1
I'
11 5-7
I

I
I

1
APPENDIX A
COORDINATION
I
I
A

Ll
I
1

I
I
I
i
I

I
I
I
I
I
i

lJ
APPENDIX A
A.1 - AGENCY COMMENTS
I
I
AGENCY COMMENTS
Stat e/Federal Agencies Commenting:
1. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR), Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section -
February 1, 1995
2. DEHNR, Division of Land Resources - February 1, 1995
3. Federal Emergency Management - February 6, 1995
4. DEHNR, Division of Parks and Recreation - February 13, 1995
5. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries - February 17, 1995
6. DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management - February 21, 1995
7. DEHNR, Wildlife Resources Commission - February 21, 1995
8. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - February 23, 1995
9.
10. United States Coast Guard - February 23, 1995
DEHNR, Natural Heritage Program - May 31, 1995
11. DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management - June 1, 1995
12. DEHNR, Division of Parks and Recreation - June 12, 1995
13. DEHNR, Wildlife Resources Commission - June 14, 1995
14. DEHNR, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs - June 19, 1995
15. United States Army Corps of Engineers - March 6, 1996
r 16. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - July 24, 1996
17. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration -
July 29, 1996
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency - August 20, 1996
19. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service - November 21, 1996
20. United States Army Corps of Engineers - February 5, 1997

Local Governments Commenting:
1
2
3
4
5
6
1

I
I
Town of Long Beach - February 23, 1995
Town of Caswell Beach - February 20, 1995
Town of Yaupon Beach - February 28, 1995
Town of Long Beach - August 1, 1995
Town of Long Beach - February 5, 1996
Town of Long Beach - July 15, 1996
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Health r
Public Water Supply Section - - - 1
rrr ?Iw¦??
1 _ James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C) E H N F11'
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Clearinghouse Project No. 95.0512
Brunswick Count)
February 1, 1995
It appears from the map (provided with the description of the proposed project), that extending SRI 190 west to
join SRI 112 (in the vicinity of Sunset Harbor) would involve a route about half the length of the proposed
project route. This should be considered as an alternative to the proposed project in the environmental impact
statement.

Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Compliance Branch
Public Water Supply Section
?.` Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources

I

I
P.O. Box 29536, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0536 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An EoUal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10%post-consumer paper
L
I
I
I

1

.r Ra
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and N
Division of Land Resources
RECEIVED
DEHNR
tl Res ur'? 1995
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS LAND QU A1uj
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., secretary ? Director
Project Number: _ S -0 5-1 ? Count
Project Name: 2
Geodetic Survey
-LL This project will impact S geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box' 27687,
,Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
I

I
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
r
No comment
Date
This projeclit will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
kl'? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
t ,
V The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission. .
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
' P.O. Box 27687 - Melgh. N.C. 27611-7687 -'Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
Slate of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Number: I Due DD
.nom f,1.
Alter review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
' order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same

Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
U limit)
? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post application
U systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On site inspection. 90120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters. Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility granted after NPDES. Reply
(NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.

Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
INIA7
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 clays)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21 KO6 N/A (90 days)
open burning associated with subject proposal
lp<
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-733-0820. (90 days)

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Duality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan. 130 da sl
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)

Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area
30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)

? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more I day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

?
IA 90-120 days
(NIA)
Oil Refining Facilities N
It permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hue N.C. qualified engineer lo: prepare plans. 30 days
? Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces. (60 days)
sary to verity Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
,,,, Continued on reverse
Normal Process
Time
(Statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State-of*N.C. 10 days
? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
? Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)

? State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 1520 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 (Jays)
? 55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 tlays)
? 22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
? Several geodetic monuments are located in or new the project area. It any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
? Abandonment of any wells. if required. must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
? Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan' underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.

? Asheville Regional Office
? Fayetteville Regional Office
- ,
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone]
? [phone]
Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue - 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (919) 3953900
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston Salem, NC 27106 ,
(919) 8967007
'N11
?t
1
11
11
1
1
i

i
1

1
i
1
1
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
February 6, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Brunswick County, North Carolina
Second Bridge to Oak Island and Approach Roads
Dear Mr. Vick:
1.7 i
FEB t r 1995
This is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement we
received January 3, 1995, for the above-referenced project.
Brunswick County, North Carolina is participating in the Regular
Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The County
has 100-year floodplain and regulatory floodways delineated;
therefore, any encroachment into the floodways must be in
compliance with the NFIP regulations.
The agency in charge must ensure compliance with the floodplain
management measures as enacted by the State of North Carolina. In
this regard, it is imperative the agency coordinate closely with
the appropriate staff in the Floodplain Management Section of the
Division of Emergency Management.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ms. Bel Marquez
at [phone].
ncerely,
1r,
Robert E. McBeth, Chief
Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment Branch
Mitigation Division
i

' DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
' February 13, 1995
I Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee II
FROM: Stephen Hall S ?t
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County
REFERENCE: 95-0512
The study area for the proposed new roadway and bridge broadly overlaps a Natural Heritage
Priority Area, the Boiling Springs Lakes Wetland Complex. This area is composed of
several high quality natural communities, including Pond Pine Woodlands, Wet Pine
Flatwoods, and Pine Savannas. Many rare plants have been recorded from this site or the
immediate vicinity, including three species that are candidates for federal listing: pondspice
(Litsea aestivalis), Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula), and spring-flowering goldenrod
' (Solidago pulchra); the goldenrod is also state listed as Endangered. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers (Picoides borealis), federally and state listed as Endangered, have also been
recorded from the vicinity, and several other rare animals can be expected to occur there,
' based on the presence of suitable habitat. These include several candidates for federal
listing: Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), gopher frog (Rana capito capito), Cape
Fear threetooth snail (Triodopsis soelneri), Buchholz's dart moth (Agrotis buchholzi), and the
Venus flytrap cutworm moth (Hemipachnobia s. subporphyria).
Based on both the direct impacts of the proposed road, as well as secondary impacts due to
the development the road would foster, we strongly recommend that other alternatives be
considered to crossing this currently undeveloped, environmentally sensitive area. We would
particularly like to see routes considered that use existing roads as much as possible. From
inspection of the map, these could include a direct connection across Pinners Point between
Sunset Harbor and the western end of Oak Island, or a spur off of SR 1112 that would pass
between two other Natural Heritage Priority Areas: Big Cypress Bay and Ponds and Sunset
Harbor-Ash Swamp.
No matter which alternative is selected, a thorough survey should be conducted by qualified
biologists. In order to identify all of the rare species potentially present in this area,
searches of the project corridor should be conducted in both the spring and summer.
1
`1
??Mi OI COY
,? g+= Y': ? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVIgE
' _•,...o•?' iSoutheast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
' February 17, 1995
CFE62 Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 Attention Philip Edwards Dear Mr. Vick:
Please reference your January 23, 1995, letter requesting our
1 review and comments on the information provided by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) concerning the
proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island and Approach Roads, From SR
1104 to NC 211, Brunswick County. TIP No. R-2245, State Project
' No. 8.2231201; Federal Aid No. STP-1105(6). We offer the
following comments for your consideration.
Oak Island, a partially developed coastal barrier island, is
located between the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway (AIWW) in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The Cape
' Fear River and the Lockwood Folly Inlet are located on the west and
east sides of the island, respectively. The proposed approach road
and second bridge could adversely impact National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) trust resources since the water bodies crossed by
the proposed alignment support emergent marsh and provide habitat
for a variety of commercially and recreationally important fishery
resources. In addition, the proposed corridor between the mainland
' side of the AIWW and NC 211 crosses a variety of freshwater and
wooded swamp wetlands that support fisheries.
i Traditionally, improved access to barrier islands and the
associated increase in development has resulted in degraded water
quality and wetland losses that are detrimental to fisheries.
Therefore, we are concerned with both the direct and indirect
impacts of this project and recommend that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document address the following
information needs and issues:
1. The NEPA document should describe the alternative road and
bridge alignments considered. This should include a discussion of
how each alternative would avoid and minimize direct and indirect
I losses of wetlands that support fisheries.

2. The NEPA document should describe the location and acreage of
wetlands, including open water areas, potentially impacted by the
proposed work. Plant communities and their associated species
should be identified and the potential impacts on each community
quantified. This information is vital to identifying least
environmentally damaging alternatives as required by the NEPA
alternatives analysis and for compliance with the Clean Water Act,
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
3. The NEPA document should describe the fishery resources found
in the project area and provide an assessment of the impacts on
these resources. This should include a discussion of the impacts
of run-off from the new bridge on shellfish resources in the
project vicinity, as well as, impacts to the harvesting of these
resources.
4. Bridge construction often requires filling of wetlands for
temporary access roads and/or excavation of access canals through
wetlands. The NEPA document should address alternative bridge
construction techniques, including top down construction, that will
avoid wetland impacts. Also, it should address the impact on
fisheries of any construction related temporary wetland losses.
5. The construction of a second bridge to Oak Island will improve
access to the island and thereby stimulate additional residential
and commercial growth in the beach communities. The NEPA document
should address the secondary impacts of increased development.
6. If unavoidable wetland losses are necessary, the NEPA document
should provide a mitigation plan to compensate for these losses.
The plan should be consistent with the Mitigation Memorandum of
Agreement between the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Unless compensation for wetland
losses is incorporated as a part of the project, we will likely
recommend against federal authorization for this work.
7. The NEPA document should address the potential impact on
endangered and threatened species under I,1MFS purview found in the
project area. Due to the possible presence of protected species,
consultation with our Protected Species Management Branch, at the
letterhead address, should be initiated.
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission biologists are excellent
sources of information concerning specific fishery resources in the
project area. We encourage the NCDOT to address project
alternatives and mitigation of wetland losses early in the project
planning process.
i
1
i
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Id s Mager, Jr
Assistant Region Director
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC
NCDEHNR, Morehead City, NC
F/SE02
.State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
' Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
' Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A74 •?•
?EHNF1
February 21, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, \Leegislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0512; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
j' Second Bridge to Oak Island and Approach Roads, from SR
1104 to NC 211, Brunswick County, TIP #R-2245
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
' B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
' it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
' crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
' 1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
I
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
February 21, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10848.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
I
1
1

,I
I1
1
11
I
u
I
,1
1
i
NCWRC,NCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone]
Feb 21'95 11:06 No.006 P.03
L;' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission FP
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh North Carolina 27604-I188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 21, 1995
SUBJEC'T': Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the second bridge to
Oak Island and approach roads, from NC 211 to SR 1104, Brunswick
County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2245, SCI-I Project No. 95-0512.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC:) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our continents are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S,C.661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to upgrade SR 1105 from SR 1104 to SR 1190 and construct a
' new roadway from NC 211 at SR 1500 tb SR 1190, this will include constructing anew
high-rise bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway and replacing the bridge over Davis
Creek. The total project length is approximately 5.15 miles.
We are concerned about impacts to wetlands, fishery resources (particularly
anadromous species and areas designated as Primary Nursery Areas (PNA)), and wildlife
habitat that will result from construction of the segment on new location. In the formal
scoping meeting on February 15, 1995, six preliminary study corridors for the new
location segment were presented. All study corridors cross significant amounts of
wetlands, wildlife habitat, and have the potential to adversely affect listed species and
unique natural areas. At least two Carolina Bays are located between NC 211 and the
Intracoastal Waterway. 1'liere is a high potential for listed plant species in association
with these habitats.
1
i
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Feb 21'95 11:07 N0.006 P.04 ,
Memo 2 February 21, 1995
We recottunend that NCDOT hold a second seeping meeting to discuss these '
alternatives prior to eliminating any of these corridors from further study. All involved ,
review and regulatory agencies should provide input on the study corridors.
In addition to any specific recommendations or concerns regarding the subject
project, our general informational needs are outlined below:
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction. should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C, 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need
for channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the
environmental effects of highway construction and quantifies the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LRKE TEL:[phone] Feb 21'95 11:07 NO.006 P.05
Memo 3 February 21. 1995
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will
' result from secondary development facilitated by the improved road
access.
' 9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state,
municipal, or private development projects, a description of these projects
should be included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
n Project Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Lndangered Species Program Mgr.
n David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
U
D
I
I
1
0
I

I

i
I James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
e3 f _} S't
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
. February 23, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
' Re: Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County,
R-2245, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1105(6),
State Project No. 8.2231201, ER 95-8343 and CH
95-E-4220-0512
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
' Thank you for your. letter of February 6, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Mattson, Alexander & Associates concerning the above project.
Prior to receiving that report, we also received notification from the State
Clearinghouse about the project. This memorandum provides comments on both
' transmittals.
We understand that there are no structures over fifty years of age located within
' the study area for this project. Therefore, in terms of historic architectural
resources, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed.
There are at least three recorded archaeological sites in the study area; thus, we
concur with your stated intention to conduct archaeological studies during Phase 1
and 2 of this project.
' The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please.contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
' environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
f?
-David Brook
' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807 ?P
U.S. Department Commander CC Federal Building
of Transportation Fifth Coast d?jsiNet ?/ C n 431 Crawford Street
A, rtsmouth, VA 23 4
United States ` ?Pt feSymb?:804) 398-6227
Coast Guard
' MAR 0 2 1995 16P90
ZZ DIVISIGN OF Feb 95
' G'd HIGHWAYS v?
I Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager p
Planning and Environmental Branch ?NVIRON
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
I. Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter dated January 23, 1995,
soliciting Coast Guard comments for the proposed new second
bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the
replacement of the existing bridge across Davis Creek at Oak
Island, North Carolina.
¦ The information provided in your letter has been reviewed by my
Bridge Staff. At this time, the only information we can provide
pertains to the navigational clearances that will be required for
the proposed fixed highway bridge across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). For fixed bridges crossing the ICW,
the established guide clearances require that the vertical
clearance at mean high water will be 65 feet and the horizontal
clearance will be a minimum of 90 feet.. We cannot provide you
with adequate navigational clearances for the replacement of the
' existing bridge cross Davis Creek; however, you can, prior to
submission of a bridge permit application, provide us with the
proposed navigational clearances and request in writing that we
' publish a Preliminary Public Notice to gather public input as to
the adequacy of the proposed bridge clearances. Any and all
comments that we receive as a result of this notice would be
forwarded to you for your review.
' In the event the environmental document is an EIS, we request to
be a cooperating agency. Since the Federal Highway
' Administration is the lead Federal agency for this project, our
NEPA jurisdiction is limited to the bridges and their approaches
and any secondary environmental impacts that would occur as a
result of the bridge. As a cooperating agency, we will provide
' the lead Federal agency with comments on any issues relating to
our area of jurisdiction pertaining to this bridge project.

I
L

16590
23 Feb 95
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments during the
early stages of this project. Please contact Ms. Linda Gilliam,
Bridge Management Specialist, at [phone] should you have
any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
2
I
1
`t _ C, C:
JTo o: Natural Her-tacre ProSram r_l_
Richard L eBlond
`
, Subject: Mav CO, 1`=i95 investigation of alternative rout's for
nropcsed road to Lonz Beach throl:gh the Boilinc Snr_n_
T ake^--Wetland Comple:: south of ?IC 211, Er .in snick
' County.
Or. ?day S0, '1995, met with represent.ati;es. from. sever.;) agencies.
and erg.anioatiGns to ir!vestigate seven alternative routes for a
pronosed r oad to Lcng Beach. BrVP. E. Y/l ck Co., thrGU=h that jGrtiCr!
of the Boiliji Snri•r, La?:es--Wetland Cc:nple:: SouthOf h+chway TFC
' 211. The represented agencies and organi2atione.Yizre the U.S`
Army Corps of Engineers, N.C. Department V0_ Transportation <DOTi.
C. Division of En-.,ironmental Mana ement, N. C. Wildlif
' Resources Comm'_•ssion, N.C. Natural Heritage ?rcgram (nnyszlf
Town of Lonc Beach Public Works, and DSAtlantic environmental
consultants. v
The seven alternative routes are indicated in Figures 1 anti
(note that. the six: alternatives shcY;ii in Fig. 1 share portions Of
i
with other alternatives). As aV result of the site
corridors
investigation, three alternatives were given a higher
recommendation priority, and our were riven a lower
recommendation priority. The higher priority alternatives are
' 0101:102 <a "hybrid" indicated on Fig. 1 as C101:102), 0005, and
0308. The lower priority alternatives are C401, C301, 0306, and
portions of both C101 and C102. Alternative C401 is shown on
Fig. 2; the other six alternatives are shown on Fig. 1.
Alternative 0401 is located along SP 1112, a paved road e;:tending
from NC 211 to the town of Sunset Harbor, with a proposed bridge
' across the Intracoastal Waterway to the west end of Oak Island.
This alternative was given a lower priority due to the existence
of a town earl: at the west end of the barrier island. This park-
' would be impacted by bridge and road construction, which is
prohibited by state regulations if an alternative route exists.
Portions of- C101 and C102 were combined, alt=- other port'-ons-
' eliminated, to create a single alternative. This was done to
eliminate a 90 turn in 0101 (objected to by DOT), and to bring
the southern portion of C102 further to the west of longleaf pine
' communities. C301 and C306 were given a lower priority without
comment. A portion of C301 follows a Carolina bay rim with good
quality longleaf pine communities, and C306 crosses through the
center of a large Carolina bay basin.
Each of the three higher priority alternatives will impact
wetlands and longleaf pine communities. But the most important
consideration, relative to longterm viability of extant natural
areas, may be the degree to which the chosen alternative opens uo
the entire area to commercial an residential 6. eve1C-Lmeen+
0101/102 may; have the least direct impact on- natural =seas bu-
may have considerable secondary impacts by opening up the western
portion of the area to development.. There is considerable "high"
ground to the west of this alternative (mostly planted pine), and
this alternative passes close to Carolina bav rims with good
quality longleaf pine habitat that could be opened to
development. 0305, the centrally located hither priority
alternative, would provide access to longleaf dominated bav rims
and ridges., but also is adiacent to lsrge wetland erects, which
would restrict the amount of development in this area. C-108. the
easternmost of the three higher priority alternatives., passes
through wet and dry longleaf habitat, but is bordered on the east
by the 'ames F'lantstion development. -t also passe =_. through
areas that have already been deenl- ditched, apparently in
preparation for planned development that could be reached by
roads from the St, Sames Plan=aticn.
These secondary impacts could be miti;,ated or eliminated by
wetland mitigation regulations, or byJ "no access" provisions
precluding the use of the road for development access, including
strip development along the road itself. Another alternative
that apparently has not along the
considered is to construct a road
eastward from SR 1112 north of the town of Sunset Harbor and
south of the Boiling Spring Lakes--Wetland Complex to the bridge
crossing proposed for the alternatives in Fig. 1. This route
would have the least impact to longleaf pine communities and
wetlands without providing access to developable areas within the
Boiling Spring Lakes--Wetland Complex.
J ?

6c, li?? SPr?.) fake c--!?eNa.!
?o.. ?dex road a iEe.,,z{,f.u
/.

iJ 1
c? 1
,J C

1 \\ c .'I
a,
I
Al.lanl.ic Occon
rr JllfL .,
?. ar 1. ?S S(+r ??? L. I,:-- W?T Ie •.?
?o?Pi« ruin =I+c f.a {-,?rJ.
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
' Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
' A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 1, 1995
Memorandum
?? - app
` S IT' r .tom
ED FEE "PQ4 F;1'
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
' From: Eric GalambL
Subject. - Oak Island Road and Bridge
' Brunswick County
TIP No. R-2245
' The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) is on the steering committee for the subject project
During the meeting on May 10, 1995, the committee agreed to eliminate alignments CIOIA, C102A, C301, and
C306. There were five alignments that remained in for further study: C101, C102, C305, C308 and C401. DOT
requested that either C101 or C102 be eliminated from further study. The resource agencies were not wMing to
' eliminate one of these alignments without a site visit DEM requested that C305 be eliminated due to excessive
wetland impact. DOT was unwilling to eliminate this alternative.
' A site visit was made by DOT, their consultants, COE, WRC, Parks and Recreation, and DEM on May
30, 1995. All agencies agreed to study a modified C102 alignment (see attached map). Additional wetlands
were located adjacent to the high quality water zone on alignment C308. DEM requested that DOT make minor
' alignment shifts to avoid these wetlands. DEM also requested that DOT investigate mitigation opportunities for
the wetlands avoided along C308.
The information that DOT has provided is based on a 500 feet corridor width. The actual right of way
' will be 150 feet DEM calculated that actual wetland impacts (based on 150 feet) would be approximately 4.69
acres per mile for alignment C305 and 2.75 acres per mile for alignment C308. These wetland impacts are high
for a project of this nature; particularly C305. DOT is proposing that control of access will not be used for this
project. This will allow strip development along the road and further increase the impacts to the adjacent
wetlands. Furthermore, the secondary development will reduce the level of service and carrying capacity of the
road and thus necessitate another road to alleviate traffic congestion.
' DEM cannot concur with the environmental document unless full control of access is studied or a
complete analysis is done of secondary development with partial control of access.
' R-2245.mem
cc: Ted Bisterfeld, EPA
' Roy Shelton, FHWA
Monica Swihart
' P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, "!orttr Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
' An Equal Opportunity Ahirmative Action Employer recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

.__.._...... ......_.._. ...............>,:..
- ..__..........

ti
KV,
r1 .% ?l C.-I .l -1
Al.lullt.ic Occan
J
?I,',ir.il.lr
1 +
? '1 V
1 1

' DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
June 12, 1995
Memorandum
11
I
TO: Melba McGee
I FROM: Stephen Hall ?
SUBJECT: Analysis of Alternative Routes for Western Access to Oak Island, Brunswick
County
REFERENCE: 95-0512
' In our comments on the Scoping document for this project (Hall, 2/13/95), the Division
expressed concerns about the potential impacts this project could have on the large tracts of
high quality natural communities that exist in this area. A number of rare species of plants
and animals were identified in our comments as either having been recorded in the area or
potentially present, given the existence of suitable habitat. In addition to the direct impacts
due to road construction, our major concern was that this project has a high potential for
generating even more serious secondary impacts by opening up this large tract of
undeveloped land for development.
Recently, an interagency meeting was held on the site to review a number of alternative
'
potential to avoid significant direct impacts, particularly the eastern-most alignment located
near St. James Plantation development, they all pose significant risks due to secondary
' impacts, particularly since the road has not been proposed to be restricted access. Given the
cumulative loss of wetlands and other significant natural areas that is occurring at an
accelerated pace in Brunswick County, the Division recommends that an EIS be prepared for
this project. The issue of secondary and cumulative impacts should be given special
consideration and all possible alignments -- including the new alignment suggested above --
be reviewed in order to determine which would have the least impact on this significant
complex of natural areas.
LeBlond (DPR-Natural Heritage Program), is enclosed, along with maps to illustrating the
proposed alignments. Although the route the Division had proposed that would provhaveide a
direct connection between Oak Island and Sunset Harbor was found to be precluded,
due to
the presence of a county park at the west end of the island, another alternative still seems
alignments Although for certain the of the proposed other roadway. alternatives A currently summary of under this con meeting, consideration prepared appear by Richard
possible that would avoid much of the impacts on the wetlands and other natural communities
in the area: construct a road eastward from SR 1112
, beginning just north of Sunset Harbor
and extending to the proposed bridge crossing along a route south of the significant wetland
complex (see comments by LeBlond).

I
u
1
I NI-EMORANDUM
_-L
111(1
P North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission n
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director

TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co ator
Habitat Conservation Program '
DATE: June 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Follow-up continents on the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposal for the second bridge to Oak Island and approach
roads, from NC 211 to SR 1104, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
State Project No. 8.2231201, TIP No. R-2245.
L?

I
I
1
1
11

Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCR RC) have
reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4312(2)(c)) and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to upgrade SR 1105 from SR 1104 to SR 1190 and construct a
new roadway from NC 211 at SR 1500 to SR 1190, this will include constructing anew
high-rise bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway and replacing the bridge over Davis
Creek. The total project length is approximately 5.15 miles.
We attended interagency meetings with NCDOT on February 15, 1995, May 10,
1995 and visited the site on-May-3-0.1995. Weremain-concerned-ahout imnactt-to: _•J
I
study corridors cross significant amounts of wetlands; wil'dlife'hpbittit'and?
have the potential to adversely affect listed species and unique natural areas.
-?_F .EHILL ; 1 :'Ilcil -.9 7u? 1.:.' d iln F
Meow 2 June 14, 1995
/
it-is:also likely that a portion of the area known as the-Boiling-Springs Lake l
Wetland:Complex.(I3StiWC),:as.designated by the Natural Heritage Program, will beet
-donsurned_by, this development.— The habitat types found in the vicinity of the project are
threatened on a national basis and few good examples remain. The sand-ridge and relic
pine savannah communities provide habitat for several state listed and federal candidate
plant species. Some areas, especially areas that have experienced recent fire, show good
coverage of wire grass (Aristida stricta) and contain good to excellent populations of
carnivorous plants including Venus flytrap (Dionea muscipula), Trumpets (Sarracenia
flava), and two species of Sundew (Drosera roiundlfolia) and (Drosera brevifolia).
We_'ceommend thafNCDOT-thoroughly..address,secondary_impacts in.thr,
:enyifopnierital ;docuinentI The discussion should compare the development potential of
the land between NC 211 and the Intracoastal waterway with and without the proposed
roadway.. II- qv would an-riccess-controlled facility affect secondary development?
Would an access-controlled facility serve the purpose and need of the project?.-.What .;
effect will the proposed project .and: attending futwe development have on preservation .
plans for the BSLWC'? Emergencyevacuation of Oak Island in the event of an accident:
at the Bnmswick Nuclear Powerstation is a purpose of this project; why would the,
upgrade-of SR 1, f 12 acid a bridge from Sunset Harbor to West Oak Island Drive not be a
feasible alternative? : i
In light of the significant natural resources in the project area and the potential of
this project to accelerate development of land within the proposed boundaries of the
BSLWC, we feel that.NCDOT should prepare.a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). We feel that an Environmental Assessment (EA) may not provide sufficient
alternative analysis for a project of this scope.
Thant: you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone],
cc: Thomas Padgett, District 4 Wildlife Biologist
Keith Ashley, District 4 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
Howard Hall, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Scott McLendon, USACOE, Wilmington
` State of North Carolina
` Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster Ii, Director

MEMORANDUM
TO: Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
F3 1
Melba McGee ll??
Environmental Review Coordinator
95-0512 Analysis of Alternative Routes
Access to Oak Island, Brunswick County
June 19, 1995
GEI
JUN 2 1 1995
DIVISION OF
i'IGHWAYS
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
reviewed the Department of Transportation's scoping notice in
February of 1995. During that time, our divisions raised
considerable concerns regarding the proposed project.
The Department of Transportation has consulted with our
divisions on a number of occasions to discuss alternative routes
for a new roadway to Long Beach. As you review the attached
comments, you will find our divisions continue to raise questions
concerning wetlands, the possibility of rare species, and impacts
to wildlife habitat. of particular concern is the potential for
secondary impacts, especially if the project does not include
control of access.
We support the Department of Transportation's continued
coordination of this project. The issues raised by our divisions
show the potential for significant impacts to these natural areas
,_-:_ both primary and secondary project effects. If this is the
case, the department recommends that a more detailed
environmental review be conducted in the form of an Environmental
Impact Statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond,
attachments
cc: Chrys Baggett
EHNR Reviewers
David Foster
I
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolinc 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer °P; recycled/ 10'o post-consumer paper
Y

I

I
I
i

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. SOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
March 6. 1996
Action ID No. 199506041, TIP R-2245, Second Bridge to Oak Island
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
EI
MAR u R 1996
D!VISIC-N O?-
Reference the various steering committee meetings and field visits
relative to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposal
to construct a 2-lane connector with partial control of access on a new
location from SR 1500 near Smith, to SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) on Oak Island,
Brunswick County, North Carolina. The project also includes construction of a
new bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway and improvements to Middleton Avenue
over Big Davis Canal.
It is our understanding that NCDOT is in the process of preparing an
Environmental Assessment (EA) that will provide detailed information on the
various alternatives that were considered for this project.
As you are aware, a significant amount of concern has been expressed over
the expected direct and secondary impacts to the Boiling Springs Lake Wetland
Complex if any of the three new location alternatives are built. Accordingly,
we offer the following comments and recommendations that should be addressed
in the EA:
a. Full justification should be provided as to why the upgrade
alternative was dropped from further consideration. As discussed previously,
one of the stated purposes of the proposed road and bridge is to facilitate
the egress of people from the island in the event of a hurricane or nuclear
' accident at the Brunswick Power Plant. It appears that constructing the
facility further to the east would more effectively meet this need.
Additionally, the 2-lane section that is now proposed would presumably reduce
or eliminate relocation impacts associated with the widening of SR 1112.
b. The EA should provide detailed information on the impacts to wetlands
associated with the bridge construction, including the need (if any) for
dredging in the Intracoastal Waterway.
' c. The EA should provide information on the expected impacts to wetlands
at Davis Creek if improvements to Middleton Avenue are necessary.
' d. The EA should discuss the expected secondary development impacts
associated with the construction of the connector. Would a controlled access
facility still meet the purpose and need of the project?
e. The EA should provide information relative to the source of traffic
that will be using the road and bridge. For example, do traffic counts or
modeling studies indicate that a majority of travelers are originating from
points east of Oak Island?
Pnn W 0 Reryclad Paper
-2-
f. The EA should identify any other transportation improvement projects
in the vicinity of the proposed project.
g. The EA should address the impacts to the public access facility on the
north end of Middleton Avenue.
h. A compensatory mitigation plan that will provide for the full
functional replacement of the unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands should
be included in the EA.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project during this
phase of the planning process. If you have any questions or comments
regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
c McLen o
Re atory oject Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Mrs. Melba McGee
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section-Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
5 I ?? rQ?
I North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 24, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
'. Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
I? 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Second bridge to Oak Island, Federal-Aid Project
STP-1105(6), R-2245, Brunswick County, 95-E-
4220-0512, ER 96-9206
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1996, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Lee Novick concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the report and concur with the recommendations on page 6.10
that an archaeological survey be conducted of those portions of the preferred
corridor that contain Foreston or Leon soils and are associated with Carolina Bay
rims. Further, we concur with the recommendation on page 6.10 that no
underwater archaeological investigations are necessary as part of this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
1 David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
L. Novick
- 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??

I

[1
I
,I
J
rl

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
g
° Region Four
tS 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
4a>a of r? Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
July 29, 1996
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E. JU( 3 X996
Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch 3Z
Division of Highways ?sT D1VjSICN GF
Raleigh, North Carolina HIGHWAY;';
Dear Mr. Vick: 0tJNr?F '
TO
Subject: Federal-aid Project STP-1105(6), State No. 8. 2231201,
R-2245, Brunswick County - Second Bridge to Oak Island
The review of correspondence and information regarding the
Intracoastal Waterway public access site at the end of Middleton
Avenue in the Town of Long Beach has been completed as requested.
The existing access site was developed by the Town with the
understanding that it would probably be disrupted by the proposed
bridge project. Accordingly, the access site is considered to be
a temporary use of highway right of way. Based upon our review
of this material, the Federal Highway Administration determined
that the provisions of Section 4(f) are not applicable to the
waterway access site in question. Since the Town has indicated
they have not used Land and Water Conservation Funds to develop
the site, the provisions of Section 6(f) are also not applicable.
Sincerely yours,
FFoY` Nichhs. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
I

1 1\? ?fD SI„F

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECION AGENCY
REGION 4

3,5 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA- GEORGIA 30365
C Ei
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch Z 2
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 r
I
Attention: Phil Harris
Subject: Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County
TIP•No.R-2245
' Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for providing the handout from the January 24,
1996, interagency steering comTittee meeting. We could not find
scoping information about this h=chwav project in our files.
The alternatives presented in the handout define three
.overland routes but all from a s,ngle mid-island bridge location,
identified on the figure as Middleton Avenue. The concern we
' have is whether any other alternative locations on the _sland for
a bridge were considered. Referencing the state highway map,
another possible bridge site exists at the western end of the
island for connection to the mainland at Sunset Harbor.
We believe there is reason to consider another bridge and
route alternative. First, a location further away from the
present bridge (SR 133) would tend to equalize the evacuation
traffic between the routes. A Sunset Harbor route is further
from the Brunswick Nuclear Station. This western route would
I utilize a present roadway north from the island to NC 211 and
would avoid traversing on new alignment 7-9 miles of relatively
undeveloped farmland and natural areas. We note the possible
presence of endangered species within the study area. Finally,
this alternative may also eliminate the need for one of the two
water crossings that would be needed for all presently considered
alternatives.
This project could have a number of environmental and
navigational issues because it would be serving development on a
coastal barrier island. We suggest there be additional
r coordination regarding the type of environmental document
selected for compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act.
LJ
-2-
Ted Bisterfeld (tel. [phone] x6843) will serve as the
EPA initial point of contact for this project. Thank you for the
opportunity to review the project planning information.
Sincerely,
2? ?X LLU
Heinz J. Mueller
Chief, Environmental Policy Section
cc: Roy Shelton, FHWA Raleigh
John Hefner, FWS Raleigh
Melba McGhee, NCDEHNR

PtMEHT Ot th

"? 0
H
y4HCH 3 ,ea
;1

I
1I

'I
,1

.'
I
November 21, 1996
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
C
Vol/
2 2 S 1996
SUBJ: Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-1105(6), State Project No. 8.2231201, TIP Project
No. R-2245
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your
October 31, 1996 letter and red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
assessment prepared by Gary B. Blank, Ph.D. and Richard R. Braham,
Ph.D. for the above-referenced project in Brunswick County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
The results of the RCW survey and the foraging analysis indicate
that sufficient foraging habitat will exist post-project. The
Service therefore concurs that the proposed project alternative B
is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
We assume that these findings incorporate the conclusions of your
secondary and cumulative impacts Technical Memorandum for this
project. Please be advised that these documents do not indicate
that you have considered any other Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species. Therefore this concurrence only refers to the
red-cockaded woodpecker.
We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Sox 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
11
review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined
that may be affected by the identified action.
The Service has serious concerns about this proposed project.
The project has considerable potential to impact valuable wetlands
and fragment important wildlife habitat. Consequently, we take
this opportunity to advise the NCDOT that environmental
documentation should present detailed information on all possible
alternatives, and an in-depth comparision of the environmental
impacts of each alternative.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
Uohn M. Hef er
Supervisor
FWS/R4:CMartino/HHall:cm:ll-20-96:919-856-4520:WP51\NCDOT\Oak-Is.NE
/856-4520:WP51\NCDOT\Havlk-b2.NE2
I .
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
February 5, 1997
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch S?.
ACTION ID. 199506041, TIP R-2245, Second Bridge to Oak Island
1 Mr. Frank Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

FEB n - 1,097
Reference our letter dated March 6, 1996, in which we requested
additional information concerning the projected environmental and
socioeconomic impacts associated with the three (3) new location alternatives.
Also, we have reviewed the additional information contained in the Secondary
1 and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum and the Additional Alternatives
Report.
Based on the information contained in these documents, and as result of
' ongoing coordination on this project, we support the selection of alternatives
A, B, and C for detailed study in the Environmental Assessment subject to the
conditions and comments from the State and Federal commenting agencies.
However, we are requesting that the information that was contained in the
' additional alternatives report be provided in the final environmental
document.
While we concur with the stated purpose and need for this project, our
permit program requires that we make a complete, thorough, and unbiased review
of all factors associated with a proposed project within jurisdictional waters
of the United States. A major component of the review is the consideration of
reasonable and practicable alternatives, required by both the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act 404 b (1) Guidelines (33
U.S.C. Section 1344 (b); 40 CFR Part 230). The Clean Water Act requires that
individual permit decisions be made "after notice and opportunity for public
hearings" (33 U.S.C. Section 1344(a)). Based on these requirements, we
believe it is inappropriate for the Wilmington District to make any binding
commitment concerning the selection of a single preferred alternative or
comment on the likelihood of issuance or denial of a permit prior to going
through the review process required by our regulations, found at 33 CFR part
325.
We strongly encourage NCDOT to commit to a roadway with partial control
of access and allow no more than one access point per parcel of land. This
' may reduce the secondary and cumulative impacts associated with high density
"strip-development".
' Finally, the information provided in the draft EA and additional
technical memoranda does not support your selection of alternative B as the
preferred alternative. Alternatives B and C are very similar with respect to
' socioeconomic impacts (Refer to Table S.1 in the draft EA); however,

-2-
alternative C will impact significantly less wetlands, including bottom land
hardwood forest; will have less impact on the identified natural areas
associated with the Boiling Springs Lake wetlands complex; and will lead to
less fragmentation of the area between NC Highway 211 and Oak Island.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments during this stage of
the planning process for this project. If you have any questions or comments
regarding this correspondence, they may be addressed to me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Hefner
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ms. Melba McGee
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
° TOWN of LONG BEACH
North Carolina 28465
???`• P.O. Box 217 • 4601 E. Oak Island Dr. E !'
PHONE: [phone] C v
C BEAC FAX: [phone]
February 23, 1995 FEB 2 7 1995
n DIVISION OF
-HIGHWAYS

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
SUBJECT: Second Bridge to Oak Island and Approach Roads, from SR
1104 to NC 211, Brunswick County. TIP No. R-2245, State
Project No. 8.2231201; Federal Aid No. STP-1105(6)
Thank you for the opportunity to attend and participate in the
scoping meeting last week for the Second Bridge to Oak Island
project. I am appreciative of the efforts of the Department.of
Transportation to move this very important project forward. I want
to strongly reiterate the Town of Long Beach's support for this
project. The Town has a long history of support for a second
bridge to Oak Island. Our community, as well as the other Oak
Island communities, recognizes the necessity for a second point of
access between the island and the mainland due to increasing
traffic volumes and public services/safety concerns.
In addition to the comments contained in your letter of January 23,
1995, I would offer the following:
1. The Town of Long Beach supports this project for the reasons
and purposes set out in your January 23rd letter. An
additional concern of our community is the evacuation
potential arising from an incident at the Sunny Point Military
Terminal. The Sunny Point facility has handled nuclear
' shipments as well as large-scale munitions shipments.
Evacuation from an incident at Sunny Point causes similar
logistical problems as an incident at the Carolina Power &
1 Light Brunswick nuclear units.
I LONG BEACH SUPPORTS RECYCLING • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
H. Franklin Vick
February 23, 1995
Page 2
2. As noted at the scoping meeting, current traffic volumes and ,
projected increased volumes will continue to add stress to
existing transportation facilities. A second bridge is
necessary to accommodate projected volumes and relieve
congestion in the Caswell Beach, Long Beach and Yaupon Beach
communities.
3. In the third paragraph on page three of the January 23rd
letter, East Ocean Highway, it should be noted that the
current street name is East Oak Island Drive.
4. The Town of Long Beach is experiencing continued growth and
development which is reflected by increased year-round and
seasonal populations. This trend is expected to continue in
the foreseeable future as reflected in the Town's Land Use
Plan. In Long Beach, it is estimated that the total buildout
of the community currently exceeds fifty percent. Practically
all available lots in Yaupon Beach and Caswell Beach have been
developed. The Second Bridge project's greatest impact will
be to serve the needs of the existing populations as opposed
to increasing development pressures.
5. With respect to the functional design of the project, the
following comments are offered:
a. The project design should seriously consider
bicycle and pedestrian access in the project area.
b. Consideration should be given to connection of
pedestrian/bicycle facilities to existing sidewalks
on Middleton.
C. The Town currently provides access to the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway at the end of Middleton. The
issue of accommodation of access from local streets
to this area should be addressed.
The Town has provided a copy of its current Land Use Plan to Mr.
Keith Lewis of DS Atlantic Corporation for use in the various study
phases of this project. We will be pleased to provide any
additional information required by the Department or DS Atlantic in
moving the project forward.
I -.
' H. Franklin Vick
February 23, 1995
Page 3
' The Second Bridge to Oak Island is vital to the continued well-
being of our community. our community continues to support its
construction for all of the reasons discussed at the scoping
meeting, in your January'23rd letter and in previous feasibility
studies. The Town's Land Use Plan lists this project as the most
important transportation need of the community. The Town Council
has consistently listed this project as its first priority in
recommending projects for inclusion in the Transportation
Improvement Plan. Please be assured of our community's interest in
cooperating in any way possible to advance this project along its
current schedule.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
feel free to let me know.
Sincerely,
Joan P. Altman
Mayor
JPA/phb
cc: Mr. Philip Edwards, NC Department of Transportation
Mr. Keith lewis, DS Atlantic
Mayor Jack B. Cook, Town of Caswell Beach
1 Mayor May W. Moore, Town of Yaupon Beach
I
'1
I

I
l?

TOWN OF CASWER BEACh
P.O. Box 460 • Caswell Beach, NC 28465 • [phone] • Fax: [phone]
8r G
February 20, 1995
' Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch FEB 2 7 1995
Division of Highways
1 North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201 2y
DIVISION QF
C
HIGHWAYS
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 t
V
t F
?18
Dear Mr. Vick:
SUBJECT: Second Bridge to Oak Island and Approach Roads, from SR
1104 to NC 211, Brunswick County. TIP No. R-2245, State
I Project No. 8.2231201; Federal Aid No. STP-1105(6)
Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments concerning the
Second Bridge to Oak Island project. I am appreciative of the
efforts of the Department of Transportation to move this very
important project forward. I want to strongly reiterate the Town
of Caswell Beach's support for this project. The Town has a long
history of support for a second bridge to Oak Island. Our community
as well as the other Oak Island communities recognize the necessity
for a second point of access between the island and the mainland
due to increasing traffic volumes and public services/safety
concerns. I understand that the recent scoping meeting on this
project went well and want to encourage continued movement of the
project successfully on its current schedule.
In addition to the comments contained in your letter of January 23,
1 1995, I would offer the following:
1. The Town of Caswell Beach supports this project for the reasons
and purposes set out in your January 23rd letter. An additional
concern of our community is the evacuation potential arising from
an incident at the Sunny Point Military Terminal. The Sunny Point
facility has handled nuclear shipments as well as large scale
munitions shipments. Evacuation from an incident at Sunny Point
causes similar logistical problems as an incident at the Carolina
Power & Light Brunswick nuclear units.
2. Current traffic volumes and projected increased volumes will
continue to add stress to existing transportation facilities. A
second bridge is necessary to accommodate projected volumes and
relieve congestion in the Caswell Beach, Long Beach and Yaupon
Beach communities.
' 3. The Town of Long Beach is experiencing continued growth and
development which is reflected by increased year-round and seasonal
populations. This trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable
future as reflected in the Town's Land Use Plan. Seasonal
populations continue to increase in Yaupon Beach and Caswell Beach.
In Long Beach, it is estimated that the total buildout of the
' community currently exceeds fifty percent. Practically all
available lots in Yaupon Beach and Caswell Beach have been

developed. The second bridge project's greatest impact
serve the needs of the existing populations as
increasing development pressures.
will be to
opposed to
4.. With respect to the functional design of the project, the
following comments are offered:
a. The project design should seriously consider bicycle and
pedestrian access in the project area.
b. Consideration should be given to connection of
pedest- sn!bicycle facilities to existing sidewalks on
Middleton.
c. The Town of Long Beach currently provides access to the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway at the end of Middleton. The
issue of accommodation of access from local streets to this
area should be addressed.
The second bridge to Oak Island is vital to the continued well-
being of our community. Our community continues to support its
construction for all of the reasons discussed at the scoping
meeting, in your January 23rd letter and in previous feasibility
studies. This project is the most important transportation need
of our community. The Board of Commissioners has consistently
listed this project as its first priority in recommending projects
for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan. Please be
assured of our community's interest in cooperating in any way
possible to advance this project along its current schedule.
If you have any questions or need additional information please
feel free to let me know.
Sincerely,
Jack P. Cook
Mayor
cc: Mr. Philip Edwards, NCDOT
Mr. Keith Lewis, DS Atlantic
Mayor Joan P. Altman, Town of Long Beach
Mayor May W. Moore, Town of Yaupon Beach
TOWN OF YAUPON BEACH
518 Yaupon Drive
Yaupon Beach, N.C. 28465
(919) -278-5024
February 28, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
' Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick,
E

MAR 0 1 1995
DIVISICN or,
HIGHWAYS
I am writing about the proposed second bridge to Oak
Island with approach roads from SR 1104 to NC 211 in
Brunswick County. [TIP No. R-2245, State Project No.
8.2231201; Federal Aid No. STP-1105(6)]
The Town of Yaupon Beach supports the construction of a
second bridge to Oak Island. jFor many years our citizens
' have actively supported its?construc.tion as members of the
Second Bridge Committee, by letters,fand,by petition.
There are two`-important reasons for-::the construction of
the second bridge..'
1. In the event of an emergency either„a hurricane, an
incident at the-Siunny;Point Military Terminal, or an incident
at the CP&L Nuclear Plant, rapid.evacuation='-by one bridge is
difficult in the months from September to May. We have
' evacuated several";,,times during those months, recent years,
and it is time consuming. Should an evacuation occur from
June 1st through Labor Day, rapid departure would be
impossible.
2. Growth is rapidln-Oak Island both in our summer
population and our year round residents. Traffic conditions
' become worse on the island-each year. Yaupon is at present
about 70% developed. Long Beach is about 50% built up. This
growth is expected to continue in the coming years. The
second bridge will relieve traffic pressure.
Yaupon stands ready to assist the state's efforts in any
way. We look forward to the initiation of construction. We
' will be pleased to provide any information which is needed
for this project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
May W. Moore
Mayor, Town of Yaupon Beach
MWM/njw
' cc: Mr. Philip Edwards, NC Department of Transportation
Mr. Keith Lewis, DS Atlantic
Mayor Joan Altman, Town of Long Beach
i Mayor Jack Cook, Town of Caswell Beach
1 ?0W N Off,
1 ° TOWN of LONG BEACH
-North Carolina 28465
?? - P.O. Box 217 • 4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
PHONE: [phone]
1 8?i A\i FAX: [phone]
August 1, 1995
' Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
I am encouraged that the corridors for study for the Second Bridge
to Oak Island project have been narrowed to three. I understand
that the next step in the process will involve the development of
functional designs for each of the corridors leading to selection
of a preferred routing of the roadway between Highway 211 and the
1 bridge to be constructed at Middleton.
Our community is appreciative of your staff's work in keeping this
project on schedule. With respect to the corridor alternatives, I '
urge that attention be given to the benefits of Alternative "A".
This corridor may best meet the long-term needs of the Long Beach
community when a variety of factors are considered.
Thank you for your continuing efforts on behalf of this project.
I look forward to the next steps in the project development
' process.
Sincerely,
' Joan P. Altman
Mayor
1

Zrl0 W.
P
0 TOWN of LONG BEACH
North Carolina 28465
1
I
I
1
I
P.O. Box 217 • 4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
February 5, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
ir
v E n?
r
Dear Mr. Vick:
I am encouraged that the second Bridge to Oak Island project
continues on schedule. Both the consultants and staff in your
agency are to be commended for the continued implementation of
tasks which fall within a necessarily tight schedule.
I understand that one of the next milestones will be the release of
an environmental assessment for the project. The assessment may
address a preferred corridor or may address all three corridor
alternatives currently under consideration. I urge that attention
be given to the benefits of Alternative "B". This corridor may
best meet the long-term needs of the Long Beach community when a
variety of factors is considered.
' Thank you for your continuing efforts on behalf of this project.
I look forward to the next steps in the project development
process.
Sincerely,

Joan P. Altman
' Mayor
JAW/phb
r
LONG BEACH SUPPORTS RECYCLING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
F
1
O
TOWN of LONG BEACH
North Carolina 28465
1
1

I
1
July 15, 1996
P.O. Box 217 • 4601 E. Oak Island Dr.
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Mr. Phil Harris
Project Manager
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is a follow-up to discussions concerning the
Intracoastal Waterway public access at Middleton Avenue. This
access was constructed with local funds in about 1992. No Land and
Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) were used. When it was
constructed, Town officials and staff were aware that it would be
affected by construction of the Second Bridge to Oak Island.
This access is well-used, and Department of Transportation
officials have considered public access alternatives when
developing construction plans for the bridge. I am confident no
access conflicts exist. I note that the access is on a street
right-of-way which the Town will provide to NCDOT, when needed, for
the bridge.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
' Joan P. Altman
Mayor
JAW/phb
1
I LONG BEACH SUPPORTS RECYCLING • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I

1

I
APPENDIX A
A.2 - AD-1006 FORMS
I
I
I
I
1
6
I

U.;S. Ceaartmen( or Agncuirw-
i FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
vaunt
PART I !To Je Comoiera J% --ae.'Jl.lgeacy) I Date Qf Lima t: -,-r
-Name ?,t d.airc. „'-
aes-rodasea una use
ICaunty Ana State F AYXJtClt- l..fl A)C
P 1!T II (TO tae comlolleerea.1yy CSCSJ Oat. Rvd."C r7.cnlv.aa 3v SCS
des me site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres 11 ngand Average Ferm Su
(If no. :he FPPA does not aoo/y - do nor complete additional parts of this form). Ib Q Nor Q? t5*
far Csoalsl Fatneon Lana In Govt. Junsmct,on Amount Of Fvm zna As Oefinad m PPA
l 0 ( Acm: O b %S6.1 Acrm:21? 728 %L "f, 40
ftianw Of Lana Evatuat cn System Used Man" Of Lad Sin AW not sman I Oate Land aiw azt, Returnee ev SOS
BYuIn5t,..'?c.(? L? I n/ah2i Z 5 [o
? T „I /T,. ? I Attnnatrve ilt.
.......r cuc, o• ..ycn?rr Site 4
sit. a
sit. c
Site o
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
Total Acres In Site (P1,95 1 Lr7 -15,;' SZ.93
'ART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
Ike Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 6.9"1 17, q O
Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland I Ills, 7- (O 0.00
Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted G .O I ,G 0. O / f7 . O
Percamage Of F4n`MWm In Govt. Jurisdiction Midi Sane Or Higher Reiative Value I 5 , 1 O I
' V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (So/eofOrol0OPoints) `
'A T V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
i am Ginrie /Thes+a crira+ia am "v1&itted in 7 r-FR 6585(6! Maximum
Peims
Of. Area In Nonurban Use IS (3 I 13 15 1
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use IJ I I Cl 9
Percent Of Site Being Farmed J I O I Q I 0
Protection Provided BY State And Local Government I O O O
5. Distance From Urban Builtuo Area
Distance To Urban Support Servicas - -
Sze Ot Present Farm Unit Compared To Average to I S 5 S
8. Creation Of Nonfar cable Farmland ZS O (? O
Availabili Of Farm Support Services 5 5
On. Faro Investments Zo o O o
1 Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services O O O
1 Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use IO 5 5
TRI'AL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
,RT VII (To be completed by Federal AgencyJ
Itive Value Of Farmland (From Parr VJ I 100 1 a,-n I(0,9 ltuA
Ta al Si [a Assessment (From Parr V1 above.ora loco/
Sint 160 Tj7
T LL POINTS (Tonal of above 2lines,l 260 95,4-% Lj(o,
Was A Laol Ste Ansudian Uaad l .
I Selected:
saWar Sri
Date Of Selection
Yes 0 No
1

I

I

it
I
APPENDIX A
A.3 - RELOCATION REPORTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR EJ DESIGN
I
1
11111

1

I

1
i
I
i
IF. 15 4 Rnmd 9 O
:Forth Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2231201 couNTY BRUNSWICK Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2245 F.A. PROJECT STP 1105 (6 ALTERNATES A B & C AFFECT THE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND SAME RELOCATION

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0- 15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals
Families 10 0 10 0 2 1 5 2
Businesses 0 1 1 0 VA1AMOFDWEUJNC: .!.DIS DwEL .G AVAn ABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0.20E $0-150 0-20M 0 $0-150 0
:ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ?
x p M4 0M 150.250 20.40E *50 150.250 0
Yea No E lvln all "YES" answers. 40-70M 2 250.400 40-70M 153 250.400 25
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-looM 3 400-600 70480M 75 400-600 30
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 5 6601W 100 UP 35 600 UP 750
displacement? TOTAL ]0 0 313 795

X
3. Will business services still be available after uxareuKC lies ood li a umber
project? Note: All residential displacees considered families.
X X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, *20-40 range also Includes mobile homes.
......... indicate size, type, estimated number of 3. Ample business services will remain after project is built
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 4. Beach Pantry - small - 3-5 employees.
X::::::::6. Source for available housing-(list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed? 6. & 14. Local realtors, MLS service, newspapers, etc.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. S. As mandated by State Law.
families?
10.
E
E: Will public housing be needed for project?
11.
T Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
? `
13. Will there be a problem of housing within Mp1dl?G`
n i'?H
Srw 1
financial means? HT Of I;,'
R1G
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
1996
source). FE6 1 4
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? Ui:

w
OBERT B. C HADWICK FEB. 13, 1996 -
-
Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Original & 1 Copy: Mare xelocauon Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

I

APPENDIX A
' A.4 - YELLOW BANKS COORDINATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
' DEPARTMENT OF 'IP-,ANSPOR=ON
JAmEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B.B.?GARRm JR.
GovnwOR P.O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
November 28, 1995
1
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
' District Engineer
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
' Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
' SUBJECT: Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County, Federal. Aid Project
No. 5TP-1105(6), State Project No. 8.2231201, TIP Project
No. R-2245
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing an
engineering and environmental study for the proposed second bridge to ON
Island in Brunswick County. The proposed project is a two-lane facility from
' SR 1500 (Midway Road) at NC 211 to Middleton Avenue in Long Beach. This
project, which is approximately five (5) miles in length, includes a
high-level bridge over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, improvements to
Middleton Avenue from the bridge to the beach and the replacement of the
bridge over Davis Canal.
After reviewing the Environmental Assessment, Beneficial Use of Dredged
' Material Pump0 t of Yellow Banks Confined (Diked) Disposal of Dre pe
Material on Oa is an Town o Lon Beach, Brunswick Count north Carolina
TM-EP-P - - -0 02, October 21, 1995), prepared by the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers, it appears that the two projects may to in canflic:.
It is the NCDOT's interpretation that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
proposes to remove approximately 1,275,000 cubic yards of dredged material
from the Yellow Banks Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and place it along the
ocean shoreline of the Town of Long Beach. To accomplish this an access
channel will be excavated into the interior portion of the CDF from the .
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway along one of three possible sites where
subsurface borings indicate beach quality material is present which can be
dredged and pumped to the beach front.
Pod 898# :ON 131 NOaION3 QNU 9NINNtild:QI 9Z:OS NOW 96,-OS-Nnl??

Please find enclosed a map presenting the location of the CDF in'
relation to the three corridors under consideration. All three corridors .
cross the CDF close to, its east boundary. It is the NCOOT's recommendation
that the east boundary of the OF be adjusted so it does not intersect with
the corridors. According to the Environmental Assessment there is
Therefore, approximately the east ? boundary million is cubic yards t of material the available.
study corridors
there will still remain sufficient material to complete the proposed project.
If you have any questions or require additional information as it
concerns this project, please contact Mr. Phil Harris, P. E., Project
Planning Engineer at [phone], (Ext. 267). The North Carolina
Denartment of Trarsrnrtatinn anp a?j X05 your cor?int!sd s',npo-t an!!
cooperation.
Sincere,,,
' i?ir?"(rte !? J
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
cc! Daniel Small, USACOE
Richard S. Davis, P. E., NCDOT
:ON 131. NO f1N3 GNU 9NINNUld:aI 9Z:OT NOW 96 OT-Nnr--

[1

Za ;yYt ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JF.
GOVERNOR
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
District Engineer
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. 80X25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 19, 1996
United States Army Corps of Engineers
' Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
I Dear Colonel Sperberg:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County, Federal Aid
t Project No. STP-1105(6), State Project No. 8.2231201,
TIP Project No. R-2245

1
H
k

1
It is the undemanding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) there is an immediate need to dredge material within the Yellow Banks confined
disposal facility (Yellow Banks CDF) for renourishment of eroded beaches in the Town of
Longbeach. To expedite this process, please find enclosed a blueline showing the eastern
portion of the Yellow Banks CDF and the area which should be reserved from dredging
pending further geotechnical investigation by NCDOT.
Based on the information provided in the EA and obtained at the January 9, 1996
meeting in Wilmington with the Corps of Engineers, the NCDOT determined additional
geotechnical information would be necessary to evaluate quality of material existing within
the three project corridors. Should the material within the project corridors be undesirable
for project construction, NCDOT will notify the Corps to arrange for the removal of this
material for renourishment of local beaches. It is anticipated the geotechnical investigation
will be completed by February 2, 1996.
With the exception of the above comments, the NCDOT has no further comments
at this time. We concur that any dredging of spoil material outside the designated area on
the attached map will have no impact on the subject NCDOT project and can be initiated
immediately. The NCDOT appreciates this opportunity to comment and looks forward to
a constructive relationship with your agency in the future. If you have any questions or

concerns as it pertains to the subject project, please contact Phil Harris, P.E.. Project
Planning Eneineer, at [phone] (e%t. 267).
Sinc
Franklin Vick P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/psh
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Daniel Small. USACE
'vIr. Richard E. Dads, P.E., NCDOT
bc: 'Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., NCDOT
J4r. Dave Cochran P.E., NCDOT
I-
I
1

1

1

0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRmSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. MISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETC JR.
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 16, 1996
Colonel Robert J. Sperberg
District Engineer
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Colonel Sperberg:
SUBJECT: Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-1105(6), State Project 8.2231201, TIP Project No. R-2245
Based on the information provided in the US Army Corps of Engineer's
(USACE) EA and obtained at the January 9, 1996 meeting in Wilmington with the
Corps of Engineers, the NCDOT determined additional geotechnical information
would be necessary to evaluate quality of spoil material existing within the
corridors for the subject project.
As a follow up response to our letter of January 19, 1996, a
geotechnical investigation has been completed. Based on this investigation,
it is recommended that the spoil material not be removed (see attached memo).
The spoil consists of a fine to coarse sand which should be sufficient for
embankment construction.
If you have any questions or concerns as it pertains to the subject
project, please contact Phil Harris, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at
[phone] (Ext. 267). Thank you for your continued cooperation and
support.
V

I
11
I
I
1
APPENDIX B
' PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MATERIALS
E
I

.!

I
I
i
1
I

I
I

?'

I
I
°s Second. Bridge to Oak Island
o
NEWSLETTER
Call or write the study team. The toll-
free project hotline provides direct contact
between citizens and the NCDOT study
team. Comments and suggestions will
continue to be documented and considered
during the study. Call the prniart hotline at
1-800-349-3721. You also may write to the
second bridge to Oak Island study or the
NCDOT at the following address:
First Citizens
Informational Workshop
The first citizens informational workshop for
the second bridge to Oak Island corridor
study wi!I be held on Thursday, March 23,
1995, from 4 to 7 p.m., at the Town of Long
Beach Recreation Center, 3003 East Oak
Island Drive.
Information presented at the workshop
will detail the project planning process and
the Public Involvement Program. This will be
the first opportunity for the people of this
community to be informed and to comment
on this project. Aerial photographs showing
the preliminary alternatives and other dis-
plays will be presented at the workshop.
Members of the study team will be available
to discuss the project and answer questions.
You CAN Be Involved!
In addition to the citizens workshop, you
also can participate in the study process in
the following ways:
o Arrange a small group meeting for your
group or organization. The study team will
be available throughout the study process to
meet and discuss the project through infor-
mal question and answer sessions with
neighborhood groups and civic organiza-
tions. For details, call the second bridge to
Oak Island study hotline at 1-800-349-3721.
m'Add your name to the mailing list. If you
would like to receive future newsletters or
meeting notices and have not already re-
quested to be on the mailing list, you may
sign up at the workshop. If you are unable to
attend the workshop, call the project hotline
at 1-800-349-3721.
Second Bridge to Oak Island
5511 Capital Center Drive
Suite P-100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Comment sheets wil I be provided at the
workshop along with a handout discussing
project details. Please take the opportunity
to write your comments on these sheets
and either leave them with us at the meet-
ing, or mail them in later.
March 8, 1995
Questions or
Comments?
Call the Toll-
Free Project
Hotline:
1-800-349-3721
SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND
Corridor Study and Environmental Document
NC 21 1/SR 1500 to SR 1104 along Middleton Avenue
Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.804759 (TIP No. R-2245)
First Citizens Informational Workshop
Thursday, March 23, 1995
4 - 7 p.m.
Town of Long Beach Recreation Center
3003 East Oak Island Drive
Project Tol I-Free Hotline
1-800-349-3721
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled
persons who wish to participate in the workshop to comply
with ADA. To receive special services, please contact Philip
Edwards at NCDOT, Planning and Environmental Branch,
PO Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or call [phone] or
fax [phone] to give adequate notice prior to the date
of the workshop.
Project Background
The North Carolina Department of Transpor-
tation (NCDOT) and DSAtlantic Corpora-
tion, a Raleigh-based architectural/engineer-
ing firm, are beginning the engineering and
environmental study for the proposed second
bridge to Oak Island in Brunswick County.
The study will include alternative corridor
evaluation, preliminary engineering, traffic
analysis, environmental evaluations and the
preparation of an environmental document.
The purpose of this workshop is to
initiate the project's public involvement
program, to provide information concerning
the environmental study process, to receive
comments from the public and interested
agencies concerning the project, and to
introduce the members of the study team.
Representatives of the NCDOT and
DSAtlantic will be available to answer
questions you may have concerning the
project.
The project study area is shown on the
adjacent map. The proposed second bridge
will provide a two-lane roadway through the
project area, connecting SR 1500 (Midway
Road) at NC 211 and Middleton Avenue in
Long Beach. This will include a high-level
bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway,
improvements to Middleton Avenue from
the bridge to the beach (SR 1104), including
replacement of the bridge over Davis Canal.
The length of the project is approximately
five miles.
Second Bridge to Oak Island
5511 Capital Center Drive
Suite P-100
Raleigh, NC 27606

.1
111
1
I

Join us for the first
Citizens Informational Workshop
for the proposed Second Bridge to Oak Island Study.
Representatives from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and the Engineering Firm of.
DSAtlantic Corporation will be there to:
• Initiate the project's Public Involvement Program
• Provide information concerning the engineering and
environmental study
• Receive input from the public and interested agencies
• Introduce the members of the project team.
ia"AQ1

1
1
1
1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Brunswick County
March 23, 1995
4-7p.m.
Town of Long Beach Recreation Center
3003 East Oak Island Drive
I
1.
1

I

11 1

r
c?
N°°TM ?P Second Bridge to Oak Island
,v O
Corridor Study
;pTQEnvironmental Documentation
This information package details the
project planning process and the public
involvement program. This citizens work-
shop is the first opportunity of several for
the people of this community to be in-
formed and to comment on this project.
You are encouraged to view the project
maps and displays. Please ask questions
if you have any, and complete the enclosed
questionnaire and comment sheet.
Citizens Informational Workshop
The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and DSAtlantic,
a Raleigh-based architectural/engineering
firm, are beginning the engineering and
environmental study for the proposed
second bridge to Oak Island in Brunswick
County. The study will include alternative
corridor evaluations, preliminary engineer-
ing, traffic analysis, environmental
evaluations, and the preparation of an
environmental document.
The purpose of this workshop is to
initiate the project's public involvement
program, to provide information concerning
the environmental study process, to receive
comments from the public and interested
agencies concerning the project, and to
introduce the members of the study team.
Representatives of the NCDOT and
DSAtlantic are available to answer ques-
tions you may have concerning the project.
The project study area is shown on the
enclosed map. The proposed second bridge
will provide a two-lane roadway through
the project area, connecting SR 1500
(Midway Road) at NC 211 and Middleton
Avenue in Long Beach. This will include a
high-level bridge over the Intracoastal
Waterway, improvements to Middleton
Avenue from the bridge to the beach
(SR 1104), including replacement of the
bridge over Davis Canal. The length of the
project is approximately five miles.
March 23, 1995
Questions or
Comments?
Call the Toll-Free
Project Hotline:
1-800-349-3721
SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND
Corridor Study and Environmental Document
NC 211/SR 1500 to SR 1104 along Middleton Avenue
Brunswick County
State Project No. 6.804759
(TIP No. R-2245)
Project Toll-Free Hotline
1-800-349-3721
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Corridor Project Overview
Evaluation factors
of the roadway
will include
engineering,
environmental,
social, and
economic impacts
of the proposed
action.
The NCDOT study will identify and
evaluate several alternate corridors for the
proposed roadway. Evaluation factors will
include engineering, environmental, social,
and economic impacts of the proposed
action.
The engineering portion of the study
will focus on developing a series of safe
and efficient build alternates based on the
past, current, and future travel demands in
the study window. Other alternatives to be
evaluated in the study include the "No-
Build" or "Do-Nothing" Alternative, the
Improve Existing Facilities Alternative,
and the Transportation Systems Manage-
ment Alternative.
The major environmental impacts to be
investigated in this study include Air
Quality, Floodplains, Noise, Protected
Plant and Animal Species, Water Re-
sources, and Wetlands. The environmental
study will produce environmental docu-
ments. Detailed environmental evaluations
of the alternates will be presented in these
reports along with comments and corre-
spondence received from local, state, and
federal agencies as well as the public
throughout the study process.
Social issues that will be analyzed
include potential alterations to existing
neighborhoods, community facilities, and
recreational areas. An estimate of relocated
residences, businesses, and non-profit
organizations will be determined for each
alternate. The effects of the project on the
elderly, handicapped, transit-dependent, and
minorities will also be addressed. The
study will identify and assess impacts on
architecturally and archaeologically impor-
tant cultural and historic resources.
The economic impacts on the local or
regional economy such as the effects of the
project on development and employment
opportunities will be examined. Impacts of
the proposed action on established business
districts and highway-related businesses are
also included in the study.
Planning Process
The planning process utilized by this study
involves an interdisciplinary team to
research and coordinate the environmental
analyses and corridor location studies for
the project. The intent of this process is to
investigate all reasonable transportation
alternatives and evaluate the merits of
each, and to analyze the impacts to the
manmade and natural environments.
The planning process is divided into six
phases. The first three phases will deter-
mine the extent of the impacts, if any, to the
project environment. It will also determine
if one corridor obviously contains the least
impacts and is preferred by the public, the
project team, and interested government
agencies. These issues will decide whether
the more involved Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required, or an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI)
will be adequate.
PHASEI
Data Collection, First Citizens Informa-
tional Workshop, Inventory of Planning
Issues, Document Community Concerns,
Transportation Needs Study
See Planning Process, page 3
2
f_9
I

?r
r
I'
r
1

V
Planning Process, cont'd
The workshop completes this phase of the
study. Phase I will have included introduc-
ing the study to the public, compiling an
inventory of planning issues and community
concerns, gathering necessary project
related information, and determining the
transportation needs in the study area.
PHASE 2
Alternatives Identification, Initial Field
Investigation, Corridor Refinement,
Second Citizens Informational Workshop,
Selection of Corridors for Further Study
Phase 2 has begun with the development of
the preliminary corridors based on data
collected and issues identified. Initial field
investigations, which also have begun, will
aid in refining and evaluating the prelimi-
nary corridors. The results of this study will
be presented at the next Citizens Informa-
tional Workshop. Based on evaluation of
corridors and public comment, the final
corridors for detailed study will be se-
lected.
PHASE3
Functional Design, Detailed Field Studies,
Environmental Analysis, Technical
Reports
Late this spring, engineering functional
design, detailed field studies, and environ-
mental determinations will begin for each of
the final corridors. Technical reports will
be prepared during the summer in many of
the areas of environmental evaluation.
PHASE 4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) or Environmental Assessment
(EA), Pre-Hearing Open House, Corridor
Public Hearing
Once all studies are completed, the DEIS/
EA will be written. This report will sum-
marize and compare the results of the
engineering and environmental evaluations.
It is scheduled for publication in early
1996. After a complete review of the
report, a Pre-Hearing Open House will be
held to discuss the results, and soon
afterward, a Corridor Location Public
Hearing will be held.
PHASES
Review Comments of the DEIS/EA,
Review Public Hearing Transcript,
Selection of Preferred Alternative
After the Corridor Public Hearing, final
selection of a Preferred Alternative will
be made by the NCDOT with input from
local, state, and federal agencies, local
officials, and the public. All comments on
the environmental document and the Public
Hearing transcript will be reviewed
during the decision process.
PHASE6
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) and Record of Decision, or
FONSI
During the final phase of the project, the
final environmental document will be
written for the Preferred Alternative and
final comments on the project will be
solicited.
This would complete the planning process
for the project. Should a build alternative
be selected as the Preferred Alternative,
the design process will follow the plan-
ning process. During design, additional
opportunities for public involvement will
occur.
natural
environments.
For questions or concerns regarding the Corridor
Project, call the Toll-free Hotline at:
1-800-349-3721
3
The intent of the
planning process
is to investigate
all reasonable
transportation
alternatives and
evaluate the merits
of each, and to
analyze the
impacts to the
manmade and

1
1

I

e
! O
!

o ,

!

;Jr, ...

Public Involvement Program
Public Involvement
Opportunities:
• Citizens
Informational
Workshops
• One-On-One
Discussions
• Comment
Sheets
• Small Croup
Meetings
• Project Hotline
• Newsletters
• Citizens
Advisory
Committee
• Pre-Hearing
Open House
• Corridor Public
Hearing
The early and continued involvement of
the citizens who may be affected by the
study's outcome is a vital part of the
planning process for the proposed project.
Public involvement provides citizens
with the opportunity to participate in the
planning process and to convey comments
to the NCDOT, as well as provides the
opportunity to understand the overall study
process and schedule.
A project questionnaire and comment
sheet is provided with this brochure.
Please answer the questions on the sheet,
and provide any other pertinent project
comments. The sheet can be returned to the
comment box at the registration table or
can be mailed to the address on the back of
the questionnaire. Persons indicating their
name and address on the comment sheet
and checking the appropriate space will be
added to the project mailing list to receive
newsletters and upcoming meeting an-
nouncements.
A toll free project hotline is available
for public comments, suggestions, or
inquiries concerning the corridor study.
The hotline service is available Monday
through Friday during regular business
hours. If it is inconvenient to call during
office hours, send a note to the address on
the comment sheet and it will be delivered
to the appropriate study team member, who
will respond to the inquiry as quickly as
possible.
In addition to this workshop, there will
be two more citizens workshops for this
study. At the second Citizens Informational
Workshop, the project team will present
the detailed study corridors and receive
public comment for the selection of a
preferred alternative. By the Pre-Hearing
Open House, the environmental document
will be approved, and the project team
will present the preferred alternative. The
project team invites public comment on
these documents, which will then be used
for approval of the Preferred Alternative.
Throughout the project, small group meet-
ings will be held with interested citizens
organizations, neighborhood associations,
business groups, and civic groups. Meet-
ings for informal presentations and question
and answer sessions can be arranged by
contacting the project hotline.
Project newsletters will be published
and mailed to all persons on the mailing list
periodically throughout the study. The
newsletters are designed to keep citizens
informed of the study progress between
public informational workshops. Finally,
the public will be invited to comment
formally on the project during the Corridor
Public Hearing. Prior to the hearing, an
informal Pre-Hearing Open House will be
held to present and discuss the results of the
engineering and environmental evaluations.
Each of the above elements of the
public involvement program are important
aspects of this corridor study, and the
overall highway planning process. The
public involvement program is an integral
part of this study, and citizens are encour-
aged to participate fully.
6

I?
r
Next Steps in the Process
Document Community Concerns:
Continue identifying community concerns
within the study area through public work-
shops, project comment sheets, question-
naires, and small group meetings.
Transportation Needs Study:
Identify existing and future transportation
needs in the study area based on existing
and projected development and travel
demand.
' Alternatives for Detailed Study:
Recommend alternatives for detailed study
based on preliminary evaluations, citizen
r comments, and local, state, and federal
agency comments.
Detailed Field Studies:
Field studies have begun for the study area.
When the detailed study alternatives have
been recommended, detailed field studies
will continue on those alternatives.
i1
Technical Reports:
Engineering and environmental analyses on
the study alternatives will begin soon.
Technical reports will be written to docu-
ment the findings and results.
Functional Designs:
Functional Designs on recommended study
alternatives will begin soon.
Second Citizens Informational
Workshop:
Hold second citizens informational work-
shop to present the detailed study corridors
and discuss the potential impacts found by
the analyses thus far. We also will receive
public comment for the selection of a
preferred alternative.
k FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
I
I

Write: q?T Call:
Second Bridge to Oak Island
DSAtlantic Corporation
5511 Capital Center Drive
Suite P-100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Watch your mail
for project updates
and the announce-
ment of the next
workshop.

Project Toll-Free
Hotline
1-800-349-3721
7
NOTES ,
I

11
1
I
I

1

8

I
1
' 1. Do you think there is a need for the roadway and second bridge to Oak Island?
If you answer "No", please use the next sheet to comment about the project.
'1. If "Yes", please rate the following factors that describe the needs for improvements:
1
i
` h Mk,Ye, r4".Y ??Qrv ye t.t C Y?r "i d•,.
b Not important
Mildly important
Very important

Increase FrafficCa acia?
y
Itti rbve`=" ecess to>''OakIrland
Improve Emergency Eyacuatton from the,
MEN I

Comments:
1 2. Please rate the following Alternate Corridor Evaluation factors:
I

I } N Yrg4WLf?11VtlJ4?%

§`
N
Engmeermg Facto
ra
a ,i
P-
Not important
Mildly important
Very important
y
N
ry
?' £^;i °9y,
x f J) 8"1 T Ltd 4 dPi °39
b
?' T affcGa ci :os
jT atfic Safe s- a
$T°,GonstnictioiiGosts ? ?? ? F?
$R GYg
r
? a

nvtronmental Impacts 1
01
W

Atrt? Y
UM En
'
a g
?-t., s? +N?ti=?U?? Y 4n gbr:-x yr AL'~T? "'? a ?sha
ot
"'?
P
t
dtPlant
d?'
l
l?S
?`
?
r
ec
e
sn
r
ntma
ectes ??
-?
*Flbod lams ?z
R
u
,
p ? y
A, aMW
Sr??
dS ?f `tR
§? ?
u
W
4
r
WJ
.i, ?
9y~
YJ e T
SaCl '?n11M 4d? ??"Sd4
A
ti
Y ? A°
l +
tmnRflt 11t1e3???
?
4
+n { a ??
?3?T3 AI
M
r

den ' ?
YP

0Y
_ ?ya?' A ?yr?,''L Q?a$?t?.f??e}.t/T{{.,?'(p. e? ?$eessSY a(? um x
Cti 'C6^r` `am??9Rt?'i l°.i$.S?9KdAYvOC=
PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMMENT SHEET
Citizens Informational Workshop - March 23, 1995
I
I
I
I
.1
......?.....1 •IP:,.....",-

e o

,
o
15'\"

0.
o?
O'

J
77-7

I
H IOU 000
s:g:ei?i a
i ' i

CJ
I
J
LJ
I I
3. A study area map showing the preliminary corridors is provided on this form for you
to indicate any areas on the map which should be avoided and why. '
Additional Comments and Information:
Name _
Address
City/State/Zip
Please add my name to the project mailing list
.1
I
IL
F7
I
I
a
It

I

I
I ?``?? o<_Ta?••?? NEWSLETTER

NONrII C
Second Bridge to Oak Island
NCDOT TIP NO. R-2245 October, 1995
Issue No. 2
' This newsletter is the second in a series of newsletters published by the NCDOT (North Carolina Department of
Transportation) to inform citizens about the second bridge to Oak Island corridor study. This newsletter presents
the three alternatives selected for detailed studies and describes the next phase in our planning process.
I
1.
I
I
1
I
I.

I
I
I
1
Detailed Study Corridors
Selected
Six preliminary corridors were
presented for your review and
comment at the first citizens
informational workshop. Follow-
ing the workshop, these corridors
and a seventh corridor connecting
West Oak Island Drive to Sunset
Harbor were evaluated.
Four of the corridors were elimi-
nated from further consideration
based on environmental and social
impacts, engineering design
criteria, as well as input from the
regulatory agencies and local
citizens. Three corridors were
retained for detailed study. The
detailed study corridors are shown
on the inside map.
The detailed study corridors,
Alternatives A, B, and C, will be
presented to you at our second
citizens informational workshop on
November 28, 1995. As Phase 3
begins, the study team will be
conducting the detailed environ-
mental field studies and develop-
ing the functional design plans for
each corridor. Technical reports
will be prepared documenting
these studies.
The Planning Process
The planning process is currently in
the third of six phases:
Phase 7
Data Collection
Inventory of Planning Issues
First Citizens Informational Workshop
Document Community Concerns
Transportation Needs Study
Phase 2
Alternatives Identification
Initial Field Investigation
Corridor Refinement
Selection of Corridors for Detailed Study
Second Citizens Informational Workshop
Phase 3
Functional Design
Detailed Field Studies
Environmental Analysis
Technical Reports
Phase 4
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Pre-Hearing Open House
Corridor Public Hearing
Phase 5
Review Comments of the EA
Review Public Hearing Transcript
Selection of Preferred Alternative
Preliminary Design
Phase 6
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI)
Second Citizens
Informational Workshop
The second citizens informational
workshop for the second bridge to
Oak Island corridor study will be
held on Tuesday, November 28,
1995, from 4 to 7 p.m., at the Town
of Long Beach Recreational Center,
3003 East Oak Island Drive.
The purpose of this informal work-
shop is to inform citizens of project
progress and to present the detailed
study corridors for comments. Aerial
photographs showing the detailed
study alternatives and other displays
will be presented at the workshop.
Members of the study team will be
available to discuss the project and
answer questions.
Steering Committee
In addition to the informational
workshops and local officials meet-
ings, a technical steering committee
was established to assist in the
environmental impact study. This
committee reviews and comments
on major steps in the planning
process such as the selection of
detailed study corridors.

END
I
Xt i?4 \
I
l
\
1
SUNSET

HARBOR
_ WEST OAK ISLAND DR
.i.•'?. ?... ?' _ -M 1104 (WEST REACH ERM
ATLANTIC OCEAN
LEGEND
DETAILED STUDY CORRIDORS
CORRIDOR A
CORRIDOR B
rt CORRIDOR C
0
Qy
SMITH
it-... SIT
-... _...-...-.. EAST '".:
LONG BEACH
BEGIN PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. B
11
1 .5
1 16
ATIVE A
ERNATIVES B AND C
I

BRUNSWICK COUNTY
AIRPORT
/
' OnRACOASTAL WATERWAY
\ j.
1
ST 1217
33
//
l: I
UUU \ 1,1:
IWIZA06^ \ r
ATER
I
??.. II II ,12! \ i
MRJTARY OCEAN
TERMINAL
SUNNY POINT .
0911 ,e ?`
-' "m _. _ NORTH CAROLINA
BEA HN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
` - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND
km R-2245
=Mw? Brunswick County, North Carolina
mile
I DETAILED STUDY CORRIDORS
The committee is made up of
representatives from NCDOT;
Federal Highway Administration;
the Town of Long Beach; Brunswick
County; US Army Corps of
Engineers; NC Department of
Environment, Health and Natural
Resources; Division of Environmen-
tal Management and the Wildlife
Resources Commission; US Fish
and Wildlife; National Marine
Fisheries; Coastal Area Manage-
ment Agency (CAMA); and
DSAt/antic.
Researchers in Your Area
With the start of Phase 3, surveyors
and field investigators will begin
collecting data in the study area, and
will require access to property along
the corridors. These individuals are
performing standard procedures
required to collect data for studies
such as the hydraulic analysis, noise
analysis, wetland determinations,
and endangered species investiga-
tions.
Should this pose a problem, please
contact a member of the study team
at 1-800-349-3721. We thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
You CAN Be Involved!
In addition to the citizens workshop,
you also can participate in the study
process in the following ways:
Arrange a small group meeting
for your group or organization. The
study team will be available
throughout the study process to meet
and discuss the project through
informal question and answer
sessions with neighborhood groups
and civic organizations.
For details, call the second bridge to
Oak Island corridor study hotline at:
1-800-349-3721.
m Add your name to the mailing list.
If you would like c ure
newsletters or meeting notices and
have not already requested to be on
the mailing list, you may sign up at
the workshop. If you are unable to
attend the workshop, call the project
hotline at 1-800-349-3721.
Call or write the study team.
The toll-free project hotline provides
direct contact between citizens and
the NCDOT study team. Comments
and suggestions will continue to be
documented and considered during
the study.
Call the project hotline at:
- 1-800-349-3721.
You also may write to the second
bridge to Oak Island corridor study
or the NCDOT at the following
address:
ift?r
Second Bridge to Oak Island
801 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Second Bridge to Oak Island
801 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606

I

1
y'WOF Np0.TH 4gO`7 Second Bridge to Oak Island
Corridor Study
Z
'9'yFN70F"ANSfO`~' Environmental Documentation
November 28, 1995
Second Citizens Informational Workshop
' This is the second citizens informational
workshop for the second bridge to Oak
Island corridor study. The purpose of this
informal workshop is to inform citizens of
the project's progress and to present the
detailed study corridors for comment.
Displays showing the location of the de-
tailed study corridors, roadway typical
sections, traffic forecasts, the planning
process and the public involvement plan are
presented for your review. Representatives
of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and DSAtlantic
are available to answer questions you may
have concerning the project.
The proposed second bridge will provide a
' two-lane roadway through the project area,
connecting SR 1500 (Midway Road) at
NC 211 and Middleton Avenue in Long
Beach. This will include a high-level bridge
over the Intracoastal Waterway, improve-
ments to Middleton Avenue from the
bridge to the beach (SR 1104), and re-
placement of the bridge over Davis Canal.
The length of the project is approximately
fivemiles.
The detailed study corridors are shown on
the enclosed reap. This information pack-
age details the project planning process and
the public involvement plan This citizens
informational workshop is the second of
several opportunities for the citizens of this
community to be informed about and to
comment on this project. You are encour-
aged to view the project map and displays
and to discuss your concerns with the
members of the study team. A comment
sheet is enclosed for your convenience.
Questions or
Comments?
Call the Toll-Free
Project Hotline:
1-800-349-3721
SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND
Corridor Study and Environmental Document
SR 1104 along Middleton Avenue to NC 211/SR 1500
Brunswick County
State Project No. 8.2231201
(TIP No. R-2245)
Project Toll-Free Hotline
1-800-349-3721
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
I
I
Evaluation of Build Alternatives
Evaluation factors
for the project
include
engineering,
environmental,
social and
economic impacts
of the proposed
action.
The NCDOT study has identified and will
evaluate three Build Alternatives in an
Environmental Assessment. You will find them
labeled as Alternative A, Alternative B and
Alternative C on the enclosed map. Evalua-
tion factors will include engineering, social,
environmental and economic impacts of the
proposed action.
The engineering portion of the study will focus
on evaluating the build alternatives based on
the past, current and future travel demands in
the study window. Engineering evaluation
factors include cost estimates, level of traffic
service, roadway safety, constructability, and
maintenance ofexisting traffic.
The major environmental impacts to be
investigated in this study include Air Quality,
Floodplains, Noise, Protected Plant and
Animal Species, Aquatic and Terrestrial
Ecology, Water Resources, Wetlands,
Farmlands, Hazardous Wastes, and the visual
environment.
Social issues that will be analyzed include
potential alterations to existing neighborhoods,
community facilities and recreational areas.
An estimate of relocated residences, busi-
nesses and non-profit organizations will be
determined for each alternative. The effects of
the project on the elderly, handicapped,
transit-dependent and minorities also will be
addressed. The study will identify and assess ,
impacts on architecturally and archaeologically
important cultural and historic resources.
The economic impacts on the local or regional
economy such as the effects of the project on
growth, development and employment oppor-
tunities will be examined. Impacts of the
proposed action on established business
districts and highway-related businesses are
included in the study.
The results of these evaluations will be docu-
mented in an Environmental Assessment (EA)
and Finding ofNo Significant Impact
(FONSI). Detailed Environmental evaluations
of the alternatives will be presented in these
documents along with comments and corre-
spondence received from local, state, and
federal agencies as well as the public through-
out the study process.
The planning process utilized by this study
involves an interdisciplinary team to research
and coordinate the environmental analyses
and corridor location studies for the project.
For questions or concerns
regarding the Corridor Project,
call the Toll-free Hotline at:
1-800-349-3721

Planning Process
te planning process utilized by this study
involves an interdisciplinary team to research
d coordinate the environmental analyses
?id corridor location studies for the project.
The intent of this process is to investigate all
Sasonable transportation alternatives, to
aluate the merits of each and to analyze the
impacts of each on the human and natural
It vironments.
The planning process is in the third of six
Vs:
' Phase t
Data Collection
Inventory of Planning Issues
First Citizens Informational Workshop
Document Community Concerns
Transportation Needs Study
Phase 2
Alternatives Identification
Initial Field Investigation
Corridor Refinement
Selection of Corridors for Detailed Study
Second Citizens Informational Workshop
Phase 3
?i Functional Design
Detailed Field Studies
Environmental Analysis
' Technical Reports
Phase 4
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Pre-Hearing Open House
Corridor Public Hearing
Phase 5
Review Comments of the EA
Review Public Hearing Transcript
Selection of Preferred Alternative
' Preliminary Design
Phase 6
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
ax preliminary corridors were presented for
to ur review and comment at the first citizens
ormational workshop. Following the
rkshop, these corridors and a seventh
trridor connecting West Oak Island Drive to
Sunset Harbor were evaluated. Four of the
corridors were eliminated from further con-
sideration based on initial investigations of the
project area environment.
The study team wants your comments on the
three corridors retained for detailed study.
These comments will be considered along
with comments from local, state, and federal
regulatory agencies in the selection of a
preferred alternative.
Detailed field studies and environmental
determinations are under way for each of the
detailed study corridors. Technical reports
are being prepared in many of the areas of
environmental evaluation.
Once the studies are completed an Environ-
mental Assessment will be prepared. This
report will summarize and compare the results
of the engineering and environmental evalua-
tions. The Environmental Assessment (EA) is
scheduled for publication in mid 1996. A
Corridor Location Public Hearing will be held
approximately two months following distribu-
tion of the EA.
After the Corridor Public Hearing, the final
selection of a Preferred Alternative will be
made by the NCDOT with input from local,
state, and federal agencies, local officials, and
the public. All comments on the Environmen-
tal Assessment and the Public Hearing
transcript will be reviewed during the decision
process. Should a build alternative be
selected, the preliminary design will be
completed during Phase 5.
The Finding ofNo Significant Impact will be
written during the final phase ofthe project.
This would complete the planning process for
the project. During design, additional
opportunities for public comment will occur.
The intent of
the planning
process is to:
Orinvestigate
all reasonable
transportation
alternatives
Qr evaluate the
merits of each
alternative
analyze the
impacts to the
human and
natural
environments
3

N?
I
y QY
1
1
? Qy
r ? 1
SUNSET
HARBOR
?r OAIc
?... i'''ce.' ?... ?•.. SR 1104 [NEST BEACH myn
ATLANTIC OCEAN
LEG
DETAILED STUDY CORRIDORS
® CORRIDOR A
- CORRIDOR B
CORRIDOR C
r

.. .. 9i IIO{ BSI
LONG BEACH
SMITH

I
1 .5
1 1
I
ATIVE A
JTERNATIVES B AND C
11
1
MILITARY OCEAN
TERMINAL
SUNNY POINT
l
BRUNSIMC( COUNTY
1 NUCLEAR POWERPLANT,
/i 33
.?...? SR 1217 ??.
\ \
.:. ?:.
33
daM SR 1102 \-
/ BRUINS IRPORT LINTY ? i II f ?. ? \ I ^
(C..._..._..._..._..._..._. i1 l ?.
IN7RACOASTAL wA7ERWAr ... ...i I IJ,
A-TERw
Qe I.I. ??d3 133
J `T cr?R,l ll
MN North Carolina
_ Hof Transportation
YAUPON Err lronmental Assessment
BEACH
I
I km
11 mile

Second Bridge to Oak Island
Bnnawk;k County, North Carolina
Detailed Study Corridors
F%we 1
I
I
Public Involvement Program '
Public Involvement
Opportunities:
• Citizens
Informational
Workshops
• One-On-One
Discussions
• Comment
Sheets
• Small Croup
Meetings
• Project Hotline
• Newsletters
• Corridor Public
Hearing
6
The continued involvement of the citizens
interested in the study's outcome is a vital part
of the planning process for the proposed
project.
Public involvement provides citizens with the
opportunity to participate in the planning
process, to convey comments to the NCDOT
and to understand the overall study process
and schedule.
A project comment sheet is provided with this
brochure for your convenience. The comment
sheet can be returned to the comment box at
the registration table or can be mailed to the
address on the back. Persons indicating their
names and addresses on the comment sheet
and checking the appropriate space will be
added to the project mailing list to receive
newsletters and upcoming meeting announce-
ments.
A toll-free project hotline is available for
citizen comments, suggestions or inquiries
concerning the corridor study. The hotline
service is available Monday through Friday
during regular business hours. If it is inconve-
nient to call during office hours, send a note to
the address on the comment sheet and it will
be delivered to the appropriate study team
member, who will respond to the inquiry as
quickly as possible.
Throughout the project, small group meetings
can be held with interested citizens organiza-
tions, neighborhood associations, business
groups and civic groups. Meetings for ,
informal presentations and question and
answer sessions may be arranged by contact-
in
the
roj
t h
tli
g
p
ec
o
ne.
Periodically, project newsletters will be
published and mailed to all persons on the
mailing list. The newletters are designed to
keep citizens informed of the study progress
between public informational workshops.
Finally, the public will be invited to comment
formally on the project and the detailed study
corridors during the Corridor Public Hearing.
I
I

I
Each of the above elements of the public
involvement program are important aspects of
this corridor study and the overall highway
planning process. The public involvement
program is an integral part of this study and '
citizens are encouraged to participate fully.
17
L

Next Steps in the Process
ocument Community Concerns:
dentify community concerns within the study
area through public workshops, project com-
Inent sheets and small group meetings.
Detailed Field Studies:
it Quality, Traffic Noise and Natural Re-
ources field studies are being completed for
t e three detailed study alternatives.
I
I

I
1
I

I
I
1
Technical Reports:
Technical reports are being written to docu-
ment the findings and results of the Air
Quality, Traffic Noise and Natural Resources
field studies.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts:
Potential impacts from development resulting
from the new roadway are being studied.
Watch your mail
for project
updates and
announcements.
Write:
??p
Second Bridge to Oak Island
DSAtlantic Corporation
801 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Call

Project Toll-Free
Hotline
1-800-349-3721
1 7
NOTES
8

I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Second Bridge to Oak Island Environmental Documentation
State Project No. 8.2231201 (NCDOT TIP No.. R-2245)
PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMMENT SHEET
r Citizens Informational Workshop - November 28, 1995
I Which of the three detailed study corridors do you prefer and why?
C
I

I

I

a

1
F
1
I
1

I
Mal ems...`
\ AJ ?
S \ li
1
1
SUNSET
HARBOR / ...?:: - _..
wssT oAlc rsLwo ors,
_...i' ?.• ?...? SR 1104 CHEST BEACH MVE1 3
ATLANTIC OCEAN
LEGEND
DETAILED STUDY CORRIDORS
® CORRIDOR A
_ CORRIDOR B
.oi',tei?s a CORRIDOR C

I

I

I

DA / .
..-..._... SR
W E4ST ..?:
LONG BEACH
i
SMITH
?1

1
ATIVE A
ARERNATIVEH B AND C
Ul

i \
1
I
1 km
I mile
../ BRUNSWICK COUNTY
AIRPORT
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY _...?
...?
_..._...--, 17
J
1
'INO is
133
1 ?.
SR 1217 ?.• i.
33
I. j
I l! r 1:
ji:
_111 ?
-... _... ? UUUUU
_.IN
PoWT call I? 11 6 l 1
YAUPON
BEACH
111UTARY OCEAN
TERMINAL
SUNNY POINT
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
NUCLEAR POWERPLANT
i'
?1167WAY .r r \`-?
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Environmental Assessment
Second Bridge to Oak Island
&Mwk k County, North Carolina
Detailed Study Corridors
FkK" 1
Additional comments and information:
Name
Address
City/State/Zip
Please check the box below if it applies.
? I did not receive a newsletter; therefore, please add my name to the project mailing list.

I
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
1
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I REFERENCES
' American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC,
1994. Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
' Ashe, W.W. and G. Pinchot. 1897. Timber trees and forests of North Carolina. N.C.
Geological Survey Bull. 6. M.I. & J.C. Stewart, Public Printers: Winston.
' Barnett, J. and R. Dennington. 1992. Return to longleaf. For. Farmer 52(1): 11-12.
Barnhill, W.L.; S. Evans, D. Knight, J. Vrana, H. Hassell, G. Simpson, and W. E. Spruill.
1986. Soil Survey of Brunswick County, North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service, US
Dept. of Agriculture. US Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. 120 p. and map.
Belanger, R. P. and R.L. Anderson. 19--. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note 5E-352. p.2.
Blank, G.B. and R.R. Braham. 1996. Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County,
North Carolina, State Project 8.2231201, Natural Resources Technical Report. NCDOT,
' Raleigh, NC. Prepared by DSAtlantic, Corporation. Raleigh, NC. 38 p.
' Boschung, H.T., Jr.; J.D. Williams; D.W. Gotshall; D.K. Caldwell; and M.C. Caldwell.
1983. The Audobon Society field guide to North American fishes, whales, and dolphins.
Alfred A. Knopf: NY. 848 p.
Brown, P.M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N.C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl.
Res. and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Brunswick County Airport, Southport, 1992. North Carolina Master Plan Update.
Brunswick County Chamber of Commerce, 1993. Brochures, Historical articles.
Brunswick County, North Carolina Land Use Plan, 1993 Update.
Brunswick County, Zoning Ordinance and Partial Development Code.
Bull, J. and J. Farrand, Jr. 1977. The Audobon Society field guide to North American
birds.
I Carolina Business, March 1995. "Community Focus-Brunswick County"
Christensen, N.L. 1988.
and W.D. Billings (eds.).
Press. 434 p.
Vegetation of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. In Barbour, M.G.
North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge University
R-1
I
REFERENCES
(Continued)
Carslon, E. November 22, 1995. The Brunswick Beacon, "DOT Funds Study of
Wilmington Bypass Impact in Brunswick County.
Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern/central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Co.: Boston. 429 p.
Cowardin, L. M., V: Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Dept of Interior: Washington, D.C. 103 p.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Division of Land Resources
1994. Permitted active and inactive mining operations in North Carolina as of June, 1994
North Carolina Geological Survey. Open file report 94-4.
Dolman, J.D. and S.W. Buol. 1967. A studyof organic soils (Histosols) in the tidewater
region of North Carolina. Bul. No. 181, N.C. Agric. Expt. Sta., Raleigh. 52 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual.
Technical report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineers Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. 206
p., appendices.
Eyre, F.H. (Ed.). 1980. Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Soc. Amer.
For., Washington, DC. 148 p., map.
Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA). 1988. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Streets and Highways.
Federal Highway Administration. March. 1983. Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure
Stamina 2.0/Optima-User's Manual, FHWA No. FHWA-DP-58-1.
Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA), USDOT. Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise.
Hayes, P. 1996. Second Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County, North Carolina, State
Project 8.2231201, Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Technical Memorandum. NCDOT,
Raleigh, NC. Prepared by DSAtlantic, Corporation. Raleigh, NC.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region,
Atlanta, GA. 13 p. appendices.
R-2

' REFERENCES
(Continued)
' Herring, Ethel and Carolee Williams. 1983. Fort Caswell: In War and Peace. Broadfoot's
Bookmark, NC.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration. The Ronald Press
' Co., NY. 410 p.
Johnson, T. G. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina,
' 1990. U.S.D.A., For. Serv. Res. Bull. 5E-11. 52 p.
Kramer, P.J. and T.T. Kolzlowski. 1960. Physiology of Trees. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
' New York. 642 pp.
LeBlond, R. 1994. Preserve design for Boiling Spring Lakes Wetland Complex, Brunswick
' County, North Carolina. The Nature Conservancy, Carboro, NC.
Lee, Lawrence. 1978. The History of Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
' reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
P.
' Mattson, Ph D., Richard L. 1995. A Phase I Architectural Reconnaissance Survey, Second
Bridge to Oak Island, Brunswick County, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
T.I.P. Number R-2245. Prepared for DSAtlantic Corporation, Raleigh, NC.
' Morris, Glenn. North Carolina Beaches. UNC Press 1993.
' North Carolina Department of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1993a. Basinwide
assessment report support document: Lumber River basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; Division of Environmental Management;
' Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1993b.
' Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the Lumber River Basin.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources; Division of
Environmental Management; Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
' North Carolina Department of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1994. Guidance for
rating wetlands in North Carolina (Draft, fourth version). North Carolina Department of
' Environment, Health and Natural Resources; Division of Environmental Management; Water
Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
' R-3

(Continued)
North Carolina Department of Public Education. 1991-1992. North Carolina Education
Directory.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Compiled by Lee Novick. 1996.
Archaeological background report. Second Bridge to Oak Island (R-2245) study corridors,
Brunswick County, NC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Highway Design
Branch, Roadway Design Unit, compiled by Heber C. Eason, Jr. - Special Investigations,
Approved January 1, 1978. Design Manual.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Highway Design
Branch, Roadway Design Unit. July 1, 1978. Roadway Standard Drawings.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Planning and Environmental Branch compiled
by DSAtlantic Corporation. 1995. Air Quality Analysis. Second Bridge to Oak Island.
Brunswick County, T.I.P. No. R-2245.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Planning and Environmental Branch compiled
by DSAtlantic Corporation. 1995. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. Second Bridge to
Oak Island. Brunswick County, T.I.P. No. R-2245.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Planning and Environmental Branch compiled
by DSAtlantic Corporation. 1995. Noise Analysis. Second Bridge to Oak Island.
Brunswick County, T.I.P. No. R-2245.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Planning and Environmental Branch compiled
by DSAtlantic Corporation. 1995. Traffic Capacity Analysis. Second Bridge to Oak Island.
Brunswick County, T.I.P. No. R-2245.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Division of Highways. Planning and
Research Branch. 1987. Feasibility Study. Second Bridge to Oak Island. Brunswick
County. Transportation Improvement Program Project R-2245.
North Carolina Department of Transporation. Planning and Research Branch, Thoroughfare
Planning. 1988. Brunswick County Thoroughfare Plan.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1995. Inventory of the Natural Areas and Rare
Species of Brunswick County.
1
1

1

I
North Carolina Office of State Planning. 1995. Population Counts, Estimates, and
Projections.
R-4

' REFERENCES
(Continued)
Office of State Budget and Management. 1991. Statistical Abstract of North Carolina
Counties.
Palmer, W. M. and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 412 p.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
' Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 p.
Resource Development Commission. Statistical Abstract of Brunswick County, North
Carolina.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division
of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh. 325 p.
Smith, W.H. 1970. Tree Pathology, A Short Introduction. Academic Press, London. 309
P.
' The State Port Pilot Newspaper Article "Oak Island-A History".
Town of Caswell Beach, North Carolina. 1990 Land Use Plan.
Town of Yaupon Beach, Notch Carolina. 1990 Land Use Plan.
Town of Long Beach, North Carolina. 1993 Land Use Plan.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 1985.
Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209.
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Important
farmlands of North Carolina.
United States Census. 1970, 1980 and 1990.
US Environmental Protection Agency, November. 1992. User's Guide to CAL3QHC,
Version 2.0: A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near
Roadway Intersections.
US Environmental Protection Agency, May. 1994. User's Guide to MOBILESA, Mobile
Source Emission Factor Model.
R-5
(Continued)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of the Southeast
United States (The Red Book, Vol. 2). Ecological Services, Div. Endangered Species, SE
Region. GPO Washington, DC. 1070 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Southport, N.C. Topographic Quadrangle Map.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Lockwoods, N.C. Topographic Quadrangle Map.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage program list of the rare plant species of North
Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Div. of Parks and Recreation, NC Deptartment of
Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 79 p.
Webster, W. D.; J. D. Parnell; and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC. 255 p.
R-6