20110690 Ver 1_401 Application_20110725

??? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
July 18, 2011
Mr. Tom Steffens
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
PO Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. Garcy Ward
NC Division of Water Quality
1419 US Highway 17
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Re: Bridge No. 47 on Mimosa Boulevard over Pine Knoll Waterway
Nationwide Permit #23 Application Submittal
Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Steffens and Mr. Ward:
#4%
?(i1 '9,5 ?#
"? °S awv?ROJJ
vl 4&7 ppY
%c8
11 0 ij
On behalf of the Town of Belhaven, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is submitting the enclosedjoint
404/401 Preconst action Notification Application and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request
for authorization to construct the above referenced project under a Nationwide Permit #23 and General
Water Quality Certification #3701. Bridge No. 47 is included in the 2009-2015 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is eligible
for the Federal-Aid Highway Bridge Program. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion has been approved
for this project and signed by NCDOT (5/17/11) and FHWA (5/18/11). Field review of the project area
was conducted by the USACE (Tom Steffens), NCDWQ (Garcy Ward), and NCDCM (Stephen Lane) on
August 23, 2010. The following information is included as part of this application submittal:
• Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) form
• Project Vicinity (Figure I)
• USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2)
• Aerial Photograph (Figure 3)
• Soils Map (Figure 4)
• FEMA Floodmap (Figure 5)
• Site Photographs (Figure 6)
• Permit Drawings (Sheets 1-4)
• Agent Authorization Form
• Approved Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
• US Fish and Wildlife Concurrence Letter
• Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (signed)
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records (Bridge Inspection Report, February 26, 2010) indicate Bridge
No. 47, constructed in 1972, has a sufficiency rating of 47.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure.
The posted weight limit on the bridge is 30 tons for single vehicles and 34 tons for truck-tractor semi-
trailers. The bridge is considered structurally deficient.
The purpose of this project is to replace the Mimosa Boulevard Bridge (Bridge #47) over Pine Knoll
Shores Waterway, in Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina. Bridge No. 47 is a one-span
structure that consists of a precast, prestressed concrete channel with an asphalt-wearing surface. The end
bents consist of reinforeced concrete caps on timber piles with timber bulkheads. The overall length of
the structure is 31 feet. The clear roadway width is 24 feet.
In addition, this section of Mimosa Boulevard is not part of a designated bicycle route, and there are no
sidewalks near the bridge. However, Pine Knoll Shores is a popular site for tourists in the summer, given
its location at the beach. Mimosa Boulevard is the primary access to the beach (across Salter Path) for
this neighborhood. The Town of Pine Knoll Shores has requested a temporary pedestrian bridge be built
for beach access during construction.
The project is located within the municipal limits of the Town of Pine Knoll shores in Carteret County,
approximately 0.1-mile north of the intersection of Mimosa Boulevard and NC 58 (Salter Path Road).
Development in the area is residential. Mimosa Boulevard is classified as an urban local collector, and it
is not a National Highway System Route.
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 50 feet long. The bridge length is based
on preliminary design information and accommodates widening of the Pine Knoll Waterway. The bridge
will be of sufficient width to provide for two 12-foot lanes with curb and gutter and 5-fool sidewalks on
each side. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade.
The proposed improvements also include the replacement of the sea walls as well as a widening of the
Pine Knoll Waterway to approximately 33 feet (8 feet on each side of the canal). The widening of the
waterway will be accomplished by constructing new seawalls behind the existing seawall, leaving the
existing seawalls intact during construction. The upland area between the new and existing seawall will
be excavated down to the elevation of the current channel prior to removal of the existing seawall. No
dredging of the Pine Knoll Shore Waterway will be required as part of the channel widening.
Authorization is being requested for 0.03 acre of temporary impact to jurisdictional waters (Pine Knoll
Shores Waterway) associated with the removal of the existing seawalls, and the excavation of the existing
fill between the proposed seawalls and existing seawalls. There are no jurisdictional wetlands located
within the project area.
If there is any additional information you need to assist in the processing of this application, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
11 V&
Beth Reed, PWS
Copy: Mr. Brian Kramer, Town of Pine Knoll Shores
Stephen Lane, NCDCM
?f7?1 Kimley-Horn
IO and Associates, Inc. Project Summary Sheet
Project Name: Mimosa Boulevard Bridee Replacement Over Pine Knoll Waterway- Bridee No 47
Applicant Name and Address: Town of Pine Knoll Shores
Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
Telephone Number: [phone]
Type of Request: ® Nationwide PCN (NWP # 23) ? Individual Permit Application
? Jurisdictional Determination ? Other:
Included Attachments: ® Project Plans ® USGS Map ® NRCS Soil Survey
® Agent Authorization ? Delineation Sketch ? Delineation Survey
? Data Forms (Up & Wet) ? NCDWQ Stream Forms ? USACE Stream Forms
? NCEEP Confirmation . ? Aerial Photo ? Site Photos
? Agency Correspondence ? Other: ? Other:
Check if applicable: ® CAMA County ? Trout County ? Isolated Waters
? Section 7. ESA ? Section 106. NHPA ? EFII
? Mitigation Proposed (? NC 1-1-P ? On-Site ? Off-Site ? Other)
County: Carteret County Nearest City/Town: Town of Pine Knoll Shores
Waterway: Pine Knoll Waterway
H.U.C.:03020106'
Property Size (ac
Site Coordinates (in decimal degrees): 34.6967 ON
River Basin: White Oak
USCS Quad Name: Mansfield
Approx. Size of Jurisdiction on Site (acres): 0.03
-76.8104 °W
Project Location: The project is located on Mimosa Boulevard at the brid,,e over the Pine Knoll Waterway
Site Description: Bridge No 47 is 29.5 feet lone and will be replaced by a structure 45.5 feet lone The seawall bulkheads
will be removed and new bulkheads will be constructed 8 feet behind their ori-_inal position This will °ive an effective
channel width beneath the bridle of 33 fee[ which will allow two-way boat traffic The replacement structure will also add
5 foot sidewalks and curb and _,utter on each side The grade for the proposed bride will be 0.30%.
Impact Summary (if applica
O
en Water Wetland Stream Channel
NWP
# p
(acres) (acres) Intermittent and/or Unimportant
Aquatic Function Perennial and/or Important
Aquatic Function
T P T P Tem . Perm. Temp. Perm.
emp. erm. emp. erm. If ac If ac If ac If Ac
23 0.0283

Total
Total Permanent Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Kimley-Horn Contact: Beth Reed. P.E.
P.0 Boa 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
276363068
Direct Number: 919-677-2073
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
0 0. W ATF?OG
1 1 > DLU
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: 23 or General Permit (GP) number: 3701
1c. Has the NW P or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ®No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes N No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ® Yes ? No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ® Yes ? No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Bridge No. 47 on Mimosa Boulevard over Pine Knoll Waterway
2b. County: Carteret County
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Pine Knoll Shores
2d. Subdivision name:
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: TIP No. B-5001
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Town of Pine Knoll Shores
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mr. Brian Kramer
3d. Street address: 100 Municipal Circle
3e. City, stale, zip: Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ® Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no..
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Beth Reed, PWS
51b. Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
5c. Street address: 3001 Weston Parkway
5d. City, state, zip: Cary, NC 27513
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.. [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 34.6967 Longitude: - 76.8104
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 1.0 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Pine Knoll Waterway, Bogue Sound
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: SA; HOW
2c. River basin: White Oak
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project is Icoated within the municipal limits of the Town of Pine Knoll Shores, approximately 0.1-mile north of the
intersection of Mimosa Boulevard and NC 58 (Salter Path Road). Development in the area is residential. Mimosa
Boulevard is classified as an urban local connector.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
No wetlands are present at the project site.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
110 feet (from proposed bulkhead tie to proposed bulkhead tie)
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed project is to replace bridge no. 47 carrying Mimosa Boulevard over the Pine Knoll
Waterway. The project also includes replacing the seawalls and widening the Pine Knoll Waterway to allow for two-way
boat traffic beneath the bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge no. 47 is 31-feet long, and the bridge replacement will be 45.5-feet in length. During bridge replacement, the
seawalls beneath the bridge will be removed. The Pine Knoll Waterway will be widened 8-feet on each side, resulting in a
33.5-foot width beneath the bridge. The bridge will be replaced allowing for two 12-foot lanes, 2'-6" curb and gutter, and
two 5-foot wide sidewalks. The roadway grade of the new structure will be 0.30%. In addition, Mimosa Boulevard is the
primary access to the beach (across Salter Path) for this neighborhood. The Town of Pine Knoll Shores has requested a
temporary pedestrian bridge be built for beach access during construction.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past.
Comments: Approval letter is attached
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc.
Name (if known): Beth Reed, PWS Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Tom Steffens with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Garcy Ward of the North Carolina Divison of Water Quality
(NCDWQ), and Stephen Lane of the North Carolina Divison of Coastal Management (NCDCM) met for a field review on
August 23, 2010. Documentation of the USACE jurisdictional determination verification was issued on 12/16/2010.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
? Yes ? No ® Unknown
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ? Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
® Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W 1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ?DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: No wetlands are present.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (I NT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
N. Comments:
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. - 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ? P ® T Pine Knoll Removal of existing bulkheads Man-made 0.03
Waterway and excavation of fill Waterway
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: Temporary impacts to Pine Knoll Waterway will result from the removal of the existing bulkheads, and the
excavation of the existing fill between the proposed bulkheads and the existing bulkheads.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 51b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5L Total
5g. Comments: No pond or lake construction is proposed.
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: There are no buffers within project limits.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
All practical measures have been taken to aviod and minimize impacts to the open waters. Swales to be used to control runoff
from the adjacent roadway were avoided to eliminate ground disturbance near the open waters.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Turbidity curtains were placed outside of the existing bulkheads to catch sediment that may be disturbed during construction
of the proposed bulkheads and removal of the existing bulkheads.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
? Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feel
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permitlee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is a bridge replacement. Only a small amount of impervious
? Yes ®No
area will added (4255 SF), and it is not possible to effectively collect stormwater
runoff from the new impervious area and release it diffusely outside the top of banks
due to the flat topography and other constraints of the site.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a , What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 70%
2b . Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: the p roposed project will be covered
under NCDOT's NPDES permit and will not require a state stormwater permit.
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e . Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? The Town of Pine Knoll Shores
(No program)
? Phase II
? NSW
31b . Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
® Other: NCDOT NPDES
Program
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ® No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
? HOW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
® Other: NCDOT NPDES
Program
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ® No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments: A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion has been approved by the N.C. ® Yes ? No
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Town of Pine Knoll
Shores, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc (agent). A copy of the signed
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form is inlcuded in this application
submittal.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ®No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 47 which has been determined to be structurally defciant. The
project is not intended to induce growth. In addition, the areas around the project site are currently developed and
residential.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wasterwater will be discharged as a result of this project.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or N Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?

Raleigh
®
Sc. If yes, indicate the USFW S Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Correspondence with the USFWS indicates that as long as the Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian
Manatee (June, 2003) are implemented, the project should not have an adverse impact to the manatee. In addition, the
construction of new seawalls will take place behind the existing seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls intact throughout
the construction process. A review of NC National Heritage Program (NCNHP) database records indicate there have
been no West Indian Manatee occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project. See atlachedc USFW S concurrence letter dated
April 19, 2011.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ® Yes ? No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
According the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) the
project study area is not designated as anadromous fish spawning habitat or a primary nursery area. However, since the
proposed project includes widening the channel, there is a potential for increased turbidity, therefore, the NCDMF may require
a construciton moratorium between April 1-September 30 as a condition of the Section 404/401 permits from the USACE and
NCDWQ. Further coordination with NCDMF will be required once specific turbitity control measures and the season of the
year for construction have been determined.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ®No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
There are no historic sites near the project, based on North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS
Service, cited 6/21/11.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ® No
81b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA floodmaps panel 3720635500J, Effective date
July 16, 2003

Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature /
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant ?j/
is provided.) 111
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Figures
N
W+E
S
Bogue Sound
moss D.
V`
m
e
U) Oakleaf Drive
N
Cakleaf OF 44u160 enY
Dt
a
rn

mos

Hawthorne Or 0
2C
m

Ch slnutC a Boulevard

yy Walnut Cir n CYpr s Or
'
o: e9 C
g3 o
n
S?
/
O o Pcp
i v
4
P O ' Q 6
a
m m
od Dr 7
a p
a

m
Loblolly Or ,Mo
NF U3 Beech
C <
rs

d
er
B=5001 "
Pine'KnalhWatg?9''a9 Iv 1
nr
Ju
t
Y
c Arborvitae Or _
n Pinewood Or ?Y st
c
path Road Rd 58

Salter P
Salter
Dogwood Cir
Atlantic Ocean
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
I \
-Ca ret
County
r?
r
j Atlantic Ocean
LEGEND Figure 1
Project Boundary Vicinity Map
Carteret County TIP Project B-5001 (Replacement of Bridge #47)
Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina
7 0
LL ? m
y `o
Q
E
m
U
N
6
N
O
O
h
m
U
N
O
a`
a
Z
m
cc
0
o
co
? U
N
Z O
W a
W
J
wa
V v d
1 m Y
` `o Z
OI C j
C
O E
CL E
0 7
O c' V
F m
fA m
7 oU
m ?
O
U t
d y
O
a
aY
?- c
a
Z
m
c
0
m
U
N
0 o
Z
Wo
CD
W
J
r3 r '!T r,. Vj(.' •Yl T f{? A ?{.? r ' ?'?- LL•O oZ
.i) r it' tra (F ? ...:h, K f 1 a v. •F ; uU
rya x ?-?l 1 ,? _ r ? •?' , r '? T ?? s '. ^?' 1 d ?
a
1' + 7 r, r •? , ? (r f i i I .i Ni S d o U
'o-
• 1 ? Y
14 C,
t I , ,} (6
T^ .I `•G ?? t'., 4 tlk21i '`A-?iy?j?r^ L? N '".- r4. co
LU 0
'i
1 t v j'f 5-t ?, " r r t f I 1.
ILI
T,
1 ?
?? ' r ? T i Y r •'
J -Z' M 0 . ? 7 s. Cl "r
!d f o>
Y . jir raf N »f H WA--.' i. 11 nr7
f ? O ? r ? ? ? > ? .. F t. ? 1 YF•--`"" SIC o7m?p Z
c to
w h O ? a ?
III m
L N Y CL L t N 11• , r
M LO
W m o w m
ca uuoLL zz3 gyyr-y., ?g y .? )k•
p III{' 'YI ?{, iy1JY? ', ? 6
-0 ?.
N CL p?p
W ? h
? C
LL O m
N S
O EE
LL ?
Q ?
W CL
LL
0
0
N
m
T
l0
C
O
m
U
N
Q O
Z d
w 0
w
J
E
a?
cq o
N
O
t0
r ?
C ?
G
nw
m
m cn
a "'
o `O
o
? c
za
U
J
O

t , c E
tm mV

+
' _ -! C N u O
lY
?•' h Z O• d N
}. w O o U
f. '' ? O

Z

L m

D O N m
N
o

yg
^s
Y
O
Z
1
N
?'^eFy
7 00?
a m
0=
O
• .?, l i J U t n.%.A. j
1
1 2 Y
m 4_?t O 9 H d
? • ? O ???? ?
- ? [D Y t
? C .. t? ?
t O
F
w
1?
`+
` i
3
•
?
?
i

W
N N
,
1
Z. N W IFJ r L
•
e t}
? a
a,
t
?
?"
?
N
i m
V
I
1
1 r

}} t N 1/1
N
C
1+
t•. ASY =
C
z° ?
osa Blvd _Q5? 'r.
Mim
?
?
o u
° a
m

N
O o=
?
_
E

t O ?
G O

a
? ?
? n o
o 0
O

L
-
m
3

j
//
d tt
, a
o a. E
i

Fri W
441

? s
r?• o
1;
? .. I Y
so. o 1?'(Ufy',j
1 ? N J
i 9t'Ea+ • i yf I J

Permit Drawings
f
ORO
s
0
4

N
U

i

O
J
W
W
O
u
J
N
U
h
ti
1r
M
U?
az
ckz
LQ
2
ti
ULJ O
N tip
Lo
W
CL II
NA 2
? v
W LL.
Z O
4
O
U
O ?
C
CL
W
CC
IA Z W
Z?mQ
ZWOcc
L u,
L7
?U m
C
E ?
p U
= O
N
Y N
as
-I

U
Qua L U U.
U

Wald
aOQ
r4 W
Q LL. Q Q
Qa
4
O,S M I
M
? a co a co
aZ?
W U
N
O
N O

y? W
Z
y?
I ?Q

W LL.
= O
u1 N
m ? N
H h
O I.
W
2 W
Z?Cc
YuA
ZW?OWc
CL uj
?Ng?
occ c
?U m
O
U
C
N
d
O O
= O
N ?
m¢ ?E
Y m 8?
?i
Q
U Q
Q w
? s
? Y
J
U ? E
w m
Q Q
W _
WOO U
LLI
~ Q Q
Q Z
? cc v
co ? <r
? N Q r17...... -.-..
w O > O -. -_....
WOO Q O
U
X
a w F-- N4'i'a
ego
o o<
m
IL U
N <0
Q
5 W J _
W W W
H i < CL
i
I
+y
PINE KNOLL WATERWAY r
gg e?
R? Hg
O N
?n
N ti ?
Cl) NW W
WO ~ LLJ
LL iL O
p 2Z
N W !4li 2
,I
z
i

y\
ti a
W ?
/ A w
A U
a z
'

W
z co
1,
Q w w

W J
CL
U 0 N
H
a > D
O N
?
O Z O
T
l
{: a
0] 0-
N O
.,.
Z X Lr
w d

amt "
Z

w
\a
Q
?
W Z U
N 00
F- - J
U ~ W

C?,5i / ?' d

i QQ

W
^ O
Y' - / g
- UQ
°X W

# ,. Qa w?
W? 0?
,- .. ,,. - -.. 0 W [O

I` ? y ? ? WtY
Wa WO
o

?
I
am E'T

C I '' J

? U
I U a

w a
d O
O J
J In
N
}
~ O <
Z w a
w Ln W
:?i O O
w 0- d
`n o
Q W w
w d ?
I I

I
o I
a
z
?o
ka°
W?
I
I
?I
? yl
UN
Q T I
On_h
w 4¢? I v?
Q O
r. ??u WO
Wh?OIW J O ?Z
?N a?? I a? i
mQi WIW ti; ?? .??
O J? I W h ??
W,W
W Te
Z r`
U ei - -- W
VNN b?? SN ¢ ?r
m??, o?? a W w=
' a rvN o W $? uW
mrW o ?ow ? ?e
I a`a
o°
W
Lo o s
cc? N
a ~ U
LCI
U N WLf) O
x LL o W 2
rV Q Z
2 0 ? I ?
N
I ?
?, I o
I ~
I
a
W
W
0
H
a

Op ? F. N
?U
4; Oi
A
a
W
ZZ W
Co
Z?ui tA, a
ZWOcccc
CL U4Z
Lt.
?U m
O
c
d
E ?
° o
N
d¢ °e
Ea "o
Y N S?
® ?z
11 _
O

Agent Authorization Form
Letter of Authorization

Mr. Brian Kramer, with the Town of Pine Mioll Shores authorizes Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. to act as our limited agent to coordinate with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Quality for the
preparation and submittal of jurisdictional determinations and 404/401 pcrnuts
applications associated with the Mimosa Street Bridge project located in Carteret
County, North Carolina. Authorization will terminate on either final agency
action or upon written notification from either parties involved.
Company Name: Kinilev-Horn and Associates, Lnc.
Contact Name: Beth Reed, PWS
Client Address: 100 Municipal Circle
Pine Knoll Shoes, NC 28512
Client Phone #: [phone]
Client Fax 11: [phone]
Client Email: manaeer n townofpks.com
Approved Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 20101965 County: Carteret U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Mansfield
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Attn:Beth Reed P.W.S
Address: 3001 Weston Parkway
Cary. North Carolina
27513
Telephone No.: 919-677-2073
Property description
Size (acres) 0.5 acres Nearest Town Pine Knoll Shores
Nearest Waterway Bogue Sound River Basin White Oak
USGS HUC 0320106 Coordinates N 34.4147 W -76.4838
Location description Bridge 47 over Pine Knoll Shores Waterway, near Pine Knoll Shores. Carteret County, North
Carolina
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
X There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
_ There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
Action ID:
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Tam Steffens at 910-251-4615.
C. Basis For Determination
This waterbody exhibits an Ordinary High Water Mark as indicated by changes in soil character and absence of
terrestrial vegetation and is hydrologically connected to Bogue Sound, a traditionally navigable water..
D. Remarks
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Atm:Tom Steffens, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by 02/16/2011.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.** ) n
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date 12/16/2010
Expiration Date 12116/2015
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at httn://regulatory.usacestirvey.com to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
RG W
Page 2 of 2
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section N of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 12/162010
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:CESAW-RG-W; NCDOTB-5001Bridge 47/Pine Knoll Waterway; SAW- 2010-
01965
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bridge 47 over Pine Knoll Waterway, near Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret
County, North Carolina
State:NC County/parish/borough: Carteret City: Pine Knoll Shores
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat..34.4147° N, Long. -76.4838°.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Bogue Sound
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Bogue Sound
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): ,.
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
ty Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD
form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CIIECK ALL THAT APPLY):
4 Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): 08/232010
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There A?i'?L0"?ear„oa 1 "navigable waters of the US." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RIIA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Bogue Sound has traditionally been used for recreational and commercial interstate commerce.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There m ,waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
TNWs, including territorial seas
d Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RP Ws that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
p Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
Q Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
d Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into 7N Ws
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
?'. Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: I001inear feet: width (fl) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:Xs&'tilishe"d;byaOFi) .Nf;
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):;
Q Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be notjurisdictional.
Explain: - -
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g.,
typically 3 months).
'Supporting documentation is presented in Section HIT.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section
IH.A.1 and Section M.D.I. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section
IH.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Hogue Sound/Pine Knoll waterway.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: Bogue Sound / Pine Knoll Waterway has traditionally been used for recreational and
commercial interstate commerce.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine
whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos hnve been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters"
(RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland
that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to
Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA
regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively
permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant
nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider
the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes,
the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent
wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.I for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any
onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a
significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: b-MC TEE
4N' S'? ",
Drainage area: 1?Pic, V1
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pt"c0rL?i f tributaries before entering TNW.
n'a ..
Project waters are Pick'?6? river miles from TNW.
Project waters are tc`k',Lr'M river miles from RPW.
Project waters areiektsf aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pits sf aerial (straight) miles from RP W.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWs:
Tributary stream order, if known:
'Note that the instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TN W.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: RN R.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability (e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of mn/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
,..
Tributary geometry: P?ielr Est
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: F_ Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Eck? -isf
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: P.icrlL'i"s!. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: F RU Misi. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
[] High Tide Line indicated by: Q
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristies
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the site= temporarily flows underground, or where the
OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the walerbody's flow regime (e.g., flow
over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7 bid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatictwildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Welland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Welland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Fjk'- s . Explain:
Surface flow is: P 0-0- stt
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: tckga i. Explain findings:
.-..-. ? Dye (or other) lest performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Nan-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are tck° iki river miles from TN W.
Project waters are Fie.&ka] ist aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: GIcklffff
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Y.i jU is floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics;
etc.). Explain: .
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) ry?`sy
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Y@3 KList
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any
wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW.
For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists,if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more
than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when
evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and
its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine
significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a
tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of
significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapmtos Guidance and discussed in
the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TN Ws, or to
reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TN W?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other
species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological
integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings
of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands,
then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or
absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (tt),Or, acres.
_d Wetlands adjacent to TN Ws: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary
is perennial: ,
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional.
Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWsa that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional, as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
® Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.H and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an
RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with
similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a iN W are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is
provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates farjurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
K' Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with
similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a'IN W are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is
provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment ofa jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
9 Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE[ WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION
OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK
ALL THAT APPLY):''
Q which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
Q from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Q Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
`See Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instmetional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA [IQ for review
consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Ruptures.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
+ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Q Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Ik If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Ian 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
?a Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
0 Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e.,
presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all
that apply):
M Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (R).
69 Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a
finding is required forjurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
55 Lakes/ponds: acres.
a Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
,q Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and
re uested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultarnXimley-Horn and associates, Inc..
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
HH Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
IJ Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
® USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K NC-Mansfield.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Carteret County.
d National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
?r» State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
d FEMA/FIRM maps:
Q 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):Google Earth 2010.
or ?.Other (Name & Date):
0 Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
3O Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):Site visit 08/23/2010.
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
Applicant: Beth Reed;Kimley-Horn/ File Number: SAW-2010- Date: 12/16/2010
NCDOT/ Town of Pine Knoll Shores 01965
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
U PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
DETERMINATION
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form
and sending the forth to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
t y V "€ w
C??O-` ?? ,.?ST?F?OORs?AtIa aorta 1E?®?.5 O a,,?;, .J.ty- ''® DER+1?D??Ra-7v1"A????
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.

If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
US Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Tom Steffens CESAD-ET-CO-R
Post Office Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
910)-251-4615 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn:Tom Steffens, Project Manager, Washington
Regulatory Field Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North Carolina 27889
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Array Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street,.Room 9M15, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8801
US Fish and Wildlife Concurrence Letter
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 19, 2011
Beth Reed
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Dear Ms. Reed:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 15, 2011 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the Town of Pine Knoll Shores that the replacement of Bridge No. 47 on Mimosa
Boulevard over the Pine Knoll Waterway in Carteret County (TIP No. B-5001) may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the federally endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). In
addition, NCDOT and Pine Knoll Shores has determined that the project will have no effect on all other
federally listed species within the purview of the Service. These comments are provided in accordance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information submitted, the Service's GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO
THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North
Carorrna:Waters will be implemented during. construction. Based on this commitment and upon other
available information, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the Service
concurs with your conclusion that the project will have no effect on all other federally listed species
within our purview (to include all species of sea turtles while nesting). However, please note that the
National Marine Fisheries Service has purview over the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and
all species of sea turtles while in the water.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2).of the ESA, have been satisfied for those species
within our purview. 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 in this review; (2). this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in -this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined
that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project.. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Pete Bena
J
Field Supervisor
cc: Tom Steffens, USACE, Washington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC

Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form
(Signed)
Carteret County
Bridge No. 47 on. Mimosa Boulevard
over Pine Knoll Waterway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-0299(6)
WBS No. 41104.1.1
TIP No. B-5001
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
.- / / -
DA Wregory7. Thorpe, PliD
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
DATE of n F- ' Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Carteret County
Bridge No. 47 on Mimosa Boulevard
over Pine Knoll Waterway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-0299(6)
WBS No. 41104.1.1
TIP No. B-5001
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, vie.
For the Town of Pine Knoll Shores
A E Mere ith H. Van Duyn, PE
Project Engineer
Kinney-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Mattt6 S. e4, PE, AVS
Pr4et Manager
Kiniley-Horn and Associates, hie.
19LV 20 /
DATE
S.
t

f

1
?u!FG ? it -R i 4f .m
a

p
a

< )

a r

r
PROJECT COMMIT
MENTS

a;, sx r: xsM1k X rfg "?g I.
.ham 1} I 1"?: r r S - } F r1 ?
es°-Natural Resources ??>, ? ? ? ? ?-?
'T,? r .: r t tr r G z. 'r r d 3 ,
?uzdelznesfor.9rvoad?nglmpacts,totheN'estlndzanManatee?r
or,?Constructeon Acttvitaes rn North Carolina Waters for this:=? `
rs ^
r ? 3 A 3s 1
Y-.
tiq".s S . ?
--+F G y ebb 'i .3 p V t r
is notadentified byr NCDMF as"anadromous fish waters or as a
wever r because the proposed protect involves Widening the
Itial increases in turbidity, the NCDMF inay requ r`e'a
The co kruchon`moratontim for activities Within coastal''.
lab September 30 asa condition of Section 404/401 permits
of?Engifi&rs and North Carolina Division of Water.Quality ?
ordulationwith NCDMF Will be necessary once §,11 ific ,
and the s`ea_son`,ot the,year for cbns'truction have been.

B-5001 Categoric'alEzolusion
Carteret County
Bridge No. 47 on Mimosa Boulevard
over Pine Knoll Waterway
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-0299(6)
WBS No. 41104. 1.1
TIP No. B-5001
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 47 is included in the 2009-2015 North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is eligible
for the Federal-Aid Highway Bridge Program. The location, topography, and aerial mapping
are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project is classified as a Federal Categorical Exclusion.
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records (Bridge Inspection Report, February 26, 2010)
indicate Bridge No. 47 has a sufficiency rating of 47.1 out of a possible 100 for a new
structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to its structural condition of 2
out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore is
eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Program.
Bridge No. 47 was built in 1972 and has a timber substructure (piles and bulkheads) with
reinforced concrete caps and a prestressed concrete superstructure. It was designed for H-10
loading. The posted weight limit on the bridge is 30 tons for single vehicles and 34 tons for
truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally practical only when a few members are
damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber
structures become impractical to maintain and upon eligibility are programmed for
replacement. Components of the concrete superstructure are also deteriorating. Bridge No. 47
is approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic
operations. The proposed replacement bridge design is included in Figure 4, and the roadway
and bridge typical sections are included in Figure 5.
When local development of this area began in the 1970's, a canal was dug to drain the low-
lying properties and facilitate construction of a new residential neighborhood. Mimosa
Boulevard and Oakleaf Drive were built to serve as the access routes over the canal (the Pine
Knoll Waterway) and into the neighborhood. The original canal has taken on a new purpose,
serving as a recreational facility for many local residents and providing a route for boat traffic
into and from Bogue Sound. Currently, this waterway narrows at Mimosa Boulevard,
allowing for only one-way boat traffic. The Town plans to widen the waterway at the same
time as the bridge and bulkhead replacement.
IL EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located within the municipal limits of the Town of Pine Knoll Shores in
Carteret County, approximately 0.1-mile north of the intersection of Mimosa Boulevard and
NC 58 (Salter Path Road). Development in the area is residential. Mimosa Boulevard is
classified as an urban local collector, and it is not a National Highway System Route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, Mimosa Boulevard is 24 feet wide, consisting of two 12-foot
travel lanes with curb (no gutters), shown in photos in Figure 6. The bottom of the existing
bridge structure is approximately 20 feet above the streambed and 15 feet above the water
surface.
Bridge No. 47 is a one-span structure that consists of a precast, prestressed concrete channel
with an asphalt-wearing surface. The end bents consist of reinforced concrete caps on timber
piles with timber bulkheads. The overall length of the structure is 31 feet. The clear roadway
width is 24.0 feet.
There are overhead power lines and other utilities attached to the east and west sides of the
existing structure. Utility impacts are anticipated to be high.
The average daily traffic volume listed on the Bridge Inspection Report of 560 vehicles per
day (VPD) in 1980 includes 7% truck traffic. Current traffic counts are not available. Traffic
for the year 2025 is expected to increase to 1,120 VPD. The posted speed limit is 25 miles per
hour in the project area. Several public school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning
and afternoon routes.
This section of Mimosa Boulevard is not part of a designated bicycle route, and there are no
sidewalks near the bridge. However, Pine Knoll Shores is a popular site for tourists in the
summer, given its location at the beach. Mimosa Boulevard is the primary access to the beach
(across Salter Path Road) for this neighborhood. Many permanent / year-round residents also
live in this neighborhood, and pedestrians were observed during a site visit on January 28,
2010. The Town of Pine Knoll Shores has requested a temporary pedestrian bridge be built
for beach access during construction.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 50 feet long. The bridge
length is based on preliminary design information and accommodates widening of the Pine
Knoll Waterway. The bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two 12-foot lanes with
curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on each side. The roadway grade of the new structure
will be approximately the same as the existing grade.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
One build alternative for replacing Bridge No. 47 was studied in detail and is described
below.
Alternate 1 (Preferred)
Alternate 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately 200
feet to the north and 270 feet to the south of the new structure to tie the proposed pavement
improvements to the existing roadway. This alternate will be designed using 3R guidelines
with a design speed of 30 miles per hour:, Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1)
during the construction period.
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Off site Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects
considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the
average road user resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include NC 58 (Salter Path Road), Cedar Road, Oakleaf Drive, and Hawthorne Drive. The
detour for the average motorist would result in a maximum of four minutes of additional
travel time (1.8 miles of additional travel). The duration of construction is expected to be 18
months on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of delay along the detour
is acceptable.
The proposed improvements also include the replacement of the seawalls as well as a
widening of the Pine Knoll Waterway to approximately 33 feet (8 feet on each side of the
canal). The widening of the waterway will be accomplished by constructing new seawalls
behind the existing seawall, leaving the existing seawalls intact during construction. The
upland area between the new and existing seawall will be excavated down to the elevation of
the current channel prior to the removal of the existing seawall. No dredging of the Pine
Knoll Waterway will be required as part of the channel widening.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by Bridge No. 47.
Prior maintenance on Bridge No. 47 includes repair to the spalled areas of concrete with
exposed reinforcements, repair of decayed areas in the timber wingwall piles, and patching of
the prestressed concrete channel beams. Rehabilitation of the old bridge is not practical due
to its deteriorated condition, including the following elements listed in the Bridge Inspection
Report:
• The asphalt overlay has light wear and ravel.
The bridge rails have minor scaling and moss stains throughout. Cracks and
delamination present on the bridge posts.
There is a full width transverse crack in the roadway surface located at each end bent.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion
• Cracks, spalling, and exposed rebar in End Bents 1 and 2.
• Loss of bearing on timber piles.
• Hairline cracks and minor vertical gaps present along the wingwalls and bulkheads.
Areas of rot on each.
• Spalling, delamination, and exposed rebar are present on north and south bulkheads.
Staged construction is not feasible for this bridge because the structure will not support the
removal of a portion and maintenance of traffic on the remaining portion.
A new alignment is not recommended due to potential impacts to nearby residences. An on-
site detour for vehicle traffic is not recommended for this location because of potential
impacts to nearby residences and the availability of an acceptable off-site detour.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 47 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 4.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on 2010 prices, are as follows in Table 1:
Table 1. Estimated Project Costs
Alternative 1
Preferred
Construction Cost $ 550,000
Public Utility Relocation Costs $ 125,000
Environmental Mitigation Costs $ 11,000
Total Project Cost $ 686,000
The full cost of widening the waterway and relocating the seawall will be paid by the Town.
The cost of the remainder of the project will be funded by FHWA (80%) and the Town (20%).
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Physical Characteristics
Water Resources
Water resources in the project area (listed in Table 2) are part of the White Oak River basin
(US Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03020106). The Pine Knoll Waterway is an
approximate 1.8-mile man-made canal that begins and ends with confluences in the Bogue
Sound. The project area is located near the middle of the two confluences. The project area
drains to Bogue Sound, which discharges to the Atlantic Ocean. The physical characteristics
of this water resource are provided in Table 3.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion
Table 2. Water Resources
Stream Name Map ID DWQ Index Best Usage
Number Classification
Pine Knoll Waterway Pine Knoll Waterway 20-36-(8.5 SA; H W
Table 3. Physical Characteristics of Water Resources
Bank Water

Map ID
Height Bankfull
Depth Channel
Velocity
Clarity
ft Width (t
Width (ft} ft Substrate
Pine Knoll Existing

Waterway
Seawall 15-17 5-6 Sand Slow Clear
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classifies surface waters of the state
based on their intended best uses. The section of Bogue Sound that is hydrologically
connected to the Pine Knoll Waterway is classified by NCDWQ as "SA" waters.
In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to develop a list
of waterbodies not meeting federal water quality standards or that have impaired uses. The
NCDWQ 2010 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies the Bogue Sound within the
vicinity of the project as a prohibited shellfish harvesting area.
The Pine Knoll Waterway and the reach of the Bogue Sound near the project are classified as
"Coastal Waters," managed jointly by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
(NCDMF) and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR).
The NCDMF does not classify the Pine Knoll Waterway as an anadromous fish spawning area
or a primary nursery area.
The reach of the Bogue Sound in the vicinity of the project, including the Pine Knoll
Waterway, is designated as High Quality Waters by NCDWQ. No Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) are found within the project vicinity; however, the Theodore Roosevelt
Natural Area, located approximately 0.5 mile west of the project is designated as an ORW.
No Water Supply Watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) occur within the project area or within 1.0
mile downstream of the project.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water
quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical
water data. There are no AMS stations within one mile of the project.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion
Biotic Resources
A majority of the habitat in the project area is aquatic (Pine Knoll Waterway), and the
adjacent terrestrial habitat consists of previously disturbed habitats located within existing
NCDOT right-of-way. The only terrestrial community within the study area is
maintained/disturbed (approximately 1.0 acre), which includes the regularly mowed grassy
shoulders along Mimosa Boulevard, residential lawns, and the impervious surface of the road
and bridge. The vegetation within these areas varies with different management regimes.
Common species include centipede and Bermuda grasses within the existing right-of-way and
residential lawns, and Atlantic white cedar, pampas grass, pennywort, and greenbrier adjacent
to the existing seawalls underneath and next to the bridge. The terrestrial community in the
study area may be impacted by project construction as a result of clearing, grading, and
paving associated with the bridge replacement.
The terrestrial community in the study area is comprised of disturbed habitats that may
support wildlife species adapted to urban environments. Mammals that may be found in the
project area include raccoon, eastern cottontail, Virginia opossum, gray squirrel, and cotton
mouse. Birds that are commonly found in the project area include the cardinal, Carolina
chickadee, mockingbird, robin, Carolina wren, eastern bluebird, blue jay, and American crow.
Birds that commonly use the open water habitat of the Pine Knoll Waterway include the great
blue heron, brown pelican, osprey, great egret, wood duck, and herring gull. Common reptiles
and amphibians include the eastern garter snake, copperhead, black racer, five-lined skink,
eastern mud turtle, eastern box turtle, yellowbelly slider, southern dusky salamander,
Brimley's chorus frog, and spring peeper.
The aquatic community in the study area consists of the Pine Knoll Waterway. This tidally
influenced canal supports many of the macrobenthics, shellfish, and juvenile fish species
known to occur in Bogue Sound. Species likely to occur in the canal include clams, oysters,
bay scallops, juvenile shrimp, blue crab, juvenile spot, mullet, southern flounder, croakers,
menhaden, and red drum. Oysters and bay scallops were observed along the seawalls of the
canal.
Jurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters and Wetlands
The Pine Knoll Waterway is the only jurisdictional feature identified in the study area. There
are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project study area.
Permits
The following permits or coordination with regulatory agencies are anticipated for this
project:
• Section 404 - Impacts to "Waters of the United States" (including wetlands, streams,
and open waters that are connected to a navigable waterway) come under the jurisdiction
of USAGE. Discharges of dredged or fill materials into the Pine Knoll Waterway
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 6
associated with the bridge replacement and channel widening project will require a
Section 404 pennit from the USACE. The Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 (Approved
Categorical Exclusions) may be used to authorize impacts to jurisdictional waters within
the project study area. If the project impacts exceed the specified NWP thresholds, an
Individual Section 404 permit will be required.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A Section 401 Water Quality Certification
from NCDWQ will be required for any activity that may result in a discharge into
"Waters of the United States" or for which the issuance of a federal permit is required.
Minor impacts may be authorized under a General Water Quality Certification. The
General Water Quality Certification #3701 may be used to authorize impacts to
jurisdictional waters within the project study area. If the project requires an Individual
Section 404 permit, an Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification will also be
required.
Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental. Concern - Carteret County
is listed as one of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties and is subject to regulation
by NCDCM. Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern
(AECs) were identified along the Pine Knoll Waterway in the study area. The Pine
Knoll Waterway is a designated Public Trust Water. AECs include all lands within 75
feet of the normal high water level (NWL) of the waterway. This determination was
confirmed during an agency field review on August 23, 2010.
A CAMA permit from NCDCM will be required for all impacts to designated AECs and
coastal wetlands within the study area. Any impacts to AECs resulting from the
proposed project will likely require a CAMA General or Minor Permit.
Construction Moratoria - The Pine Knoll Waterway is not identified by NCDMF as
anadromous fish waters or as a primary nursery area. However, because the proposed
project involves widening the existing channel and potential increases in turbidity, the
NCDMF may require a construction moratorium. The construction moratorium for
activities within coastal waters extends from April I to September 30 as a condition of
the Section 404 and 401 permits from the USACE and NCDWQ..Further coordination
with NCDMF will be necessary once specific turbidity control measures and the season
of the year for construction have been determined.
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters - The Pine Knoll Waterway
has been designated by the USACE as a Navigable Water under Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act. The construction of structures that affect navigation within these
waters requires additional USACE authorization, which is applied for using the same
application submitted for USACE 404 approval. The USACE requires a Section 10
permit for the construction of any structure in, over, or under any "Navigable Water of
the United States."
Construction of bridges within navigable waters also requires US Coast Guard (USCG)
approval under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. This approval is obtained with
a separate application submitted directly to the USCG. Minor impacts may be
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion
authorized under an expedited review process known as Advanced Approval, while
major bridge projects are required to follow the standard permitting process. A
Section 9 permit from the USCG will likely be required for the construction of the
bridge across the Pine Knoll Waterway.
Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE and USCG.
Federally Protected Species
As of January 31, 2008 (database checked in August 2010), the US Fish and Wildlife Service
lists thirteen federally protected species for Carteret County (Table 4). A brief description of
each species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered
based on survey results in the project area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on
the current best available information per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence
(included in the Appendix).
Table 4. Federally protected species listed for Carteret County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status Habitat
Present Biological
Conclusion
Alligator mississi iensis American alligator T S/A Yes Not Required
Puma concolor cou uar Eastern puma (cougar)* E No No Effect
Chelonia m das Green sea turtle T Yes No Effect
Le idochel s kem ii Kem 's ridle sea turtle E Yes No Effect
Dermochel s coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E Yes No Effect
Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T Yes No Effect
Charadrius melodus Piping lover T No No Effect
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded
woodpecker E No No Effect
Sterna dou allii dou allii Roseate tern T No No Effect
Aci enser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E No No Effect
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee E Yes MA-NLAA
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved
loosestrife E No No Effect
Amaranthus umilus Seabeach amaranth T No No Effect
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
MA-NLAA - May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
* - Obscure record (The date and/or location of the observation is uncertain.)
American alligator
In North Carolina, alligators have been recorded in nearly every coastal county and
many inland counties to the fall line. The alligator is found in rivers, streams, canals,
lakes, swamps, and coastal marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt water,
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion
but the young are apparently more sensitive, with salinities greater than 5 parts per
thousand considered harmful. The American alligator remains on the protected
species list due to its similarity in appearance to the Endangered American crocodile.
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance do not require Section 7
consultation with the USFWS. Habitat for the American alligator is present within
the project area within the Pine Knoll Waterway. A review of NCNHP database
records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates documented American alligator occurrences
within 1.0 mile of the project.
Eastern cougar
Records of eastern cougar occur across the state of North Carolina with most
sightings in coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian Mountains. This nocturnal
predator is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of
their primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of
10 to 20 square miles, varying in size with age, sex, and food availability.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the eastern cougar does not exist within the project area. The
project occurs in an urban setting with habitats comprised primarily of maintained
grasses/lawns. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates no
known eastern cougar occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project.
Green sea turtle
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. Nesting in
North America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida requiring
beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting. (They do not
nest in North Carolina.) The green sea turtle can be found in shallow waters. They
are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, mangrove swamps, and inlets where an
abundance of marine grasses can be found, as this is the principle food source for the
green sea turtle.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area. Therefore, suitable
nesting habitat for the green sea turtle does not exist within the project area. Sea
turtles are known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer months.
Suitable foraging habitat for the green sea turtle does exist in the project area within
the Pine Knoll Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10,
indicates no known green sea turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project. The
proposed widening of the waterway will be accomplished by constructing new
seawalls behind the existing seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls intact during
construction. No dredging, channel realignment, or barging is proposed as part of the
project construction.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 9
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea turtles that visit North Carolina's
coast, and has been sighted in most coastal counties. While the majority of this sea
turtle's nesting occurs in Mexico, the species is known to nest on North Carolina
beaches infrequently. Sightings of the species exist for most coastal counties.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles can lay eggs as many as three times during the April to June
breeding season. Kemp's ridley sea turtles prefer beach sections that are backed up
by extensive swamps or large bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean
connections and a well defined elevated dune area. The species prefers neritic
(nearshore) areas with sandy or mbddy bottoms.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area. Therefore. suitable
nesting habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtle does not exist within the project area. Sea
turtles are known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer months.
Suitable foraging habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle does exist in the project area
within the Pine Knoll Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed
8/19/10, indicates no known Kemp's ridley sea turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the project. The proposed widening of the waterway will be accomplished by
constructing new seawalls behind the existing seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls
intact during construction. No dredging, channel realignment, or barging is proposed
as part of the project construction.
Leatherback sea turtle
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Indian oceans. They are generally open ocean species, and may be common off
the North Carolina coast during certain times of the year. However, in northern
waters leatherbacks are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies
of water. Major nesting areas occur mainly in tropical regions. In the United States,
primary nesting areas are in Florida. However, nests are known from Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina as well. Nesting occurs from April to August.
Leatherbacks need sandy beaches backed with vegetation in the proximity of deep
water and generally with rough seas. Beaches with a relatively steep slope are
usually preferred.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area; therefore, suitable nesting
habitat for the leatherback sea turtle does not exist within the project area. Sea turtles
are known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warn summer months. Suitable
foraging habitat for the leatherback sea turtle does exist in the project area within the
Pine Knoll Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10,
indicates no known leatherback sea turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project.
The proposed widening of the waterway will be accomplished by constructing new
seawalls behind the existing seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls intact during
construction. No dredging, channel realignment, or barging is proposed as part of the
project construction.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 10
Loggerhead sea turtle
The loggerhead is widely distributed within its range, and is found in three distinct
habitats during their lives. These turtles may be found hundreds of miles out in the
open ocean, in neritic (nearshore) areas, or on coastal beaches. In North Carolina,
this species has been observed in every coastal county. Loggerheads occasionally
nest on North Carolina beaches, and are the most common of all the sea turtles that
visit the North Carolina coast. They nest nocturnally, at two or three year intervals,
between May and September, on isolated beaches that are characterized by fine-
grained sediments. In nearshore areas, loggerheads have been observed in bays,
lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral
reefs, rocky places, and shipwrecks are often used as foraging areas.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area. Therefore, suitable
nesting habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle does not exist within the project area.
Sea turtles are known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer months.
Suitable foraging habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle does exist in the project area
within the Pine Knoll Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed
8/19/10, indicates documented loggerhead sea turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the project area along the Bogue Banks beach area. The proposed widening of the
waterway will be accomplished by constructing new seawalls behind the existing
seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls intact during construction. No dredging,
channel realignment, or barging is proposed as part of the project construction.
Piping Plover
The piping plover breeds along the entire eastern coast of the United States. North
Carolina is uniquely positioned in the species range, being the only State where the
piping plover's breeding and wintering ranges overlap and the birds are present year-
round. They nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation, but some
may nest in stands of beach grass. The nest is a shallow depression in the sand that is
usually lined with shell fragments and light colored pebbles.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the piping plover does not exist within the project area. The Pine
Knoll Waterway lacks the shoreline habitat necessary for foraging and no coastal
beaches exist within the project area for nesting. A review of NCNHP database
records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates no known piping plover occurrences within 1.0
mile of the project.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of
southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in
living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, and which are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is
nonnally no more than 0.5 miles.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the RCW does not exist within the project area. The project
occurs in an urban setting with habitats comprised primarily of maintained
grasses/lawns. No mature pine stands are present in the project area. A review of
NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates no known red-cockaded
woodpecker occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project.
Roseate tern
In North Carolina, the roseate tern'is most likely to be seen on barrier islands as it
passes through the area to and from northern breeding grounds. March through May
and August through October are the most likely times to see these birds. Although
site records of this species exist for June, July, and August, these are likely non-
breeding males. Only one nesting record for this species has been documented for the
state within the past twenty years. However, if this species expands its range, it is
likely to choose coastal areas of the state for nesting. The roseate tern nests on
isolated, less disturbed coastal islands in areas characterized by sandy, rocky, or
clayey substrates with either sparse or thick vegetation. Eggs are usually laid such
that gasses or overhanging objects provide shelter. They may also nest in marshes,
but it is an uncommon occurrence.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable nesting habitat for the migrant roseate tern does not exist within the project
area. The project occurs in an urban setting with habitats comprised primarily of
maintained grasses/lawns. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10,
indicates no known roseate tern occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project.
Shortnose sturgeon
Shortnose sturgeon occur in most major river systems along the eastern seaboard of
the United States. The species prefers the nearshore marine, estuarine, and riverine
habitat of large river systems. It is an anadromous species that migrates to faster-
moving freshwater areas to spawn in the spring, but spends most of its life within
close proximity of the river's mouth. Large freshwater rivers that are unobstructed by
dams or pollutants are imperative to successful reproduction. Distribution
information by river/waterbody is lacking for the rivers of North Carolina; however,
records are known from most coastal counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the shortnose sturgeon does not exist within the project area. This
species is not known to occur in the Bogue Sound and would not likely occur in the
Pine Knoll Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10,
indicates no known shortnose sturgeon occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project.
West Indian manatee
Manatees have been observed in all the North Carolina coastal counties. Manatees
are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt water bays, and as far
offshore as 3.7 miles. They utilize freshwater and marine habitats at shallow depths
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 12
of 5 to 20 feet. In the winter, between October and April, manatees concentrate in
areas with warm water. During other times of the year, habitats appropriate for the
manatee are those with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and in
proximity to freshwater. Manatees require a source of fresh water to drink. Manatees
are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may
occasionally feed on fish.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The West Indian manatee is known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm
summer months. Suitable foraging habitat for the West Indian manatee does exist in
the project area within the Pine Knoll Waterway. Precautionary measures for
construction activities in North Carolina waters used by the manatee have been
outlined by the Raleigh Field Office of the USFWS. If the Guidelinesfor Avoiding
Impacts to the West Indian Manatee (USFWS, 2003) are implemented by the
contractor during construction, the project should not have an adverse impact to
manatee. The proposed widening of the waterway will be accomplished by
constructing new seawalls behind the existing seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls
intact during construction. No dredging, channel realignment, or barging is proposed
as part of the project construction. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed
8/19/10, indicates no known West Indian manatee occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
project. Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, the replacement of Bridge
No. 47 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee.
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Rough-leaved loosestrife, endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills of North and
South Carolina, generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins in dense shrub and vine growth on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand (spodosolic
soils). Occurrences are found in such disturbed habitats as roadside depressions,
maintained power and utility rights-of-way, firebreaks, and trails. The species prefers
full sunlight, is shade intolerant, and requires areas of disturbance (e.g., clearing,
mowing, periodic burning) where the overstory is minimal. It can, however, persist
vegetatively for many years in overgrown, fire-suppressed areas. Blaney, Gilead,
Johnston, Kalmia, Leon, Mandarin, Murville, Torhunta, and Vaucluse are some of the
soil series on which occurrences have been found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife does not exist within the project area.
The project occurs in an urban setting with habitats comprised primarily of
maintained grasses/lawns. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10,
indicates no known rough-leaved loosestrife occurrences within 1.0 mite of the
project.
Seabeach amaranth
Seabeach amaranth occurs on barrier island beaches where its primary habitat
consists of overwash flats at accreting ends of islands, lower foredunes, and upper
strands of noneroding beaches (landward of the wrack line). In rare situations, this
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 13
annual is found on sand spits 160 feet or more from the base of the nearest foredune.
It occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other habitats, including
sound-side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, interdunal areas, and on sand and shell
material deposited for beach replenishment or as dredge spoil. The plant's habitat is
sparsely vegetated with annual herbs (forbs) and, less commonly, perennial herbs
(mostly grasses) and scattered shrubs. It is, however, intolerant of vegetative
competition and does not occur on well-vegetated sites. The species usually is found
growing on a nearly pure silica sand substrate, occasionally with shell fragments
mixed in. Seabeach amaranth appears to require extensive areas of barrier island
beaches and inlets that function in-a relatively natural and dynamic manner. These
characteristics allow it to move around in the landscape, occupying suitable habitat as
it becomes available.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Due to the absence of beaches and dunes, suitable habitat for the Seabeach amaranth
does not exist within the project area. A review of NCNHP database records,
accessed 8/19/10, indicates a documented Seabeach amaranth occurrence within 1.0
mile of the project. The occurrence was located along the Bogue Banks beaches.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in close proximity to
large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting
sites, typically within one mile of open water. Suitable habitat for bald eagle does not
exist in the project area along the shoreline of the Pine Knoll Waterway. The project
occurs in an urban setting with habitats comprised primarily of maintained
grasses/lawns. No nest trees were observed during field investigations in January and
August 2010.
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a
reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
Historic Architecture
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project and is not aware
of any historic resources which would be affected by the project. SHPO has no comment on
the project as proposed. (See letter dated May 24, 2010.)
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 14
Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. There are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological
investigation needs to be conducted. (See letter dated May 24, 2010).
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will
be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change
in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. All construction will take place along existing alignment. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effect on any minority or low-income population.
Noise & Air Quality
The project is located in Carteret County, which has been determined to comply with the
National Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment area;
therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create
any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volume, vehicle mix, location
of the existing facility, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts
relative to the no-build alternative. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will
generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been
linked with any special MSAT concerns. Consequently this effort is exempt from analysis for
MSAT's.
Noise levels may increase during project construction; however, these impacts are not
expected to be substantial considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise
and the limitation of construction to daytime hours. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the
effects of intrusive construction noise.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 15
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. There are no
properties in the project area that are protected under Section 4(f).
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
The Pine Knoll Waterway is not a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regulated stream and therefore will not require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR).
VIII. COORDINATION & AGENCY COMMENTS
The Town has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development:
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (Fisheries), NC Wildlife Resource Commission, NC Division of
Water Quality, NC Division of Coastal Management, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, and
the State Historic Preservation Office.
The NC Division of Coastal Management responded in a letter dated May 11, 2010 that it
appears that a Public Trust Area, Estuarine Waters, and Coastal Shoreline Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) will be impacted and a Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) permit will be required.
The NC Division of Water Quality in a standardized letter dated May 25, 2010 provided the
following project-specific comments:
Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as SA; High
Quality Waters of the State in the project study area. This is one of the highest
classifications for water quality. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .1006 and 15A NCAC
2B .0224, NCDOT will be required to obtain a State Stonnwater Permit prior to
construction. While projects in North Carolina's twenty coastal counties are exempt
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 16
from the above rules, other stormwater requirements may be in effect and will need to
be adhered to.
• Any anticipated bank stabilization associated with the bridge replacement should be
addressed in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. It is understood that final
designs may not (be) determined at the time the CE is developed. However, the CE
should discuss the potential for bank stabilization necessary due to bridge
replacement.
Response: Permanent slope / bank stabilization will be established on all graded
slopes and fills within 21 days after a phase ofgrading is complete. Permanent
vegetation controls erosion by physically protecting a bare soil surface from raindrop
impact, flowing water, and wind. Vegetation binds soil particles together with a dense
root system, and reduces the velocity and volume of overland flow. It is the preferred
method ofsurface stabilization in North Carolina where site conditions permit.
Special attention will be given to selecting the most suitable plant material for the site
and intended purpose.
• Any anticipated dewatering or access structures necessary for construction of bridges
should be addressed in the CE. It is understood that final designs are not determined
at the time the CE is developed. However, the CE should discuss the potential for
dewatering and access measures necessary due to bridge construction.
Response: Dewatering and access structures are not anticipated for this project.
The NC Wildlife Resource Commission responded in a letter dated June 14, 2010 that "this
area is characterized by higher salinity water primarily supporting species under the
jurisdiction of the NC Division of Marine Fisheries; therefore NCDOT should coordinate with
NCDMF to address impacts to aquatic species. We recommend replacing this bridge with a
bridge. Standard recommendations apply."
Response: Coordination was initiated with the NC Division ofMarine Fisheries via the
Scoping Letter, dated May 11, 2010. A response from NCDMF was not received.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A newsletter announcement was printed in the Pine Knoll Shores local paper in March 2010
announcing a Citizens Informational Workshop. The informal workshop was held on April
28, 2010, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at Town Hall, and citizens were invited to comment. Eighteen
citizens attended, and three comment sheets were received during or following the workshop.
Two comment sheets stated a preference that the temporary pedestrian walkway be built on
the east side and were in favor of the project. The third comment sheet received included a
request for navigation lights on the bridge (underneath).
There is not substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 17
X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project. The project is therefore considered to
be a federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
B-5001 Categorical Exclusion 18
r CL w
U
LLcmS
U `o Z
' C T
N
E
u
?U
o ?
m
oU
o vi
N O
m O
L
N ?
? O
a C
D Y
? c
a
c
,. a
0
o m
a
J
O h
N ?
? O
N Z
.N m
0
Q O
Z a m`
wi
LU
w
J
N CL m
p c
o
7 m ?
_Q1U ?U
Q m "
o Z
O 0=
CL E?
F 0U
m
o d
m ?
? r
m
oU
O N
? m
m O
L
N ?O
? O
Q C
aY
? c
`a
a?
c
N
a
m
Cl
a
c
m
a
Z
m
U
O
O
N
ai
U
O
Ma??
m
L
?_ m DU
LL L 'C L
Q OZ
N
E ?
d 'o
?U
a?
m .
Kr
oU
o .
m `o
L
v V1
? O
a_Y
C
a
x
m
U
Z
m
N
C
m
U
.2) o
7
LM °= L
LL CO o
r p Z
O
O N C
LO E
U O
m m U
n
(D
r
o U
o
Lo 0
m 0
`o
U L
N U)
O 0
d °c
a Y
a
d
E
c
m
n
v
0
m
U
Z
C
7
O
U
N
N
C
m
U
T
a
a
w
D
O
O
L
n
N
O
O
L
n
N
N
Q
lit -L- MIMOSA BLVD
i
EXISTING
GROUND
i
Roadway Typical Section
EXISTING
GROUND
-L- STA 11+50.50 TO STA 12+77.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
-L- STA 13+27.00 (END BRIDGE) TO STA 13+82.10
?t -L- MIMOSA BLVD
i
2I' 2r'
55' 2' 12' 12' 2 55'
)EWALK i SIDEWALK
-35' W i Y-35'
NCDOT STANDARD
3-BAR METAL. RAIL
(TYP)
i ""-2l'CORED SLAB STRUCTURE
Bridge Typical Section
-L- STA 12+77.00 BEGIN BRIDGE) TO
STA 13+27.00 (END BRIDGE)
Figure 5
Roadway and Bridge Typical Sections
TIP Project B-5001 (Replacement of Bridge #47)
Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County, North Carolina
co??m
c p ? o
= N `m
0)
(O m "
C O Z
N
E c
V O
m U
aa-6
M N d
??
m?m
?O o U
O N w
L d
d ° `o
d ^Vl
N 0 o
a c
d Y
a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), also known as the Florida manatee, is
a Federally-listed endangered aquatic mammal protected under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C 1461 et seq.). The manatee is also listed as endangered
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act of 1987 (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of
the General Statutes). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead Federal
agency responsible for the protection and recovery of the West Indian manatee under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Adult manatees average 10 feet long and weigh about 2,200 pounds, although some
individuals have been recorded at lengths greater than 13 feet and weighing as much as
3,500 pounds. Manatees are commonly found in fresh, brackish, or marine water habitats,
including shallow coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and inland rivers of varying salinity
extremes. Manatees spend much of their time underwater or partly submerged, making
them difficult to detect even in shallow water. While the manatee's principal stronghold in
the United States is Florida, the species is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North
Carolina with most occurrences reported from June through October.
To protect manatees in North Carolina, the Service's Raleigh Field Office has prepared
precautionary measures for general construction activities in waters used by the species.
Implementation of these measure will allow in-water projects which do not require blasting
to proceed without adverse impacts to manatees. In addition, inclusion of these guidelines
as conservation measures in a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, or as part
of the determination of impacts on the manatee in an environmental document prepared.
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, will expedite the Service's review of the
document for the fulfillment of requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. These measures include:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the
project that manatees may be present in the project area, and the need to avoid any harm
to these endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all construction
personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about
completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be
informed that they are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence
of manatees.
2. The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that
there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction and/or dredging
operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions will be implemented to ensure
protection of the manatee. These precautions will include the immediate shutdown of
moving equipment if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operational area of the
equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee has departed the project area on
its own volition (i.e., it may not be herded or harassed from the area).
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report
must be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.856.4520 ext. 16), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (ph. 252.448.1546).
5. A sign will be posted in all vessels 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 shallowwater during these months. All equipment must be shut down
if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the vessel or operating equipment. A collision
with and/or injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (919-856-4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252.448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and/or injuries to
manatees during project activities. Upon completion of the action, the project manager will
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees encountered and submit
the report to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at "no wake/idle" speeds
at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four foot
clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers will be: (a) made of
material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in a manner that they
cannot break free and entangle manatees; and, (c) regularly monitored to ensure that
manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to allow
manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
Prepared by (rev. 06/2003):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
919/8564520
Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.

flip
Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source: Clark, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-
3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.
North Carolina
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
James H. Gregson
Director
May 11, 2010
Mr. Brian Kramer, Town Manager
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
100 Municipal Circle
Pine Knoll Shores, North Carolina 28512
Dee Freeman
Secretary
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 47 over Pine Knoll Waterway at Mimosa Boulevard in Pine Knoll
Shores, NC, TIP No. B-5001
Dear Mr. Kramer:
The NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) received the scoping letter, dated April 30, 2010, for
the replacement of Bridge No. 47 over the Pine Knoll Waterway at Mimosa Boulevard. We appreciate
the early coordination with DCM to provide information relevant to the potential permitting of the
proposed project by our agency.
Based on the information provided in the scoping letter, it appears that Public Trust Area, Estuarine
Waters, and Coastal Shoreline Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) will be impacted and a
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit will be required. The scope of the project will
determine whether a CAMA General Permit or Major Development Permit is necessary to authorize
the work. The Town of Pine Knoll Shores and/or NCDOT are encouraged to coordinate with DCM
during the project development process to determine the appropriate permitting requirements for the
project. DCM recommends that the AEC impacts and the CAMA permitting requirements be
addressed in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [phone] x 230, or via e-mail at
[e-mail] or contact Mr. Stephen Lane, DCM's Transportation Field Representative
for NCDOT's Divisions 2 and 3, at 252-808-2808 / 1-888-4RCOAST (1-888-472-6278). Thank you
for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagemenl.net
M Equal Opoaftm!y 1 M rrnalive Actim EmOvyer
CDEN
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
one . .:.:...:: ::.:..
NorthCartiliua
Nahmallty
Scoping Comments
B-5001
cc: Mr. Doug Huggett, DCM
Mr. Jay Johnson, NCDOT
Mr. Stephen Lane, DCM
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (PO Box 33068, Raleigh, NC 27636-3068)
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276991638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internal: www.nccoaslalmanagemenl,net
An Equal Opponun!hf A Alruma6ve k"On Emp'oyer
.: One
NorthCarohna
Xaturafl#
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Pcrduc, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
May 24, 2010
Brian Kramer
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
100 Municipal Circle
Pine Knoll Shores,"NC 28512
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Replace Bridge 47 on Mimosa Boulevard over Pine I{noll Waterway, B-5001, Carteret County,
ER 10-0835
Dear Mr. Kramer:
Thank you for your letter of April 30, 2010, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
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 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning tlvs project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
JjPeter Sandbeck
,I
Location: 109 Bast Jones Stree4 Ralcigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4017 Mail Smicu Cenrcq Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Telephone/Fam M9) 807-6570/807-6599
MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Bevedy Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
May 25, 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brian Kramer, Town Manager, Town of Pine Knoll Shores
FROM: David Wainwright, NCDWQ, Central Office,. )
SUBJECT: Seeping Review of Proposed Bridge Replacement Project B- 5001 (Carteret County),
In reply to your correspondence dated April 30, 2010 (received May 5, 2010) in which you requested
comments for the above referenced project, the NCDWQ offers the following comments:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
1. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as SA; High Quality Waters
of the State in the project study area. This is one of the highest classifications for water quality.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H. 1006 and 15A NCAC 2B .0224, NCDOT will be required to obtain a
State Stonnwater Permit prior to construction. While projects in North Carolina's twenty coastal
counties are exempt from the above rules, other'stormwater requirements may be in effect and will
need to be adhered to.
2. Any anticipated bank stabilization'associated with the bridge replacementshould be addressed in the
Categorical Exclusion (CE)'document. IYis understood that final designs may nofdetermined at the
time the CE is developed. However, the CE should discuss the potential for bank stabilization
necessary due to bridge replacement.
3. Any anticipated dewatering or access structures necessary for construction of bridges should be
addressed in the CE. It is understood that final designs are not determined at the time the CE is
developed. However, the CE should discuss the potential for dewatering and access measures
necessary due to bridge construction.
General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Projects
4. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that.could result from this project.
These concerns shall be addressed by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
5. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3687/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities. .
6. If the 'ofd bridge is removed; nd discharge ofbridge material' into'surface -waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE.` Strictadherenceto th'e'Corps`of Engin'eers'"guidelines. for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
Transporhition Permitting Unit
1650 vlail Service Center, Raleigh: No^11 Carolina 276997650
Location. 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] t FAX: [phone]
Internet hYp:'l}2o.enrestate.na.uslncwetiancsi
une
NorthCarolina
Naturally(
An ritual DlgmWniiy''.4Rnnalive AC601. `ernpluyer
7. Whenever possible, NCDWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure. Fish passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall not
be blocked. Bridge supports,(bents) should-not be, placed in the stream when possible.
8. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices.
9. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
10. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall
be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance,
11. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented.
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
12. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise..
Approved by. NCDWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and -
other. diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water: .
13. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment shall be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
14. In most cases, the NCDWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure.. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour shall be designed and located to
avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If
the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure shall be removed and the approach fills
removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills shall be removed and restored to the natural
ground elevation. The area shall be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall
fescue shall not be used in riparian areas.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: Tom Steffens, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Chris Militscher Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Travis Wilson; NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copyonly)
Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management
Garcy Ward, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
Pile Copy

n
a"?? LtY? f iP.
r'
1 s. IS
_ r r Yom.
a
North " arolmaWi'11£ife FResources Commission f
Gordon Myers Executive Director "
x r
A stM' ,,
MEM(DRANDUMS':
g
a r
?2`
3
TO: BnanKramer?
„t • -
ager - 3
Town of Pine 1CnollShores,?Town an
FROM ? Trays Wrlson;Htghway,Prolect Coordinator ,` ??'--,.V.
Y Hab#tat Conservatton Program
5( ?,
DATEµ June 1,4 2010
"
SUBJECT: Bndge Replacement kr
B#ologists w#th`the N CkEWrldhfeesouroes Comm#ssron (NGWRC) have revieNyed-the
information provided and have"ake followmg,prehmuzary`comments on the subject, project. Our
comments ace provided m accordance ?ithlpio?isions of the`Natroual Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and tleFish and Wildlife Coordination-Act (48'Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C.661-667d).
Our standard,recommeindations for bridge replacementprojects of thi' scope are as
follows:
1 We?generally prefer spanning structures. Spannmgi structures usually do not require
.' , . werkwithm?the stream and do noreequrre streamlchanneltireahgnment The honzonta]
and verttca]Icearances provided by.bndges allows%forhuman and w#]dl#fe passage "
cknby
beneath;the; structur`e;;doesnofblock.fishpassage;;anddoes,notrblo nav?gatio
canoeists aid boaters..
2 "Bridge deck drains should notdischarge directly into the stream.
3 Live concrete should not be allowed.to contact the water in•or entering into the stream.
r r + ,
4. If possible; bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the.stream.
4 1
5. If temporary,acrossroads or detoursllarie constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground ele'Vattons unmedtately upon the completion of the project.. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulch to'stal rhze th6 soil_an&native tree species,should
be planted vv th'a spacing of not'inoe than 10.x101f possible, when using temporary
Mailing Address Division of Inland Fisheries ?z 172hM6rl Sernce Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
?' Telephone: (919)!70710 220 ix.! (919)-707-0028
June 14, 2010
!stear
7 t In to
t3 4 '
rosion?control m
1
. 13
A grabbed ;Clearing the area with chain
uzed equipment' and e:Aving the stumps.and
tematurally and iriinnnizes di'sturboA soil.
Oyfeet sliould`remain on_each;side of the
F ..
LsCommrssion reviews all U.S. Army
I `F40'4'Jpermits ,We have the option of
1,05!, nd trout habitat and we can
vidal"404' "permit:
rgered species NCDOT biologist Mr.
it measures fo potecf these sensitive species
s fsh;+tiie=NGDOT'offcial policy entitled
roriioi FisliF -assage (IvIay 12, 1997)" should
asures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
ind disturbing activities. Structures should be
3:figd ;
ving rainfallaevents;
egetatio should,be planted on all bare soil
;tiv`itie%to,provide long-term erosion control."
rs 'should beconducted m" a dry work area
..?'FVft
other'drversioii struc'tures'§liould be used"where`"
in ;water
than in stream channels in
of introducing other
y fill (causeways), and
tural stream bottom when
>ected daily and { i
ams:
14; Only.clean; sediment-free rock shoul
should be removed without excessivg
`?-"?" ? oc nstructiou?is completed' ?. '
151 Diiniig `subsurface investigations, eq
maintained to'preventechtarnihation:
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic niaten
concrete,pipes "or concrete box culverts are
>r•aquatic IifB and fish passage. Generally, the
it,,]& 't 1'6of;b°elow the natural streambed
tl) rTf multiple barrels are required, barrels
x?k
placed'on or near stream bankfull or
yonsfielddesign) These should be

Bridge Memo
i

Iw?t0 tile- - -
to cause'
e.provlded :; ??
n,ilrt hp ':.
places for fish and other
ovide'a continuum of
tions of velocity.
ould be designed to
r 3,
4
with road
located to
streanr ba
and the ap
down to tl
:'Page 3 Jurie.14; 2010
t :.-
other,
projects>rn the watershed, ? '
Project,specific comments,:
R_?SMI: P`nrforat CnnntiRt'ronhr-ahnrl n.

W A7
. T?Tn d7 in"P,nY.nn11:Chn
the jurisdiction ofihe"NC Division of MarinePisheries; theref
with NCDMF to address impacts to agda6c species. We recoil
bridge. Standard recommendations apply.';:
st be avoided.
decreases
enance and
streambed, .
or structures
at the same location
uld-be.designed and
avoid destabilizing
ire should be removed
fills should be removed
i grass and planted with.
OT should restore the
the subject project or
s?ouer the Pme Knoll' ??? • 1e
nly!supporfing species under
CDOT should coordinate
r6placing this bridge with a
non'NC.WRC conceals regarding bridge
Thank you for the opportunity to review and
Sr f
sy
V ?
??^ KinleyHom
and Associates, Inc.
April 15, 2011
Mr. Gary Jordan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 47/Mimosa Boulevard over the Pine Knoll
Waterway, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret County
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The Town of Pine Knoll Shores and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation are proposing the replacement of the Mimosa Boulevard bridge over
the Pine Knoll Waterway and the widening of the Waterway where it narrows under
the bridge (replacement of bulkheads/sea walls) in the Town of Pine Knoll Shores,
in Carteret County. The proposed project will receive federal funds (administered
by NCDOT) with a local funding match. This project is included in the 2009-2015
NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program as Project B-5001. A project
location map, aerial photo, and site photos are attached for your review.
The project is classified as a Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE). The following
discussion regarding federally protected species has been included in the CE being
prepared for the project. As discussed, protected species not requiring a biological
conclusion due to similarity of appearance (American alligator), species that are no
longer federally protected for Carteret County (eastern cougar), or species that were
determined to have no suitable habitat within the project area and therefore issued a
"no effect" biological conclusion (piping plover, red-cockaded woodpecker, roseate
tern, shormose sturgeon, rough-leaved loosestrife were not included as part of
concurrence request.
P.O. Box 33666
Ralaigh, North Carolina
27636-306B
Based upon our discussion, it is our understanding that the USFWS and NOAA-
National Marine Fisheries (NMF) jointly administer the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) with respect to marine turtles with the USFWS having jurisdiction over
nesting habitats (land) and NMF having jurisdiction in the marine environment
(water). Because no beach habitat occurs within the project area, the USFWS
would render a "no effect" determinations for the sea turtle species identified below.
Concurrence on determinations for foraging habitat or the marine environment
would be required from the NMF.
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
r_? Krnley-&o n
_ and Assoraates, Inc.
Green sea turtle: Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area. Therefore, suitable nesting
habitat for the green sea turtle does not exist within the project area. Sea turtles are known
to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer months. Suitable foraging habitat for
the green sea turtle does exist in the project area within the Pine Knoll Waterway. A review
of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates no known green sea turtle
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project. The proposed widening of the waterway will be
accomplished by constructing new seawalls behind the existing seawalls, leaving the
existing seawalls intact during construction. No dredging, channel realignment, or barging
is proposed as part of the project construction.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle: Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area. Therefore, suitable nesting
habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtle does not exist within the project area. Sea turtles are
known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer months. Suitable foraging
habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle does exist in the project area within the Pine Knoll
Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates no known
Kemp's ridley sea turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project. The proposed widening
of the waterway will be accomplished by constructing new seawalls behind the existing
seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls intact during construction. No dredging, channel
realignment, or barging is proposed as part of the project construction.
Leatherback sea turtle:. Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area; therefore, suitable nesting
habitat for the leatherback sea turtle does not exist within the project area. Sea turtles are
known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer months. Suitable foraging
habitat for the leatherback sea turtle does exist in the project area within the Pine Knoll
Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates no known
leatherback sea turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project The proposed widening of
the waterway will be accomplished by constructing new seawalls behind the existing
seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls intact. during construction. No dredging, channel
realignment, or barging is proposed as part of the project construction.
Loeeerhead sea turtle: Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Ocean beach habitat does not occur within the project area. Therefore, suitable nesting
habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle does not exist within the project area. Sea turtles are
known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer months. Suitable foraging
habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle does exist in the project area within the Pine Knoll
Waterway. A review of NCNHP database records, accessed 8/19/10, indicates documented
loggerhead sea turtle occurrences witbin 1.0 mile of the project area along the Bogue Bank
beach area. The proposed widening of the waterway will be accomplished by constructing
new seawalls behind the existing seawalls, leaving the existing seawalls intact during
construction. No dredging, channel realignment, or barging is proposed as part of the
project construction.
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
West Indian manatee: Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely
Affect
The West Indian manatee is known to forage in Bogue Sound during the warm summer
months. Suitable foraging habitat for the West Indian manatee does exist in the project area
within the Pine Knoll Waterway. Precautionary measures for construction activities in
North Carolina waters used by the manatee have been outlined by the Raleigh Field Office
of the USFWS. If the Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee
(USFWS, 2003) are implemented by the contractor during construction, the project should
not have an adverse impact to manatee. The proposed widening of the waterway will be
accomplished by constructing new seawalls behind the existing seawalls, leaving the
existing seawalls intact during construction. No dredging, channel realignment, or barging
is proposed as part of the project construction. A review of NCNHP database records,
accessed 8/19/10, indicates no known West Indian manatee occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the project. Due to.the presence of potentially suitable habitat, the replacement of Bridge
No. 47 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee.
Please call me at (919) 677- 2073 if you have any questions or need any additional
information for your concurrence.
Thank you for your assistance with this project.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
VJ?4 &UL
Be
th Reed, PWS
Environmental Scientist
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
April 19, 2011
Beth Reed
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Dear Ms. Reed:
This letter is in response to your letter of April 15, 2011 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the Town of Pine Knoll Shores that the replacement of Bridge No. 47 on Mimosa
Boulevard over the Pine Knoll Waterway in Carteret County (TIP No. B-5001) may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the federally endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). In
addition, NCDOT and Pine Knoll Shores has determined that the project will have no effect on all other
federally listed species within the purview of the Service. These comments are provided in accordance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the information submitted, the Service's GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO
THE WEST INDL4,N MANATEE- Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North
Carolina Waters will be implemented during construction. Based on this commitment and upon other
available information, the Service concurs with your conclusion that the project may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the Service
concurs with your conclusion that the project will have no effect on all other federally listed species
within our purview (to include all species of sea turtles while nesting). However, please note that the
National Marine Fisheries Service has purview over the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and
all species of.sea turtles while in the water.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2):of the ESA have been satisfied for those species
within our purview. We remind you thaf obligations under Section Z 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 in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined
that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our
response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan-at (91p).85674520 (Ext. 32).
r-
cc: Tom Steffens, USACE, Washington, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC