20150955 Ver 1_Public Notice_20120625

al
US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
Issue Date June 25 2012
Comment Deadline July 25 2012
Corps Action ID # SAW 2007 03646
TIP Project No B 4929
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding a potential future
requirement for Department of the Army authorization to discharge dredged or fill
material Into waters of the United States associated with the replacement of the
existing Topsail Island Bridge (Bridge No 16) along NC 50/210 over the Intracoastal
Waterway (Topsail Sound) in Pender County, North Carolina
Specific alternative alignments and location information are described below and shown on
the attached plans This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the
Wilmington District Web Site at www saw usace army mil /wetlands Viewing the on -line
version will better display color and grant the ability to view exploded views
Applicant North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
c/o Dr Gregory J Thorpe PhD Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1548
Authority
The Corps will evaluate this application to compare alternatives that have been carried
forward for study pursuant to applicable procedures under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U S C 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The United States Coast Guard will be reviewing the bridge structure under Section 9 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act
In order to more fully integrate Section 404 and Section 10 permit requirements with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and to give careful consideration to our
required public interest review and 404(b)(1) compliance determination the Corps is
soliciting public comment on the merits of this proposal and on the alternatives evaluated
in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/NCDOT Environmental Assessment
(EA) The EA can be viewed at the project website
http / /www ncdot gov /projects /topsailislandbridge/ At the close of this comment permit
the District Commander will evaluate and consider the comments received as well as the

expected adverse and beneficial effects of the proposed road construction to select the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The District Commander is
not authorizing the bridge replacement (B -4929) project at this time. A final Department of
the Army permit could be issued, if at all, only after our review process is complete,
impacts to the aquatic environment have been minimized to the maximum extent
practicable and a compensatory mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts has been
approved.
Location
The existing bridge (Bridge # 16) is located along Hwy 210/50 and spans the Intracoastal
Waterway for a distance of 463' between the mainland side and the island side near
Soundside Park, Pender County, North Carolina. The Intracoastal Waterway at this
location is bordered by tidal wetlands. The project is more specifically located starting at
Latitude 34.4312 N, and Longitude - 77.5496 W. The location is better defined on Figure 1
below.
Figure 1
c - tT
.� trcn =2
I — FrpAtt 9k4Y AIre o'$Al
/ 'I '' on+a000ac �oa.w
` •, .. � a Crw ene Omp aaimry
a Nam TXMM awcr� Tom Lab
am av Tar: Law
lop
�� � Topr earn TciM� ur. J
c...« w.. w..r � �•' � smay ♦r�o
1� ipAryL IalANO awooe vM�� ,
IBIwCBlNT MIDJCCf
Existing Site Conditions
The study area lies in the coastal plain physiographic region of North Carolina.
Topography in the project vicinity varies from nearly level to gently rolling. Elevations in
the study area range from 5' to 30' above sea level. The Biotic resources include aquatic
2

and terrestrial communities. A good portion of the project study area is comprised of
disturbed land, including both residential development along the open water and business
development along Hwy 210 on the mainside. The areas not developed on the mainside are
primarily pine forest which transitions to tidally influenced wetlands closer to the
waterway. Again, the areas not developed between the mainside and island side of the
project are characterized by flooded marshes with a few historic spoil islands directly
abutting the Intracoastal waterway channel.
No waters classified as Water Supply Watershed Critical /Protected Areas or outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) exist in the study area. Topsail Sound at this location is classified
as High Quality Waters (HQW) as determined by the North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources (NC DENR). Waters identified within the study area include ponds,
streams, and wetlands. The ponds appear to be stormwater ponds permitted by NC DENR.
The streams include Topsail Sound and an unnamed tributary to Topsail Sound located on
the northeast side of the study area emerging from the pine canopy. Four types of
jurisdictional wetlands exist in the study area. Pine flat, Headwater Forest, Estuarine
Woody Wetland, and Salt/Brackish Marsh. The dominant wetland type is Salt/Brackish
Marsh.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The basic purpose of the project is to improve bridge safety and functionality. This project
would address the need to replace the existing structurally deficient. functionally obsolete
bridge.
Project Description
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant.
NCDOT evaluated numerous design alternatives for this project, including a No Build
Alternative; Repair and Rehabilitate Existing Bridge Alternative: Alternative Modes of
Transportation; and 20 Build Alternatives
Depending on the alternative chosen, Bridge No. 16 will be replaced with a new 500 to
4,000 -foot long bridge. The new bridge will accommodate two -way traffic with two 12-
foot travel lanes, two four -foot bike lanes, and two 5.5 -foot sidewalks. Curb and gutter will
provide a two -foot separation between the bicycle lanes and sidewalk. The approach
roadway section will match the new bridge section, with the exception that sidewalks will
not be provided. Instead. a ten -foot earth berm will be constructed behind the curb and
gutter.
To date, and based on input from stakeholders, the following seven alternatives were
selected for Detailed Study:
Northern Alternatives Group: Alternatives 4. 5. and 5R (high -level fixed bridges)

Central Alternatives Group: Alternatives 6 and 7 (low /mid -level moveable bridges,
respectively)
Southern Alternatives Group: Alternatives 11 and 17 (high -level fixed bridges)
These alternatives are graphically provided below in Figure 2 and 3.
Figure 2

MorrnrnA!Imm&=Group p#OgAwr asg�pia..Or.y
s R.. 0 1
C.entrd Albffvt es Grasp Mwwm a sid p Ase noros)
P.0
. a.
As
T
SocOmm Alterrahms Group (MOFL ai Brad wtdv Asame )
7 low

The table below breaks down some of the impacts expected for each alternative. The
online version will have an expanded table of impacts
Table 1
Category
Alt 4
Alt 5
Alt 5R
Alt 6
Alt 7
Alt 11
Alt 17
Length (miles)
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.9
Bridge length,
4,250
4,076
4.054
319/201
819/201
4,180
3,725
fixed /movable
A
Residential
4
2
13
0
0
4
1
Relocations
Business
5
4
7
l
3
1
3
Relocations
Park Impacts
0
0
0
0.03/0.4
0.01/0.4
0
0.2
perm/temp
acres
Steam crossings
2
2
1 2
1
1
1
1 1
Wetland
1.1 /0
1.1 /0
1.1 /0
0/0.3
0/0.1
1.0/0
0.8/0.4
Impacts, non -
riparian /tidal
acres
Construction
51.1
48.8
48.5
50.2
55.9
50.2
44.6
Cost $ millions
Operation Cost
3.6315
3.6315
3.6315
25.9645
25.9645
3.6315
3.6315
over 75 years ($
millions
Waters of the US
Surface Waters
As discussed above two jurisdictional stream reaches were identified within the project
study area. All seven Detailed Study Alternatives would span over the Topsail Sound.
Similarly, three of the seven Detailed Study Alternatives (4, 5,and 5R) would span over the
unnamed stream. The remaining four Detailed Study Alternatives are located south of the
unnamed stream with no impacts.
Wetlands
Wetlands in the project study area were delineated using the 1987 Corps Delineation
Manual and appropriate Regional Supplement. Table 2 provides a listing of potential direct
impacts to wetlands. These impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake, plus an
additional 25 feet of each limit as determined from the May 2011 preliminary design plans
for each alternative.
C7

Table 2
Estimated Impacts to Wetlands
DETAILED Study
Alternative No.
Tidal
wetlands
acres
Non - riparian
wetland
impacts acres
Alt 4
0
1.1
Alt 5
0
1.1
Alt 5R
0
1.1
Alt 6
0.3
0
Alt 7
0.1
0
Alt 11
0
1.0
Alt 17
0.4
0.8
Open Waters
None of the seven alternatives will result in direct impacts to ponds.
Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section
106 of the NHPA, as amended, 36 CFR Part 800, requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a
reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
Bridge No. 16 was previously determined eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places as part of the NCDOT's 1995 Historic Bridge Inventory Report as an early and
intact example of a riveted Warren through truss, swing span bridge. Although moved
from Sunset Beach to its current location in 1954, Pender County Bridge No. 16 remains in
an operable condition and retains c. 1930 gearing and mechanical systems. The historic
boundary for the bridge includes the 254 -foot long Warren through truss, operator's house,
and concrete tee beam approach spans.
In a meeting between NCDOT and the NC Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on April 5,
2011, it was determined that all of the detailed study alternatives would have an adverse
effect on Bridge No. 16 because it would be removed from its existing location.
Construction of any of the proposed alternatives would also require NCDOT to complete a
Section 4(f) evaluation since it necessitates the use of land from the historic boundary
7

associated with Pender County Bridge No. 16. These impacts, mitigation measures and
associated coordination efforts are described in Section 5.3.1 of the EA.
Endangered Species
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the
applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Twelve
federally protected species are listed as occurring within Pender County. These species are
listed in Table 3 below.
TABLE 3:
Scientific ft m
Common Name
Fed4wal
Status'
Habitat
Present
Sickgkol
Condoan•'
A1(i9aror!rssissOpiensis
American a legator
T ;SiA;
Ye<
Not Requ!rec
Charadrus ►ne!odus
Piping plover
T
Nc
Na Eftec_
Picoidrs borcaiis
F.ec- coacaded woocpecve�
E
Yes
Nc Effect
Acipenser brevirostrum
Short -►ose sturgeon
E
Ne
No Effec-
Trichec-hus m„na:us
West Indian manatee
E
Yes
MA'NLAA
Carem casre*ta
Loggett*ad sea turtle
T
Yes
MA /NLAA
G'?e"orOG mydas
Green sea turtle
T
Ne
Nc Effec-
Thn'ictr:jrr c000leyi
C. cwy s mea�dcwrue
E
Yes
Nc Eftec'
Cc-ea
Go den sedge
E
Yes
Nc Effec-
Schwatbec z— erxano'
A-r4- can chattseec
E
Yes
Nc Eftec'
Amorn^ :11t_s pum;lus
Seaoeacti amarantt
T
Nc
No Effec'
_yvsimachra auWro efolia
Rougs-•• eaved )ooses-r'e
E
Yes
Nc Effec'
' E - Enclarge-ed T Threatened, T(S/A) - Threatened Cue to similarit-y of aopea-ance
MA {NLAA May AffectJ'Not Likety to Adversely Affect
Mnaurgc record (the species was last observed in t" county more than 50 kears ago)
Concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be obtained on this biological
conclusion prior to completion of the final environmental document for this project.
Essential Fish Habitat
The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) has identified Intracoastal Waterway
(Topsail Sound) as an Essential Fish Habitat. Under the proposed project, Bridge No. 16
would be replaced with a 500 to 4,000 foot -long bridge either in the same location, to the
north, or to the south. The new structure would only require footings to be placed within

the Intracoastal Waterway (Topsail Sound). Given this limited in -water construction work,
the proposed project would most likely result in a negligible net effect on available
Essential Fish Habitat.
Avoidance and Minimization
According to the applicant complete avoidance of the jurisdictional resources is not
practicable due to the geographic distribution of the resources. Alternatives with higher
impacts were eliminated from the Detailed Study Alternatives. According to the applicant
bridges have been shifted and better aligned to reduce causeway fill impacts as much as
possible. Wetlands impacts will continue to be minimized once the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative is decided and final plans are being generated.
Compensatory Mitigation
NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities as
the project progresses. If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP), in accordance with the July 2010 "In -Lieu Fee Instrument
Memorandum of Agreement Among the EEP, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service" (MOA).
Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit (which will come after the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative Corridor is chosen, being considered now) will be based
on an evaluation of the probable impacts. including cumulative impacts, of the proposed
activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both
protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be
expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable
detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including
the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation,
water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership. and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United
E

States, the evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will include
application of the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public, Federal, State and local
agencies and officials, including any consolidate state viewpoint or written position of the
Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps
of Engineers to select the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,
historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of a Corps of Engineers
Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine
the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received
by the Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District, until 5pm, July 25. 2012. Comments
should be submitted to Mr. Brad Shaver. Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, 69
Darlington Ave., Wilmington. North Carolina 28403 -1343.

response to hold letter for B -4652 Page 1 of 1
response to hold letter for B -4652
Euliss, Amy
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:53 PM
To: Turchy, Michael A
Cc: Wainwright, David; Carrillo, Sonia
I received DOTS response to the hold letter issued for B -4652 in Union County. The letter does
not adequately justify the need for the gabion baskets being installed in an area that is not
experiencing significant erosion, or otherwise needs to be disturbed. This project will remain on
hold until an alternative form of natural stream bank stabilization is provided. Thanks.
Amy
Please note my new email address: amy.euliss @ncdenr.gov
Amy Euliss
NC DENR Winston -Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality, Surface Water Protection
585 Waughtown Street
Winston - Salem, NC 27107
Voice: (336) 771 -5000
FAX: [phone]
https: / /mail.nc.gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t = IPM. Note& id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W2TJHI4 %2bm... 6/26/2012