20060364 Ver 1_Application_20060308

~~~ ~
OF
~ 0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~~SA"aST`FkQU ~~ 6
°R,~,Agt~~y
DEPART'1VIENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ReRal,~y
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 2, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890 O ~ ~ ~ ~±
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 v
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 21 over Northeast Cape Fear River on NC 210, Pender County. Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4), State Project No. 8.1271001, TIP Project
No. B-4223 Division 3, WBS # 33567.1.2.
Please find enclosed the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, aPre-construction
Notification (PCN), permit drawings, onsite mitigation plan, and design plan sheets. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
21 over Northeast Cape Fear River on NC 210 in Pender County. The existing 590 foot
long bridge will be replaced with a 920 foot long bridge south of the existing alignment.
The proposed bridge replacement will be a box girder bridge constructed in 10 sections.
Construction of the new bridge will result in five bents placed in the channel of the
Northeast Cape Fear River and four bents placed in the wetlands adjacent to the Northeast
Cape Fear River. The proposed bridge will facilitate the removal of a total of 330 feet of
the old causeway, resulting in the removal of fill in 0.95 acre of wetland. During
construction, traffic will use the existing bridge.
.~, ~~
~ ~.a,~
~ `~~'`;
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The Northeast Cape Fear River [DWQ Index Nos. 18-74-(29.5) and 18-74-(47.5)] is
classified by NCDWQ as Class C Sw upstream of the existing bridge and B Sw
downstream of the existing bridge. Construction of the proposed project will result in
permanent fill of 0.52 acre of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.35 acre of hand clearing.
Impacts to the Northeast Cape Fear River are composed of 0.014 acre of permanent fill
from the construction of bridge bents and 0.008 acre of temporary fill for the construction
of a temporary work bridge and bulkhead. Bridge No. 21 will be replaced with a ten span
structure constructed from a barge and the temporary work bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27699

i ~
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation
of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design and include:
• Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed.
• Top Down Construction will be used.
• Hand Clearing will be used to relocate the overhead power-line.
• Fill slopes will be 3:1 in jurisdictional wetlands (2:1 Fill slopes cannot be stabilized in
the sandy soils that are in the project area).
• There will be no in water construction between February 1 and June 30 to protect
anadromous fish spawning.
• NCDOT will comply with the Precautions for Construction in Areas which may be
used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina.
MITIGATION
Removal of the old causeway will result in the restoration of 0.95 acre of coastal plain
riverine swamp forest wetlands. The NCDOT will use the onsite wetland restoration to
mitigate for the 0.52 acre of impacts. The NCDOT requests that the remaining 0.43 acre
of mitigation be available for future NCDOT projects, with the understanding that each
future project will require agency approval for the use of this mitigation. Please see the
attached restoration plan for additional information.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
In order to protect water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal. Bridge No. 21 has 13 spans totaling approximately 590 feet in
length. The deck and railings of the superstructure are composed of reinforced concrete
on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments and
reinforced concrete caps on steel piles. In accordance with NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and removal for projects that require a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) permit, no components of the bride will be allowed to drop
into the water.
UTILITIES
A water line, telephone line and power line will be relocated due to this project. The
aerial power line is currently located to the south of the existing bridge and will be
relocated south of the current location. No additional impacts will occur from the
relocation of the electricity line. The telephone line and water line will be relocated
underground using a directional bore. No additional impacts will occur from the
relocation of the telephone line. No other utilities will require relocation.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
As of January 29, 2003, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists eleven federally
protected species for Pender County. Of these species, the American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis) is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance and is not subject

~ ~
to Section 7 consultation. There is potential habitat for the manatee and the shortnose
sturgeon at this project location, but it is unlikely that either will be encountered.
However, NCDOT will commit to adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee (see attached Guidelines). A
biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been rendered for the West Indian manatee.
NCDOT also commits to the above mentioned construction moratorium and adherence to
best management practices to avoid impacts to the shortnose sturgeon. The Biological
Conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the shortnose sturgeon
remains valid and was approved by Fritz Rhode March 3, 2004. Biological conclusions
of "No Effect" documented in the CE for the remaining species were given based on the
absence of habitat within the project area and thus remain valid.
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Present Status Biological
Conclusion
Carex lutea Golden sed e No E No Effect
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Yes E No Effect
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed No E No Effect
Charadrius melodus Pi in lover No T No Effect
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded wood ecker No E No Effect
Alli ator mississi iensis American alli ator NA T(S/A) NA
Caratta carretta Loggerhead sea turtle No T No Effect
Aci enser brevirostrum Shortnose stur eon Yes E MA-NLAA
Thalictrum Goole i Coole 's meadowrue No E No Effect
Amaranthus umilus Seabeach amaranth No T No Effect
Lysimachia as erulae olia Rou leaved loosestrife No E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered.
"T" denotes Threatened.
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened- Similar Appearance.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the docking station will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
authorizing construction of the causeway. All other aspects of this project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will
apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B
.0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
CAMA Maior Permit: In a separate application, NCDOT is requesting a CAMA Major
Development Permit for this project from the NC Division of Coastal Management.
Copies of this application as well as the CAMA application will be posted on our website
at the following address: (http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html).

4 ~
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~~~
,,Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/ attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDM•F
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Elmo Vance, PDEA
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 DEO
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Prog. and TIP
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE-Wilmington

~ •
Office Use Only' Form Version March OS
2ooso 3sa
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
__1'__Ll_II .,-IIAT/All \
(lt any particular rtem is not appuca~ie to ems pr~~cc~, plcasc cu~ci i~~~ ~yyu..ava., ... ..~. , .~
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregor~J Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: gthor~e(a)dot state nc us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address: ___
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed. site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bride No 21 over Northeast Cape Fear River
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4223
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN)
N/A
4. Location
County: Pender Nearest Town: Rocky Point
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The site is located on NC
210 over the Northeast Cie Fear River
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.4432 °N 77.8339 °W
6. Property size (acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Northeast Cape Fear River
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http•//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Rural and minimally developed with forest cover.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard DOT construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose is to replace the old bridge that is
functionally obsolete.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 8

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proiect impacts are as
follows, 0.52 acre of fill in wetlands, 0.35 acre of hand clearing in wetlands, 0.014 acre of
permanent surface water impacts, and 0.008 acre of temporary surface water impacts
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and floodin .
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 fill forested yes adjacent 0.52

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.52
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:> 5 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 1 NE Cape Fear Permanent Perennial 500 N/A 0.014
Site 1 NE Cape Fear Temporary Pereenial 500 N/A 0.008

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) .0022
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.022
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.52
en Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.542
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.Best management Practices for
the protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge demolition and removal
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8

USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state.nc. us/ncwetl ands/strm gide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Onsite mitigation will be used, the replacement of the bridge will be longer then the
current bridge. Thelon eg r bridge will allow the removal of 0.94 acres of fill in wetlands.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 6 of 8

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact Required
Zone , ~____~ ~ ~~ Multiplier ,,,~:,:~~,: _
1 I I 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 I.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
Page 7 of 8

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.Approximatelythe same as current conditions
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past. and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http~//h2o enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It' is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~~---.~
~/t / ~o
Ap~plicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

Restoration Plan for Northeast Cape Fear River Wetland
At Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Pender County
TIP B-4223
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-210(4)
WBS No. 33467.1.1
January 11, 2006
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will perform on-site
mitigation for riverine wetland impacts at the NC 210 overpass over the Northeast Cape
Fear River. This mitigation site occurs within Transportation Improvement Program
. ... : .... ................(_TIP.). B-4223...The.proj.ect.begins.appmximatelya.l00,feet.westt:of Bridge No..21..and...._.. _.. _ ..,.,._....._
continues to approximately 1500 feet to the east of the bridge. NCDOT will restore
approximately 0.95 acre of riverine wetland by removing existing causeway fill in the
northeast and southeast quadrants of the project.
Proposed impacts due to the replacement of Bridge No. 21 are 0.52 acre. Therefore, the
surplus 0.43 acre of restoration will be available for future projects in the Cape Fear
River Basin (HUC 03030007).
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The project is located in Pender County approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 km) north of
Mooretown and 2.3 miles (3.7 km) east of the intersection of NC 210 and Interstate 40.
Surrounding land use is a mixture of residential, agricultural, and silvicultural.
The existing causeway for the NC 210 overpass at Bridge No. 21 is located partially in ~ • - • - •
the floodplain of the Northeast Cape Fear River. The floodplain wetland consists mainly
of a mature riverine swamp forest dominated by canopy species of bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), red maple (Ater
rubrum), and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). In the northeast quadrant of the project,
the swamp wetland is near the toe of slope of the existing causeway. In the southeast
quadrant of the project, the swamp wetland grades into a mixed pine/hardwood forest
along the existing causeway. Canopy species in this transition zone between the swamp
forest and the existing causeway are dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple,
sweet bay, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
The proposed wetland mitigation will consist of restoring approximately 0.95 acre of
riverine swamp wetland. Restoration will involve removing causeway fill and transition
area to match the adjacent swamp wetland elevation. 'The restored area will be planted
with species commonly found in riverine swamp communities.
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for TIP B-4223, dated April 2004, provides further
details concerning existing and proposed roadway conditions.

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION:
WETLAND MITIGATION GRADING
The design of the wetland mitigation area shall consist of removing fill associated with
the existing causeway. All excavated areas shall be ripped according to the provision
provided below prior to placement of any backfill material and before planting of the site.
The Natural Environment Unit shall be contacted to provide construction oversight to
_ ensure that the wetland mitigation area is constructed appropriately. _ _ _ , , , _, ._.
VEGETATION PLANTING
The restoration site will be planted following the completion of the site grading. The
following riverine swamp tree species will be planted: bald cypress and swamp
blackgum.
The hardwood tree species utilized shall be 18"-30" in size and shall be bare root
seedlings that are at least one growing season in age. Planting density shall be 680
seedlings per acre, which equates to a plant spacing of 8 feet on-center.
MONITORING:
Upon successful completion of construction, the following monitoring strategy is
- ~ - - proposed for-- the mitigation site. Any remediation necessary during the monitoring
period will be coordinated with the appropriate agencies.
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
No specific hydrological monitoring is proposed for this restoration site. The target
elevation will be based on the adjacent wetland and verified during construction.
Constructing the site at the adjacent wetland elevation will ensure that the hydrology in
the restored area is similar to the hydrology in the reference area.
VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
NCDOT shall monitor the restoration site by visual observation and photo points for
survival of planted seedlings. NCDOT shall monitor the site for a minimum of five years.
Monitoring will be initiated upon completion of the site planting.

NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Feaz River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4)
State Project No. 8.1271001
T.I.P. No. B-4223
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADNIINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9~~-~ 2`~~ ~t
DATE Gregory J. Tho .D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
`~ "3° -°`~ ~ G~
DATE ohn F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Feaz River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4)
State Project No. 8.1271001
T.I.P. I. D. No. B-4223
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Apri12004
Document Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Cary, North Cazolina 27611
.••.~~O~~N CARO~~ ~''
s
9
Date J. A. Bissett, Jr., PE ~ r$
i
a SEAL ~
a
Branc anager ~ 14842 •
'.9'•.~~'~l EEQ;•••'~
Q '•~F•`~ N ~' ~~
2 / ~ ,a®~i sA•OB~S~E~~~~,,
ate Pamela R Williams ~~~~~~""""`~,,,
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~~. ~- ./
Elmo Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

PROJECT COMMITM)~NTS
NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4)
State Project No. 8.1271001
T.I.P. I. D. No. B-4223
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,
Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division Engineer
A moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 1 to June 30 for
Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented.
Precautions For Construction In Areas Which May Be Used By The West Indian
Manatee In North Carolina (1996 USFWS) will be followed.
Categorical Exclusion
Apri12004
Green Sheet

NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4)
State Project No. 8.1271001
T.I.P. I. D. No. B-4223
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 21 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program
(T.I.P.) and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location of the bridge is
shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 21 has a sufficiency
rating of 16.5 out of a possible 100 for a new structure and is considered structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and
more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 21 is located in a rural section of southeastern Pender County. The project area is
near the southwestern edge of Holly Shelter Game Land. The project vicinity is rural in nature
and surrounding land use includes a mixture of residential, agricultural, and silvicultural use. A
camp ground and boat ramp are located in the northwest quadrant.
The 2004 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 3,700 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 8,300 vpd by the design year 2030. The percentages of truck traffic is 6% dual
tired vehicles (DUALS) and 4% truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST). The posted speed limit is 55
miles per hour (mph) {90 kilometers per hour (km/h)}. NC 210 is classified as a Rural Major
Collector within the project area. NC 210 is designated as a hurricane evacuation route.
Bridge No. 21 was built in 1955 (Figure 4). It is a two-lane facility with 13 spans and is 590 feet
(180 meters) in length. The deck and railings of the superstructure are composed of reinforced
concrete on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments and
reinforced concrete caps on steel piles. The bridge deck is approximately 47 feet (14 meters)
from crown to streambed. The navigational vertical clearance is approximately 22 feet (6.71
meters). Bridge No. 21 has a posted weight limit of 28 tons (25.4 metric tons) for single vehicle
(S V) and 31 tons (28.1 metric tons) for TTST.
NC 210 is tangent through the project area. The approaches provide two 11-foot (3.3-meter)
travel lanes and 6-foot (1.8-meter) grass. shoulders.
Page 1

There is an overhead power line located to the south (downstream) of the existing bridge, which
crosses over NC 210 west of the bridge. A fiber optic conduit is attached to the upstream face of
the bridge.
Approximately 8 school buses cross Bridge No. 21 twice per day, for a total of 16 crossings. In
addition, a mechanics truck and a fuel truck from the school system cross the bridge each day to
travel to Hampstead for daily inspections and fueling of 16 buses.
One accident was reported in the project area during the period from September 1, 2000 to
August 31, 2003. There were no fatalities.
This section of NC 210 in Pender County is not part of a state designated bicycle route and is not
listed in the T.I.P. as requiring incidental bicycle accommodations.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure will be approximately 600 feet (183 meters) in length.
The replacement bridge will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes, with 3-foot (1.0-meter)
shoulders (Figure 3). The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic
analysis. The length of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by a detailed hydrologic study during the final design
phase. The bridge grade for the proposed structure will maintain the existing navigational
clearance.
The approach roadway will be two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders
including 2 feet (0.6 meter) paved (Figure 3).
B. Build Alternatives
The two build alternatives studied for this project are described below.
Alternative A (Preferred) involves replacing the bridge on new alignment just south
(downstream) of the existing bridge. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge (Figure 2A).
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge in place. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on an on-site detour south (downstream) of the existing bridge, Figure 2B.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 210.
Page 2

Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
"rehabilitation" of this bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A, replacing the bridge on new alignment south of the existing bridge, was selected
as the preferred alternative for the following reasons:
• Minimizes environmental impacts.
• Avoids impacts to the former gas station and boat ramp.
• More economical than Alternative B.
• Less construction time than Alternative B.
The NCDOT Division 3 concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices are as follows:
Alternative A
referred) Alternative B
Structure Removal (Existin) $ 141,600 $ 141,600
Structure Pro osed 1,260,000 1,260,000
Roadwa A roaches 671,250 443,250
Tem orar Detour Bride 0 624,000
Detour A roaches 0 137,200
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 512,150 563,950
En ineerin Contin encies 415,000 480,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Lltilities 109,675 70,00.0
TOTAL $3,109,675 $3,720,000
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program is $3,390,000 including $90,000 forright-of--way, $3,000,000 for construction and
$300,000 prior years.
Page 3

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources. The Mooretown, NC U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute orthographic
quadrangle was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape
characteristics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping was also consulted to determine what potential wetland types may be encountered in
the field. The Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina (USDA 1990), and recent aerial
photography furnished by the NCDOT were also used in the evaluation of the project study area.
The aerial photograph served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant
community patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field verified.
Plant community descriptions aze based on a classification system utilized by the North Cazolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vasculaz plant names typically
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification
scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Water resource information for the NE Cape Fear River was derived from the most recent
versions of the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan {Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) 2000}, Basinwide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ 1999), and DWQ
Internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS list (reviewed on-line April 27, 2004, last updated February 25, 2003) of
federal protected species with ranges extending into Pender County was reviewed prior to
initiation of the field investigation. In addition, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
records documenting occurrences of federal or state-listed species were consulted before
commencing, the field investigation. Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was
documented, and expected population distributions were determined through observations of
available habitat and review of supportive documentation found in Martof et al. (1980), Webster
et al. (1985), Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et al. (1994), and Palmer and Braswell
(1995).
The project study area is approximately 2,500 feet (762 meters) in length and width varies from
50 feet (15.2 meters) at the termini to 370 feet (112.7 meters) at the NE Cape Fear River. The
project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) on all sides of the project
study area.
Page 4

B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the outer coastal plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. The topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level.
Natural elevations in the project study area range from 5 feet (i.5 meters) to 10 feet (3.0 meters)
above sea level (USGS 19.83). The project study area consists of existing maintained right-of-
way, floodplain forest, powerline right-of-way, maintained/disturbed land, and pine/hardwood
forest.
The project vicinity is rural in .nature and surrounding land use includes a mixture of residential,
agricultural, and silvicultural use. Important products from this area include soybeans, corn,
cotton, and timber.
The project study area crosses four soil mapping units. These soils include Dorovan muck
(Typic Medisaprists), Murville muck (Typic Haplaquods), Invershiel-Pender complex (Albaquic
Hapludalfs), and Alpin fine sand (Typic Quartzipsamments) (USDA 1990). Hydric soils that are
mapped as occurring within the project study area include Dorovan muck, which is frequently
flooded, and Murville muck, which is very poorly drained. These soils occupy the project study
area east of the existing bridge. Nonhydric soils that may contain hydric inclusions mapped as
occurring within the project study area, primarily west of the existing bridge, include Invershiel-
Pender complex and Alpin fine sand. These two soil mapping units may have hydric inclusions
of Meggett loam and Muckalee loam.
From a broader perspective, the project study area is mapped within the Goldsboro-Norfolk-
Exum soil association as depicted by the Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina (USDA
1990). The Goldsboro-Norfolk-Exum association consists of nearly level to gently sloping,
moderately well drained and well drained soils on uplands and terraces that have a sandy or
loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil. The General Soil Map in the Soil Survey of Pender
County, North Carolina appears to have reversed designations for the Goldsboro-Norfolk-Exum
association and the Muckalee-Dorovan association. The Muckalee-Dorovan association is
believed to be the appropriate association in which the project study area is located. The
Muckalee-Dorovan association consists of nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained
soils on floodplains that have a loamy surface layer underlain by a loamy and sandy material or
are sapric material (muck).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030623 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ
2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030007 (USGS 1974). The NE Cape Feaz River is
the only water resource that will be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. The
NE Cape Fear River originates near Mt. Olive in southern Wayne and Duplin Counties. Its
drainage area is approximately 1,750 square miles (4530 kilometers2.) The NE Cape Fear River
from Rock Fish Creek to NC 210 has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 18-74-(29.5) by
Page 5

the DWQ (DWQ 2001). From NC 210 to Prince George Creek, which is downstream, it has
been assigned SIN 18-74-(47.5) (DWQ 2001).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The NE Cape Fear River is considered "inland waters" above the NC 210 bridge and "~t11>%
waters" below the NC 210 bridge (NCMFC 2001). "Inland Waters" are all inland waters except
private ponds; an all waters connecting with or tributary to coastal sounds or the ocean
extending inland from the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters
agreed upon by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC) and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). "Joint Waters" are those coastal fishing waters,
hereinafter set out, denominated by agreement of the NCMFC and the NCWRC pursuant to G.S.
113-132(e) as joint fishing waters (NCMFC 2001).
The NE Cape Fear River is a perennial stream with substrate consisting of mud, sand, and silt.
Floodplain forest occurs along the edges of the NE Cape Fear River in the project study area.
The channel is approximately 450 feet (137 meters) wide in the project study area and depths
likely exceed 10 feet (3 meters). Preliminary observations indicate that this particulaz section of
the NE Cape Fear River may represent a "C" channel type pursuant to Rosgen (1996).
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Cazolina based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. The
NE Cape Feaz River has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of CSw from Rock Fish
Creek to NC 210 (DEM 1993, DWQ 2001). The C designation indicates waters designated for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The NE Cape Feaz River has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of BSw from NC 210 to
Prince George Creek (DEM 1993, DWQ 2001). The B designation indicates waters designated
for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the C classification. The Sw
supplemental classification indicates Swamp Waters, which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics that are different from adjacent streams.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-li Waters
occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers). upstream or downstream of the project study azea.
Upstream portions of the NE Cape Fear River above Rock Fish Creek are designated as HQW
(DEM 1993). This is more than 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream from the study area.
One method used by the DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates. In 1998, monitoring sites in 19 of the 24 subbasins in the Cape Feaz River
Basin were sampled to determine overall water quality. Benthic macroinvertebrates from the NE
Cape Feaz River were sampled in 1998 on US 117 near Castle/Hayne approximately 7 miles (11
kilometers) downstream from the project study area. This site, which is labeled as B9580000,
received a bioclassification rating of Good (DWQ 2000). This same site received rating of
Good-Fair in a 1993 sampling event.
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish
Page 6

communities. No NCIBI monitoring has been documented within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of
the project study area. Fish tissue has been sampled at the ambient monitoring station on US 117
in 1998. The mercury limit established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
exceeded in 3 of 25 samples at this location.
The NE Cape Fear River is rated as "Fully Supporting" from Rock Fish Creek to NC 210.
"Fully Supporting" is a rating given to a water body that fully supports its designated uses and
generally has good or excellent water quality. A rating of "Fully Supporting" was also given to
the NE Cape Fear River from NC 210 to Prince George Creek (DWQ 2000).
3. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as
"those waters and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity" (NMFS 1999). For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: "Waters"
include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are
used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate;
"substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated
biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery
and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle (NMFS 1999). An EFH Assessment is an
analysis of the effects of a proposed action on EFH.
An EFH Assessment was produced for this project in May 2003. The table below notes
anadromous and federally managed fish species that are likely to occur in the project area.
Potential impacts to EFH follow.
B-
Anadromous and Federally Managed Fish Species Likely to Occur at
IC
J223 - Brid a No. 21 on NC 210 over Northeast Ca a Fear River, Pender Count , I

Common Name

Scientific Name Life Stages
Known to
Occur

Shortnose stur eon2 Aci enser brevirostrum J, A
Atlantic stur eon2 Aci enser ox rh nchus E, L, J, A
Thrasher shark Alo ias vul inus J, A
Blueback herrin 2 Alosa aestivalis E, L, J, A
Hicko shade Alosa mediocris E, L, J, A
Alewife2 Alosa seudoharen us E, L, J, A
American shade Alosa sa idissima E, L, J, A
American eel2 An villa rostrata E, L, J, A
Bi nose shark Carcharhinus altimus J, A
Silk shark' Carcharhinus falciformis J, A
Black ti shark' Carcharhinus limbatus J, A
Whiteti shark' Carcharhinus lon imanus J, A
Dusk shark' Carcharhinus obscurus J, A
Page 7

Common Name

Scientific Name Life Stages
Known to
Occur
Sandbar shark' Carcharhinus lumbeus J, A
Ni ht shark' Carcharhinus si natus J, A
Black sea bass' Centro ristis striata L, J, A
Ga rou er fled rou er' E ine helus mono J
Ti er shark' Galeocerdo cuvier J, A
Lon fin mako shark' Isurus aucus J, q
Gra sna er' lut'anus riseus J
Stri ed bass2 Morone saxatalis E, L, J, A
Summer flounder' Paralichth s dentatus L, J, A
Southern flounderz Paralichth s lethosti ma E, L, J, A
Brown shrim ~ Penaeus aztecus E, L, J, A
Pink shrim ' Penaeus duorarum E, L, J, A
White shrim ' Penaeus setiferus E, L, J, A
Bluefish' Pomatomus saltatrix E, L, J, A
Cobia' Rach centron canadum E, L, J, A
Atlantic sha nose shark' Rhizo rionodon terraenovae J, A
Red drum' Sciaeno s ocellatus E, L, J, A
Kin mackerel' Scomberomorus cavalla J, A
S apish mackerel' Scomberomorus maculatus J, A
Scallo ed hammerhead shark' S h ma lewini J, A
S in do fish' S ualus acanthias J, A
E =Eggs
L =Larval
J =Juvenile
A =Adult
'Per National Marine Fisheries Service List of Essential Fish Habitat Species,
dated October 1999 for Northeast Cape Fear River (from mouth northward to US
117 near Wilmington, NC).
ZPer North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries list of anadromous fish, dated
April 2003.
Alternative A Impacts (Preferred). Since the new bridge for this alternative is approximately
the same width and length as the existing structure, no net change in EFH for the species shown
in the above table is anticipated. Given the size of the Northeast Cape Fear River, it is expected
that any EFH impacts related to bridge construction will be minimal and temporary. This
alternative will not create any obstructions to anadromous fish passage in the Northeast Cape
Fear River.
Alternative B Impacts. The new bridge will be in the same location as the existing structure,
therefore, no net change in EFH for the species listed in the table above is anticipated. Since the
on-site detour bridge will be temporary, it is expected that any impacts to EFH will be
temporary. Given the size of the Northeast Cape Fear River, it is expected that any EFH impacts
Page 8

related to bridge construction will be minimal. This alternative will not create any obstructions to
anadromous fish passage in the Northeast Cape Fear River.
According to the NMFS, waters of the Northeast Cape Fear River are considered primary
nursery coastal waters from the mouth of the river upstream to the bridge at US 117 near
Wilmington. The project vicinity is located several miles upstream from this nursery designation.
A moratorium on in-stream construction activities is in effect from February 15 to June 15 to
protect anadromous fish species.
4. Permitted Dischargers
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point "sources." Wastewater point source discharges
include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
subdivisions and individual homes (DWQ 2000). Stormwater point source discharges include
stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater discharges associated with
certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are
issued under the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the EPA. Within subbasin 030623
there is only one major NPDES discharger. There are numerous minor non-NPDES dischargers
in the subbasin (DENR 2001). The three largest dischargers are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Largest Permitted NPDES Dischargers Located in subbasin 030623 of the Cape
Fear River Basin (DENR 2001 and DWQ 2000).
Discharge
Permit Facility Water Body Distance
(mgd)
NE Cape Fear > 10 mi. (> 16 km)
N00003875 Occidental Chemical Corp. River in New 1.07 downstream
Hanover Co,
NC0007757 Thorn Apple Valley Juniper 0.65 > 10 mi. (> 16 km)
Swamp downstream
N00021113 Burgaw WWTP Osgood Canal 0.5 9 miles (14 km)
upstream
Non-point source dischargers observed in the project study area consist of normal roadway
runoff and likely runoff from the fish camp boat ramp facility. This facility contains limited
impervious surface.
Page 9

5. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. GeneralImpacts
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will minimize impacts
during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control
measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas.
Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of increased
exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased shade due to the
construction of the bridges, and changes in stormwater flows due to changes in the amount of
impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels, can be anticipated as a result of this project
if roadway or bridge surface area increases. However, due to the limited amount of overall
change anticipated in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize. impacts to aquatic
resources/organisms. Due to the potential for anadromous fish species in the project area,
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to.
b. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters.
Bridge No. 21 has 13 spans totaling approximately 590 feet (179.8 meters) in length. The deck
and railings of the superstructure are composed of reinforced concrete on steel I-beams. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments and reinforced concrete caps on steel
piles. The rails will be removed without dropping them into waters of the United States. There
is potential for components of the deck and substructure to be dropped into waters of the United
States.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States will be avoided unless
there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, aworst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the United
States. The maximum potential temporary fill associated with demolition procedures is
estimated to be 330 cubic yards (252 cubic meters). Due to potential sedimentation concerns
resulting from demolition of the bridge, turbidity curtains will be used where practicable, to
Page 10

contain and minimize sedimentation in the water. The resident engineer will coordinate with
appropriate agencies prior to demolition and removal.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section, work
done in the water for this project would fall under Case 2, which states that no work shall be
performed in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration,
spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. This conclusion is based upon the
classification of the waters within the project area and vicinity, and agency comments received
during scoping.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Logging, farming, selective cutting, and natural succession after fires, farming,
hurricanes, and other disturbances have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local
variations within the project study area.
a. Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Mixed pine/hardwood forest covers approximately 0.7 acre (0.3 hectare) (4 percent) of the
project study area. This plant community type is located on the east side of the NE Cape Fear
River. Tree species consist of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Ater rubrum), sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar sryraciflua). Shrub species consist
primarily of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Groundcover species consist of cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea), and netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areolata). A small portion of this
mixed pine/hardwood community is jurisdictional wetland. A portion of the pine/hardwood
forest has been timbered and has revegetated as a successional area.
b. Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater subtype)
Coastal plain levee forest covers approximately 0.2 acre (0.1 hectare) (1 percent) of the project
study area. These plant communities are associated with natural levee deposits along channels of
large blackwater streams (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Tree species within the coastal plain
levee forest associated with NE Cape Fear River include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), American elm (Ulmus americana), sweetgum, and red maple.
Midstory and shrub species consist of red maple, sweetbay, and sweetgum. Groundcover
consists primarily of scattered giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and netted chain-fern. The
edges of the river channel support patches of cattail and alligator weed (Alternanthera
philoxeroides). This plant community is typically associated with either cypress-gum swamps or
bottomland hardwood forest and is distinguished from these other communities by its higher,
drier location on a levee.
Page 11

c. Cypress-Gum Swamp
Cypress-gum swamp covers approximately 2.1 acres (0.9 hectare) (13 percent} of the project
study azea. These plant communities are associated with backswamps, sloughs, swales, and
featureless floodplains of rivers (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Dominant tree species include
such species as bald cypress, swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), red maple, and sweetbay. Shrubby
vegetation is sparse with the exception of some small red maple. Groundcover consists primarily
of giant cane and netted chain fern. Dominance by cypress and gum species and flooding on a
semi-regulaz basis distinguish cypress-gum swamp from bottomland hazdwood forest.
d. SuccessionaVClear-cut
SuccessionaUclear-cut areas cover approximately 2.8 acres (1.1 hectare) (18 percent) of the
project study area. Successional areas are those areas that have been disturbed by man in the
past, usually by logging activities, and have become re-established with successional or
disturbance-oriented vegetation. Clear-cut areas have had all woody vegetation removed by
logging activities and have not yet become re-vegetated. The successional land within the
project study area consists of areas that appear to have been timbered approximately five years
ago. The wetter area is vegetated with species such as black willow (Salix nigra), red maple,
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and scattered cattail (Typha sp.). This area is located on the east
side of the river and on the north side of NC 210. The drier successional azea is located on the
west side of the river and is vegetated primarily with loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, and
blackberry (Rubus sp.). The clear-cut area is located on the west side of the river and on the.
north side of NC 210. Logging activities appeaz to have occurred within the past year and no
substantial amount of vegetation has become re-established.
e. Maintained/Disturbed Land
Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 6.4 acres (2.6 hectare) (40 percent) of the study
azea. Maintained/disturbed areas can include roadways, roadsides, maintained residential yards,
powerline right-of-way corridors, and areas where other human related activities dominate the
landscape. Roadsides and powerline rights-of--way are typically maintained by mowing and/or
herbicides. A fish camp boat ramp is located on the west side of the river, north of NC 210.
This area is being maintained by the current landowner. Additional maintained disturbed land is
located on the west side of the river, south of NC 210. Previous activities in this azea aze
unknown. A powerline right-of--way crosses the river south of NC 210. This right-of--way
appears to receive regular maintenance by mowing and/or herbicide application.
2. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Mammals directly
observed or evidenced by tracks or scat include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and
raccoon (Procyon lotor). Other mammals expected to occur in and around the project study area
include such species as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Page 12

No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area during the field investigation.
Those species expected in the project study area include such species as green anole (Anolis
carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Terrestrial or semi-arboreal amphibians expected to occur in the project study area include such
species as Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), and spring
peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
Avian species directly observed within the project study area include mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), great egret (Ardea alba), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias).
Most of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the project study area is typically adapted to life in
fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts will be minor. Due to the lack of, or limited,
infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not result in
substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement
corridors are not expected to be substantially impacted by the proposed project.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes the NE Cape Fear River and
portions of the adjacent floodplain forest where occasional flooding is evident. The littoral
fringe along the shoreline is also an important component of the aquatic habitat located within
the project study azea.
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, and visual observation of stream banks and channel
within the project study area were conducted in the NE Cape Fear River to document the aquatic
community. The depth of the channel inhibited the use of the back-mounted electro-shocker.
Fish species documented in the NE Cape Fear River during the field investigation include:
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis),
blue catfish (Ictalurus}`urcatus), and pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus). Additional fish that
can be expected to occur in the project study area include such species asblue-spotted sunfish
(Enneacanthus gloriosus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bowfin (Amia Galva), and redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus).
Coastal Plain streams and rivers are often used by anadromous fish species such as striped bass
(Morone saxatillis) sturgeon (Acipenser spp.), and shad (Alosa spp. And Dorosoma spp.).
Striped bass have been documented by Menhinick (1991) in the NE Cape Fear River drainage.
Several species of shad including American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (A.
aestivalis), hickory shad (A. mediocris), alewife (A. pseudoharengus), and gizzazd shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum) have been documented by Menhinick (1991) in the NE Cape Fear
River drainage. The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnose sturgeon (A.
Page 13

,~
brevirostrum) have been documented in the Cape Fear River and likely utilize the NE Cape Fear
River.
The NE Cape Fear River provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians and
aquatic reptiles. Although none were observed during the field investigation, the following
species are expected to occur in the project study area: green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), and cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted pursuant to DWQ methodologies. Kick-net
surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within along the edge of the NE Cape Fear
River produced a small amount aquatic macroinvertebrates. Table 2 provides a list of the benthic
organisms collected and identified to Order and Family when possible. Identifications are based
on McCafferty (1998).
Table 2. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected from NE Cape Fear River Within the
Project Study Area.
Order Famil
Coleoptera Psephenidae
Annelida Oligochaeta
Decapoda Palaemonidae
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of Bridge No. 21 is expected to involve minor impacts to the terrestrial
communities located within the project study area. Plant communities and impacts within the
project study area are presented in Table 3. Actual impacts will be limited to the designed right-
of-way and permitted construction limits. Due to the anticipated lack of, or limited infringement
on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement comdors will not be
substantially impacted by the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the project study azea
aze commonly found within fragmented landscapes. The bridge replacement will not alter
fragmentation within the study azea.
Page 14

Table 3. Antici ated Im acts to Plant Communities
Terrestr ial Communities (Acres/Hectares)
B-4223 Mixed Pine/ Coastal Plain Cypress- Successional / Maintained/Disturbed
Alternatives Hardwood Levee Forest Gum Clear-Cut Land
Forest Swam
Alt. A 0.65 (0.263) 0.06 (0.024) 0.30 (0.012) 0.67 (0.271) 3.45 (1.400)
Alt. B 0.62 (0.251) 0.10 (0.040) 0.10 (0.040) 1.00 (0.405) 3.21 (1.300)
Alt. BTemp.
Det. -0.06 (0.024) 0.00 (0.000) 0.06 (0.024) 0.09 (0.036) 0.02 (0.008)
Impacts are calculated from 10 feet outside of the proposed slope stake lines. Actual Impacts are
anticipated to be less.
b. Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to downstream aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the NE Cape Feaz
River to maintain regular flow and stream integrity.. Support structures will be designed to avoid
wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. In addition, temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be reduced by limiting in-
stream work to an absolute minimum, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure
below the water. Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a
floating silt curtain. Stockpiled material will be kept a minimum of 50 feet (15.2 meters) from
this stream channel. Silt fences will also be erected azound any stockpiled material in order to
minimize the chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters will be strictly enforced to reduce impacts
during all construction phases.
Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during the bridge replacement project. No long-
term impacts aze expected to result from this project. No impacts aze anticipated to anadromous
fish or spawning habitat. Anadromous fish species have been documented by Menhinick (1991)
as occurring in the NE Cape Fear River drainage. NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage will be utilized to ensure that the replacement of the bridge will not
impede anadromous fish runs.
The USFWS could not determine by a single survey whether or not the West Indian manatee
would occur in the project area. Precautions For Construction In Areas Which May Be Used By
The West Indian Manatee In North Carolina (1996 USFWS) will be incorporated.
Resident aquatic species may be displaced during construction activities. Anticipated impacts aze
expected to be minor and temporary and are presented in Table 4.
Page 15

Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities.
Antici ated Im acts to A uatic Communities
B-4223
Alternatives Surface Area of
Stream Impacts
(Acre/Hectaze) Lineaz Feet of
Stream Impacts
(Feet/Meters)
Alternative A 0.30 (0.12) 30 (9.1)
Alternative B 0.30 (0.12) 30 (9.1)
Alt. B Tem .Detour 0.26 (0.11) 26 (7.9)
Impacts were derived by considering the footprint of the new bridge replacement, the
establishment of a detour bridge and subsequent removal, and the removal of the original bridge.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands aze considered "waters of the United States" and are subject to jurisdictional
consideration. Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1344) aze defined by the presence of three primazy criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of
the growing season (DOA 1987).
Four wetland types occur within the project study area. The surface waters within the channel of
the NE Cape Fear River exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded waters (R2UBH) pursuant to Cowazdin et al. (1979). The
floodplain of the NE Cape Fear River exhibits characteristics of a palustrine, forested, deciduous,
semi-permanently flooded wetland (PF06F). The NWI map indicates that this wetland is
comprised of broad-leaved, deciduous trees (PFO 1) and does not take into account the presence
of bald cypress co-dominating at this site which results in the PF06 designation. The third
wetland type is a palustrine, shrub-scrub, broad-leaved deciduous, semi-permanently flooded
wetland (PSS1F). This wetland is located in the successional area east of the river that was
logged approximately five years ago. The fourth wetland type is the palustrine, emergent,
persistent wetland (PEM1) located under the powerline right-of-way.
The jurisdictional extent of the wetland areas was delineated based on current COE
methodology, and the areas were subsequently mapped with Trimble TM Global Positioning
System (GPS) units. The COE concurred with the delineation in a Notification of Jurisdictional
Determination dated Januazy 2, 2002.
Table 5 contains potential wetland impacts within the project study azea.
Page 16

Table 5. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters Within the Project Study Area.
Total Wetland Impacts
Acre (Hectare)
Alternative A 0.661 (0.267)
Alternative B 0.745 (0.301)
Alternative B Temporary On-site Detour 0.031 (0.0125)
2. Permits
This project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide.Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by
the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water
Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to
DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and
associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031
issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required
if this general permit is utilized. NWP #33 may be needed if temporary structures, work and
discharges, including cofferdams are necessary for this project and if review of the temporary
structures are not included in the NEPA document.
Pender County is a coastal county and is therefore under the additional jurisdiction of the CAMA
as regulated by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) and the NCDCM. Activities that
impact certain coastal wetlands under the jurisdiction of CAMA or Areas of Environmental
Concern (AEC) require CAMA approval through the NCDCM (NCDCM 2001). The NE Cape
Fear River within the project study area is considered an AEC because it is considered public
trust waters and it is in an area designated as "inland" and "joint" fishing waters by NCWRC and
NCMFC (NCDCM 2001). Replacement of Bridge No. 21 will require CAMA approval.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is also responsible for authorizing bridges pursuant to
Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General Bridge Act of 1946. The
purpose of these Acts to preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent interference with
interstate and foreign commerce. Bridge construction or replacement over navigable waters may
require USCG authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-115. According to a letter received from
the USCG dated February 2, 2004, the Northeast Cape Fear River meets criteria for advanced
approval waterways. An individual permit will not be required.
Anticipated impacts to wetlands and open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of--way
width and will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project. Impacts to
open water areas of the NE Cape Fear River will be minimized through the use of channel-
spanning structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized,
including erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains will be used if practicable to
minimize the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
A state storm water permit will be required.
Page 17

3. Mitigation
Due to the extent of wetlands and surface waters within the project study area, complete
avoidance of jurisdictional impacts may not be possible.
Minimization of jurisdictional impacts can be achieved by utilizing as much of the existing
bridge corridor as possible. This will result in a minimal amount of new impact depending on
the final design of the new bridge. BMPs will be used as an effort to minimize impacts,
including avoiding placing staging areas within wetlands. Limiting in-channel structures will
also serve to minimize direct impacts to the river channel.
Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities will be mitigated by replanting
disturbed areas with native species and removing any temporazy fill material within the
floodplain upon project completion.
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, aze protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The federal protected species are listed in Table 6 for Pender
County (FWS off-line list researched November 5, 2003, last updated February 25, 2003).
Table 6. Federally Protected Species Listed for Pender County, North Carolina.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biolo ical Conclusion
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E Not Likely to
Adversel Affect
American alli ator Alli ator mississi iensis T(S/A) N/A
Lo erhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T No effect
Pi in lover Charadrius melodus T No effect
Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis E No effect
Manatee Trichechus manatus E No effect
Seabeach amazanth Amaranthus umilus T No effect
Golden sed a Carex lutes E No effect
Rou h-leaved loosestrife L simachia as erulae olia E No effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americans E No effect
Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E No effect
T(S/A) =Threatened due to similar appearance
E= Endangered
T= Threatened
Page 18

shortnose sturgeon -The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous fish whose usual habitat is
estuaries and lower sections of larger rivers. It moves into fresh water only to spawn (Gilbert
1989). The shortnose sturgeon rarely reaches 3 feet (0.9 m) in length, is dark above and light
below, and has a wide mouth pointed downward beneath a short snout. Menhinick (1991) has
documented the shortnose sturgeon in the Cape Feaz River. He does not provide any
documentation of its occurrence in the NE Cape Fear River.
No Designated Critical Habitat or Proposed Critical Habitat for shortnose sturgeon is currently
listed by the NMFS (NMFS 2001).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The project study area does represent potential habitat for shortnose sturgeon based upon
descriptions in available literature about the species; however, an accurate determination
of its presence or use of the project study azea is not possible at this time. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within the project study area as of December
20, 2001. However, on November 14, 2002, Mr. Fritz Rhode of NC Division of Marine
Fisheries stated that anadromous fish, including the shortnose sturgeon, utilize the
Northeast Cape Feaz River for spawning. The NCDMF is uncertain how far upstream the
fish travel. Therefore, there will be an instream moratorium required for the shortnose
sturgeon between February 1 and June 30, inclusive.
American alligator -American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in
appearance to other federally listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians native
to North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a wide variety of freshwater to estuarine
habitats including swamp forests, bottomland hardwood forests, marshes, large streams, canals,
ponds and lakes (Palmer and. Braswell 1995). This habitat exists within the project study area,
and the potential for alligators within the project study area does exist. No individuals or direct
evidence of occurrence was observed during the field investigation conducted by ESI biologists.
Construction activities may temporarily displace any American alligators in the vicinity;
however, no long-term impact to the American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not applicable
No biological conclusion is required for the American alligator since it is listed as
T(S/A).
Loggerhead sea turtle -The loggerhead sea turtle is a marine turtle characterized by a lazge
head with blunt jaws. The carapace and flippers are areddish-brown color and the plastron is
yellow. Adults grow to an average weight of about 200 pounds (441kgs). The loggerhead sea
turtle may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays,
lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of lazge rivers (Palmer and Braswell
1995). Nesting occurs mainly on beaches.
No Designated Critical Habitat or Proposed Critical Habitat for loggerhead sea turtle is currently
listed by the NMFS (NMFS 2001).
Page 19

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for loggerhead sea turtles. No impact to
this species is expected as a result of this project.
Piping plover -Piping plovers are small shore birds measuring only 6 to 8 inches (0.2 m) in
length. These birds occur along beaches above the high tide line, sand flats, barrier islands,
sloping foredunes, behind primary dunes, and washover areas (Dyer et al. 1987).
Critical Habitat for the piping plover is being proposed by FWS for coastal portions of Pender
County; the project study area is not located within 5.0 miles (8.0 km) of the proposed Critical
Habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for piping plover occurs in the project study area. No impacts to this species
will result from this project.
Red-cockaded woodpecker -This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches) (0.2m) long has a black
head, prominent white cheek patch, and black and white barred back. Males often have red
markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et
al. 1980).
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly,
longleaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P. elliotia~, and pond (P. serotina) pines. Nest cavities are
constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 60 years that have been
infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees typically occur in clusters, which are referred
to as colonies. Pine flatwoods or pine savannas that are fire maintained serve as ideal nesting
and foraging sites for this species. Development of a thick understory within a given area
usually deters nesting and foraging. Potential nest sites for RCW's include open pine and
pine/mixed hardwood stands greater than 60 years of age. Hardwood/pine stands (<50% pine)
greater than 60 years of age may also be considered potential nesting habitat if adjacent to
potential foraging habitat (Henry 1989). Foraging habitat is typically comprised of open pine or
pine/mixed hardwood stands over 30 years of age (Henry 1989). Pines must comprise at least 60
percent of the canopy in order to provide suitable foraging for RCW's. Somewhat younger pine
stands may be utilized if the trees have an average diameter at breast height (DBH) greater than
or equal to 10 inches (0.25 m). Foraging stands must be connected to other foraging areas or
nesting areas in order to be deemed a viable foraging site. Open spaces or unsuitable habitat
wider than approximately 330 ft (101 m) are considered a barrier to RCW foraging.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat that would support nesting or foraging populations of red-cockaded
woodpeckers was identified within the project study area or directly adjacent to the
Page 20

project study area. The mixed pine hardwood forest within the project study area is
dominated by hardwoods (>50%) and is not considered suitable habitat since no adjacent
potential foraging habitat is present. No RCW cavity trees were identified within the
project study area. NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0
mile (1.6 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this
species will result from this project.
Manatee -The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about 10 feet
(3.0 m) in length and weight up to 1000 pounds (2205 kgs). Manatees inhabit both salt and fresh
water of a sufficient depth (5 to 20 feet) (1.5 to 6.1 meters). They may be encountered in canals,
rivers, estuarine habitats, saltwater bays, and in nearshore waters. Manatees prefer water
temperatures warmer than approximately 34° Farenheit (1° Celcius), however, they have been
observed in waters of a lower temperature (Webster et al. 1985). They may be encountered in
North Carolina waters during the warmer summer months; however, they are much more
common in Georgia and Florida waters.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Although downstream portions the NE Cape Fear River may provide suitable habitat for
occasional manatees, it is unlikely that they would occur as far inland is this site is
located. It is unlikely that manatees would be impacted by the proposed project due to
their scarcity in North Carolina and highly migratory nature. However, it can not be
concluded that manatees will not occur in the project study area. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study
area as of December 20, 2001. As a safety measure, Precautions for Construction in
Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina will be
followed.
Seabeach amaranth -The seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic coast
beaches. The stems are fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves. It is typically
found on barrier island beaches, where its preferred habitat consists of overwash flats and lower
foredunes (FWS 1996).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for seabeach amaranth occurs within the project study area. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study
area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species will result from the proposed
project.
Golden sedge -Golden sedge is a perennial member of the sedge family and is known only
from North Carolina. The stem may reach 3 feet (0.9 m) in height and the green, grasslike leaves
are up to 10 inches (0.25 m) long. This species grows in sandy soils overlying coquina limestone
deposits, with unusually high soil pH (Glover 1994). Golden sedge prefers the ecotone between
pine savannah and adjacent wet hardwood or hardwood/conifer forest. Most plants occur in
Page 21

partially shaded savannah/swamp where occasional to frequent fires favor a herbaceous ground
layer (LeBlond 1996).
Populations of golden sedge are known from the NE Cape Fear watershed in Pender County.
The species appears to be a very rare, narrowly restricted endemic to an area within a 2-mile (3.2
km) radius of the Onslow/Pender County line in southeastern North Carolina (LeBlond 1996).
Localities where golden sedge have been found are ecologically highly unusual. The
combination of open conditions underlain by calcareous substrate is very raze on the Atlantic
coastal plain.
Golden sedge has recently been listed as E by the FWS (FWS 2002). This species was
previously listed as PE (proposed for Endangered).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat that would support golden sedge was observed in the project study area. NHP
does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the project
study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species will result from this
project.
Rough-leaved loosestrife -The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that flowers
from late May to June with seeds forming by August and capsules dehiscing in October. This
species can grow up to 2 feet (0.6 m) tall has yellow flowers that typically bloom in late May
through June. Rough-leaved loosestrife typically occurs along the ecotone between long-leaf
pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas where lack of canopy vegetation allows abundant
sunlight into the herb layer (i.e., pocosins). The loosestrife is endemic to the Coastal Plain and
Sandhills region of North Carolina. This species is fire maintained, and suppression of naturally
occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in our state. Drainage of habitat may also
have adverse effects on the species (FWS 1994a).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife was observed in the study area. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the project study
area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species will result from this project.
American chaffseed -American chaffseed is a perennial herb that stands l to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6
m) tall. The species has alternate leaves and is erect and simple, or branched only at the base.
The fleshy leaves are yellow-green or dull green with red undertones. The leaves become
smaller and narrower from the base of the plant to the top (Kral 1983). Flowers are yellowish on
the tube and purplish distally. Blooming typically occurs from April to June. This species is fire
maintained and typically occurs in grass/sedge assemblages within moist pine flatwoods, pine
savannas, bog borders, and open oak woods. Lack of fire will quickly suppress the species
preventing blooming. It will then be quickly overgrown by successional herbs and woody plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
Page 22

No habitat for American chaffseed was observed within the project study area. NHP
does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the project
study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species will result from this
project.
Cooley's meadowrue - Cooley's meadowrue is a rare perennial herb endemic to the
Southeastern coastal plain. The species grows in circumneutral soil in moist wet savannas and
savanna-like areas kept open by fire or other disturbance. In North Cazolina, Cooley's
meadowrue has been documented as growing in the following soil series: Foreston, Griffon,
Muckalee, Torhunta, and Woodington. Each of these series are sandy loams. Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and cypress growing together, bordering asavanna-like area, has been
the best indicator of Cooley's meadowrue sites (FWS 1994b).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat consisting of wet savannas or savanna-like areas kept open by fire or
disturbance occurs in the project study area. NHP does not document any occurrences of
this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001.
No impacts to this species will result from this project.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The "Federal species of concern" (FSC) designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand
et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for FSC listed for Pender County
(Table 7). Sources reviewed included the FWS on-line list last updated February 25, 2003
(reviewed on-line November 5, 2003), and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program on-line
list last updated January 2003.
Page 23

Table 7. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Pender County, North Carolina.
Common Scientific State Potential
Name Name Status Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivals SC Y
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SR N
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii T N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SC Y
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius SC Y
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito T N
Buchholz's dart moth Acrotis buchholzi SR N
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E N
Venus flytrap cutworm moth Hemipachnobia subporphyrea
subporphyrea SR N
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa E Y
Croatan crayfish Procambarus plumimanus NL Y
Carter's spartiniphaga Spartiniphaga carterae SR N
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana vaz.
georgiana E N
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii T N
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii NL Y
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula SR-L, SC N
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana T Y
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana E N
Pineland plantain Plantago sparsiflora E N
Thorne's beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei E N
Carolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra E N
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna SR-L N
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra NL N
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var.
pusillum E N
Chapman's three-awn Aristida simpliciflora SR-T N
Coastal goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa SR-L N
Grassleaf arrowhead Sagittaria graminea
var. weatherbiana SR-T Y
E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, SR -Significantly Raze, -T-Throughout, -L-
Limited, NL-Not Listed by NCNHP
NHP files show southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) as occurring less than 1 mile (1.6
kilometers) from the project azea, and southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) as occurring
approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) north of the project area. Species specific surveys for
FSC were not conducted.
Page 24

VI. Cultural Resources
A. 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 Section 106, codified at 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 to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on May 2, 2002. All
structures over 50 yeazs of age within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the
North Cazolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a memorandum dated December 20,
2002 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) stated "We recommend that a Department
of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures over fifty years of
age with in the project area, and report the findings to us."
A Historic Architectural Resources Final Identification and Evaluation report for the project area
was submitted on July 31, 2003. Bridge No. 21 was built in 1955 and is not eligible under
Criteria G.
In a memorandum dated September 10, 2003 the SHPO stated "The following property is
determined not eligible for. listing in the National Register of Historic Places: Davis-Trask
House, NC 210 (Lane's Ferry Road)."
A copy of the memorandums is included in the appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 20, 2002 stated that,
"there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project azea....it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum
is included in the appendix.
VII. Environmental Effects
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traff c operations.
Page 25

The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocations of residents or businesses are expected with implementation of the
proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There aze no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located in Pender County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 aze not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment azea.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The traffic .volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project azea. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporazy. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports aze required.
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. One (1) underground
storage tank (UST) site was located on the north side of NC 210 and approximately 360 feet (109
meters) west of the bridge. The facility No. is 0-0197871ocated at Lanes Ferry Grocery, 11010
NC 210, Rocky Point, North Carolina and was assigned an incident number (GWI #21345). It is
a former gas station that removed two tanks after extensive flooding from Hurricane Floyd in
1999 and is currently being monitored by eight monitoring wells. A release from the UST system
was confirmed during removal. The preferred alternative replaces the bridge on the south side. If
any unregulated USTs or any potential source of contamination is discovered during right-of-
Page 26

way initial contacts with impacted property owners, then an assessment will be conducted to
determine the extent of any contamination at that time.
Pender County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This
crossing of the Northeast Cape Fear River is located in an approximate flood hazard zone.
Attached is a Flood Hazard Boundary Map for Pender County (Figure 5). It is not anticipated
that the proposed project will have any adverse impacts on the existing floodplain
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. Public Involvement
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in
the project development with scoping letters.
Newsletters were mailed in December 2003 to local residents and officials describing the
preferred alternative.
IX. Agency Comments
All comments from local, state, and federal agencies have been addressed elsewhere in this
document.
Page 27

~~
`~
~ WiIISrC
y ~ ~
-a~r)pl~
r WsIM Ms
~ MiM
,~ 4 y 11 `
~' J 1
( 421 pitarr ®fie. ~`
AWasw y + ~
wares ap a ~
~'~~~ . 1 P E N '~ , R i4wr~ me,
421 ( ,r ~ i Un.~
_ p.
Nary shatter
Game Land
Bridge/i~jo. 21
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
PENDER COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.21 ON NC 210
OVER THE
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
8-4223
FIGURE 1

I ~
W
~
O ~ W

W
~ OC
N ~
(~
mN
W Z W IJ..
1~ ~
>a A c O~V~
.~
n•
_
5 n
~~ V ~ 1-

N ~ O
~
O ~ r. ~ ~
~` 00'
` Z

S1f1J bOd
x O ~ W Z =d
a ~ ~ F-
Z
~ ~ 1NIOd 3JNIH ~

~ op ~
~ m ~
` >
® O

~ -.
~

M ~

~ ~ N d tp O
~ ~
~
N
•
Z ch
O Z

- 1= O
~ U
r ~ C =W r NW
O O O
Q ~ ~
.~ C a oC m oC
E
~~ O ~
a
N ~
~, H
Z ~
V N F-
Z V

O
~
O ~
~
r

~ •
~
~ W r W
~
~
N ~ ~
00 N N o
.O O
`. ~ (~
r
c~ p
Z
V p
U

O y N
O O
O ~ ~ O
M O) ~O H O p 0
O O O

Q
J a c"1
M ~ O
..
7 Q
of
~
II p II ZJ
O~
~~ O ~ O p ~ V oC
V a Q a ti I
i = ~ O C ~ N~
O
Q N O N
N g
E
~ ~ .~
~ ..-. ~ ~ ~ V
~ ~ J J
} ~ O
Z D
y ~
N GC
ZO
at O Q ? N

S
O

~ F~
~ Q
O
~
E
~ _~ o

O

T.I.P. No. B-4223, Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4), State Project No. 8.1271001 Pender County,
NC 210, Bridge No. 21 over North East Cape Fear River
FIGURE 4

.~
-- ~
LL g~,€f.~
~_ d!
s d •e m .°, ~ w a s
~ rE~ w.r p ~ ~ < ~~~ Ti
~ •k
W ~ F ni ~ O = ~ W ~
J i Q p ~ p Z W~ W F
d ! A
vVi ~ = G~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ i~~~
~ ~ m v ~ ~° ~ ~~~$~
opc F ~ °o R~1 O ae ~' ca ~~
® LL o
~s~~E
N ~~ LL8
_~ ~~
~~~~
u W
2 Z
0
N
~ar~s
W N
z
N
a
i
q
~5~8 Z
eR O
F-
W
O
O
o ~
ea
u
t
V'
W
z
0
o -`~
a
W
_~

Commander 431 Crawfoni Stn3et
U.S. Department of United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 237045004
Homeland Security Fifth Coast Guard District Staff Symbol: Oan-b
Phone: [phone]
United States Fax: (757) 3J8-6334
COa$t Guard Email: tknowles(a~antd5.uscg.mll
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
P. O. Box 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Dear Ms. Williams:
16593
02 Feb 04
This letter supersedes our previous letter of January 21, 2004, in response to your request for
Coast Guard review of a project to replace the bridge (#21) over the Northeast Cape Fear River
in Pender County, North Carolina.
Since the Northeast Cape Fear River is subject to tidal influence, it is considered legally
navigable for Bridge Administration purposes. This portion of the Northeast Cape Fear River
also meets the criteria for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 115.70 at the proposed bridge site. Advance approval waterways are those
that are navigable in law, but not actually navigated by other than small boats. The Commandant
of the Coast Guard has given advance approval to the construction of bridges across such .
waterways. Therefore, an individual permit will not be required for this project.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Terrance Knowles, at the
phone number or address shown above.
Sincerely, ~
~~~~ ~ ~
WAVERLY G Y, JR
Chief, Bridge Administratio Secti
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District

~. .
•U.S. Department commander
' Of Tr2rlSport8t10(1 United States Coast Guard
~~ Atlantic Area
United States
Coast Guard
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
/../ t ~ 1 ~JC~G~111
431 Crawford Street ~ ^~ ^~
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004 ? ~ d
Staff Symbol: (Aowb)
Phone: [phone]
16590 ~~ ~ ~ ~
03 DEC 02 ~ ~Q
DEC ~ 4 ~~
i er~~~-a of
~. Nr,;r~wAYs
''~~ ;'.~'v~t.o'~',
SAC ANA~~
T1'.is is in response to ;your let±er dated October 24, 2002 requesting the Coast Guard to review
the proposed projects to replace the following nine bridges: Black River Over Flow, Black
River, Jenny's Branch, Beaver Dam Creek, New River, Stone Creek
Withrow Creek and Pinch Gut Creek all located throughout North Carolina.
The Coast Guazd Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guazd bridge
permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are not used, susceptible to use in
their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to transport
interstate commerce. Such conditions for some of these waterways were confirmed in a
telephone conversation on November 27, 2002. Due to this, the bridge projects on Beaver Dam,
Withrow, and Pinch Gut Creeks and Black River Over Flow are exempt, and will not require
Coast Guard Bridge Permits.
Black River, Jenny's Branch, and Stone Creek are subject to tidal influence and thus considered
legally navigable for Bridge Administration purposes. But these waterways also meet the criteria
for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
115.70. Advance approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually
navigated by other than small boats. The Commandant of the Coast Guazd has given his advance
approval to the construction of bridges across such waterways; therefore, an individual permit
will not be required for these projects either.
e New River and
><s a waterway affected by lunar tides? Is
there any commercial navigation? What types and sizes of boats operate on the waterway?
Bridge Permits maybe required based on the answers to these questions. If a permit is required,
a higher level of environmental review will also be required.
r
The fact that Coast Guard permits are not required for some of these projects does not relieve
you of the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or

r
'~M~
~i E:
tf
SEC ~ 9 2~t ~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.
>rttvirottmtnte! Managexrrene Director
Project~lhwebpment and
Ettvirvnmcntal Analysis 8r~tch
NC Oepartmprt pfTranapc~rtation
1548 Mail Service Centex
Raleigh. North Carolina Z7b99-14d~
Attention- John 1Nadsworth, P
ik~r th. Thorpe
UNITED STATER tSEPAATMENT Ot= COMM@RCE
Narbnsl Oovsnie and Atmoapherlc AelministratlDn
Nla'r10h1A1. MAinNE >~SHI_PoE8 SERVICE
Habitat Conservation Division
101 Fivers !eland (toad
Beaufon, Tldrth Carolina 3t;S 1 ~-~/7~~
DeealRbtr 6.3002
The National Matins Fisheries Service (NOAH lsheries) has revi~d your Uctohcr 24. ?LW3. letter
requesti,~; comrnc~Its on eight bridge r•cplacerttettt projects ittcludod in the Nonlt Carolina
Oepartmetu of Transportation 3002-3008 Tran3parsatioct Improvemtrn Ptan Wr understand rltar.
the NCbOT is preparing the planning and enviroturte:ttai studio noccssary to ptti~Cess tlte~e projects
u Categorical Exclusions and• of~'ers the following carnments for your eonsideratian
'l'hc emtirgmtwttsl documet7~ for these projects tlbouid address measures d~anal to a.oid and
tttinitttizc loss of open water and wetiatrds thu support fishery resotxr~ lei additiart •• a support
6ndin^cs contained in the May 9, 204?, letter from the Wilrningtvn District, U_S:.~rrrr< Corps of
lrngi,neers, which ideMlfted rhe• following iS3ueS and concerns as being relev-atn ro the proposed
bridge roplaccment projecls: .
- Replacing bridges with wivrrts
- Pumttnent gnd temporary wetland lasses
- Uffsite versus ans+te ddourx
- 7i~r~e dfyear re:tridions an instr~eam work
- Treatment dl'welland restoration 31tCAS •
- )rKiSling hridge demolition ttnd removal •
- Lerrgthcning e:~isting bridrtex as a wetland restoration measure
Group i -The following ~'ojetxrc will have no impact oa resources for which NAA:1 FislKsrie~ itas
stewardship responsibility; therefore, ur have no carrments: ~ '
hrlfLb AI ~~"~td Papa
~~ _~
Y ~
~ }
3 Y
:~ ~~
~.

3, In order to protect anadromous fishery resources that shay utrlru the Project areas as
spawning and/or nursery habitat, work in the waters of the creeks shall be restricted to the
period between October 1 and March 1 of any year unless prior approval is gamed by the
Corps of Engineers following consultation with NOA.A Fisheries.
If these Projects are processed under Nationwide 23, they wiIl be carefully reviewed for
incorporation of the recommendations listed above, and we may elect to provide additional
comments and recommendations that are intended to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to
living marine resources. Our recommendations, if any, will be sent to the Wilmington District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and be fonva>Y1ed to you
Finally, the shortnose stugeon, a federally protected species ~mder the purview of NOAH
Fisheries is round in the Cape Fear River. These comments do not satisfy federal agency
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of l 973, as
amended. If any activity "may effect" listed species and habitats under NOAA Fisheries
purview, consultation should be initiated with our Protected Resources Division at 9721
Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg„ Florida 33702
We appreciate the opportunity for early participation in the review of these bridge replacement
projcc~ if we can be of fiuther assistance, please contact Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field
Oi~ce at 252-72$-5090 or at ron.sechler@noaa gvv.
Sincerely,
~~
~~~
~ft Andreas Mager, Jr
Assistant Regional Administrator
1-Iabitat Conservation Division

V:~

Bridge Number
Project Number
Location
Bridge No. l36 B - 4025 - Beaufort County .
Bridge No. 1.08 B - 4154 Hyde County
Bridge No. 1 ]8 B - 4235 Pitt County
Bridge No. 191. B - 4272 Sampson County
Section li -Yellow Light Projects (YLPs)
The bridge replacement projects listed below are located in the Roanoke River, Neuse River, Tar
River, Chowan River, Trent .River, Cape Fear River basins which are likely to support NMFS trust
anadromous fishery resources and are, therefore, classified as YLPs.
Bridge Number Project Number LOCAt10n
. ~;t .
Bridge No. 45 B - 4026 ~ Beriie County
Bridge No. 29 B -4314 Washington County
Bridbe No. ] 0 B - 4086 Craven County
Bridge No. 46 B - 4 l 25 Greene County
Bridge No. 49 B - 4126 Greene and Lenoir
.Counties
Bridge No. 43 B - 4127 Green County
Bridge No. 67 B - 4150 Hertford County
Bridge No. 7 B' - 4169 Jones County
BridgeNo.S B-4]87 _:.___.__. ___MartinCounty
-.,-~.~
Bridge Nb. b9 B`--4227 ~ ~ Perquimans County - ..
Bridge No: ~98 - B - 4234. ~ ~ Pitt County -- .
Spawning and nursery habitatfoT anadromous fish,es-may:be~~advers~ly~ittrpacted by these .projects
.unless measures to.avoid and minimize impacts~to waters and wetlands are-~included:in the project-
plans. Accordingly, the NMFS may recommend against Department:of4he:Army authorization of: _
these projects under Nationwide~P.crmit 23,unless the followingrecdmrriendations are incorporated:
1. Following impact avoidance and minimization,: unavoidable-wetland -losses `shall be offset ~ -~ ~`
through implementation ofa compensatory mitigation plamthat has been approved by. the Corps . ~ _ ~ .
of Engineers and in consultation with .the NMFS: ~ .
2. All construction related activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that .
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to those systems and~their. associated flora and fauna. .. ~ ~ ' ~~..
3. In order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may utilize the project areas as spawning
or nursery habitat, work in the waters of the creek shall.be restricted to the period October l and
March 1 of any year unless prior approval is .granted by'the ,Corps of Engineers following
consultation ~a~ith the NMFS.

P~'~E"T °F Thy United States Department of the Interior
o' 'yT
c FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
~ s Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
~'~qcH a.`e~q Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27636.3726
- November 14, 2002
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
G ~, V~~
NOV I a 7nr~9
o=
,` U
~~ OF Q 'K'
~;sfi:@ vg ~1~gQ-
r,~,~, ~ n~,. ~~_c, ,tom
~,~~ ~. ~
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of several bridges
in multiple counties of North Carolina. Please note that the projects listed for Davidson, Rowan
and Stokes Counties in your October 24, 20021etter were forwarded to the Service's Asheville
Ecological Services Office for review. The following projects were reviewed by the Raleigh
Ecological Services Office:
• B-1382, Sampson County, Replace Bridge No. 26 over the Black River Overflow and
Bridge No. 12 over the Black River on NC 41;
• B-4031, Brunswick County, Replace Bridge No: 72 over Jinnys Branch (tributary to
Saucepan Creek) on NC 179 (Beach Drive);
•' B-4214, Onslow County, Replace Bridge No. 24 over the New River on US 17 (Marine
Boulevard);
• B-4215, Onslow County, Replace Bridge No. 19 over Stone Creek on NC 210; and,
• B-4223, Pender County, Replace Bridge No. 21 over the North East Cape Fear River on
NC 210.
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordinatiori Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:

endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you advance
notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found in the vicinity of
your project. Information about the habitats in which these endangered and threatened species
are often found is provided on our web site, http•//endangered.hi~s.gov. If suitable habitat for
any of the listed species exists in the project areas, biological surveys for the listed species
should be conducted. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for these projects, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for these projects include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact
area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that aze to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The'anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be likely
to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also include the
extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural resources,
and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or minimize
the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;
7. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.

4' .-.:.
~. ~
~ =-;
~~
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 39726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 12, 2002
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr. .
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Planning
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
This responds to your letters of March 1 and March 18, 2002, providing the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with Natural Resources Technical Reports (NRTR) on 26 bridges
proposed for replacement in Construction Fiscal Year (CFY) 2005. Your letters requested the
Service to review these reports and determine the level of concerns we might have for trust
resources under our jurisdiction. This report provides scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife, Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
This report also serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use
in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The bridges scheduled for replacement are:
1. B-3611, Bridge No. 77 on•NC 99 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort Count};
2. B-4024, Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 over Pantego Creek [Canal?], Beaufort County
3. B-4026, Bridge 45 on SR 1110 over Choowatic Creek, Bertie County;
4. B-4028, Bridges Nos. 12 and 18 over the Cape Fear River, Bladen County;
5. B-4031, Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch, Brunswick County;
6. B-4077, Bridge No. 25 on NC 130 over Waccamaw River outflow, Columbus County
7. B-4082, Bridge 280 on SR 1843 over Dan's Creek, Columbus County;
8. B-4086, Bridge No. 10 on SR 1111 over Brices Creek, Craven County;
9. B-4090 -Bridge No. 125 on NC 24 over Cross Creek, Cumberland County;
10. B-4125, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1091 over Wheat Swamp Creek, Greene County;
11. B-4126, Bridge No. 49 on SR 1434 over Wheat Swamp Creek, Greene and Lenoir Counties;
12. B-4127, Bridge No. 43 on SR~1438 over Rainbow Creek, Green County;
13. B-4150, Bridge No. 67 on SR 1118 over Ahoskie Creek, Herford County;
14. B-4154, Bridge No. 108 on SR 1340 over Old State Canal, Hyde County;
15. B-4169, Bridge No. 7 on SR 1129 (Free Bridge Road) over Big Chinquapin Branch Jones
County;

-- ~.
3
activities, should be entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with
appropriate, endemic vegetation, including trees if necessary;
3. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset;
4. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning, and sensitive pre-adult
life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 15;
5. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and,
6. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species for which the Service
remains concerned, but further biological reseazch and field study are needed to resolve the
conservation status of these taxa. Although FSCs receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every
reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
Federally Protected Species
Several NRTRs make determinations that a project will not affect a particular species, primarily
plants based on surveys in the recent past. The Service believes such determinations aze
premature and that additional surveys will be required prior to construction in approximately
2004-2005. It would be more appropriate to note that the species was not found during.
preliminary surveys and that results provide early indications that the project is not likely to
adversely affect the species.
Effect determinations for plants based on surveys within the project area may require work at a
particular tune of year for accurate identifications ~~ conducted, the person hoarse of DOT for
plants should include the hme of year that a surv y
surveying, and the approximate size of the area surveyed. Surveys should be done within two or
three years of actual construction for those species inhabiting stable and/or climax communities.
Plant species that utilize disturbed communities, e.g., Michaux sumac (Rhos michauxii) and
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), should be done within two years of actual

commitments to follow procedures given in "Precautions fur General Construction in
Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina" that the
Service provided the NCDOT in 1996. A copy is provided with this letter.
Intertidal zones and marsh edges preferred by Federally threatened sensitive jointvetch
(Aeschynomene virginica) are present in the project azea, but the species was not
observed during natural resources investigation. The NRTR provided a biological
conclusion of "no effect." The Service will require additional surveys closer to the time
of actual construction and greater details of survey methodology, including time of year
and the intensity of the survey, before we can concur that the project will have no effect
on the species.
The NRTR states that "marginal habitat exists for rough=leaved loosestrife [Lysimachia
asperulaefolia] in the form of shallow organic soils adjacent to a forest community" in
the project azea. While the NRTR states that no plants were seen, the Service requires
greater details of survey methodology before we can concur with the determination that
the project will have no effect onrough-leaved loosestrife.
B-4024, Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County -The NRTR states (p.
3) that the average depth of Pantego Creek is 4.5 feet, but concludes (p. 14) that the
necessary water depth for the manatee is not present. The Service disagrees and
recommends that project plans should incorporates measures given in "Precautions for
General Construction in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North
Carolina" that the Service provided the NCDOT in 1996. Suitable habitat for sensitive
jointvetch exists in the project area (p. 17), but the NRTR concludes that the project
would have "no effect" on the species based, in part, on the fact that no plant were "found
in the project area." The Service cannot concur with this determination. The Service will
require additional surveys closer to the time of actual construction and greater details of
survey methodology, including time of yeaz and the intensity of the survey, before we can'
concur that the project will have no effect on the sensitive jointvetch.
B-4031, Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch, Brunswick County -The NRTR states (p.
4) that water depths range from two to six feet, and concludes (p. 21) that "vagrant
manatees visiting the lower Lumber river system would not be expected within the
project area." The Service does concur with the biological conclusion of "no effect" on
the manatee and requests that the project utilize the standard precautions for general
construction in areas which maybe used by manatees.. The NRTR states that the
biological conclusions for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Federally
endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) aze "unresolved." Wood storks may
undertake post-breeding season dispersals from June through early autumn in search of
food in swamps, marshes, and mudflats. The NCDOT should seek to determine whether
the project azea is used, if even on a temporary basis, by these species. If wood storks do
feed in the project area during a limited portion of the yeaz, the Service would
recommend that this project be scheduled outside this particular period.

7
B-4234, Bridge No. 98 on SR 1407 over Conetoe Creek, Pitt County - As noted in the NRTR,
surveys should be conducted for the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The
area surveyed should extend from 100 meters (328 feet) upstream to 300 meters (984
feet) downstream.
B-4235, Bridge No. 118 on SR 1538 over Grindel Creek, Pitt County -Survey for the Tar River
spinymussel will be required from 100 meters (328 feet) upstream to 300 meters (984
feet) downstream.
B-4272, Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek, Sampson County -The NRTR
concludes that the project would have "no effect" on pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) due
to a lack of habitat in the project area.. The two habitats mentioned are shallow ponds
with sandy substrate and Carolina bays. This species is associated with wetland habitats
such as bottomland and hardwoods'in the interior areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds
and other depressions in the more coastal sites. The plants generally grow in shaded areas
but may also be found in full sun. Since the project area includes 0.5 acre of coastal plain
bottomland hardwood forest, the Service requests that this area be survey for pondberry.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these project. Please continue to advise
us of the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this proj ect. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely, ~~~~ ~~
~,~iW'
~^-'
.~o ~ Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Super-visor
Attachment
Literature cited
O'Shea, T. J. and M. E. Ludlow. 1992. Florida manatee. pp. 190-200. In S. R. Humphrey (ed.).
Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume I. Mammals. University of Florida Press.
Gainesville. 392 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Communication to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. USFWS, Raleigh Field Office. Raleigh, NC. 4 pp.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200101172 County: Pender
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property ~ Authorized Agent:
Owner: JeffHazbour, PWS
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., ManagerY Environmental Services, INC
Project Development & Environmental Analysis 524 New Hope Road
1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Cazolina 27610
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): TIP Project No. B-
4223, Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 -over Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender. County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination:.Onsite field inspection of selected wetland sites.
Indicate Which of the Following apply: .
^ -There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be .verified by our stag' before the. Corps will make a final jurisdictional
~ determination on your property.
On October 10, 2001, the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional line as determined by the NCDOT
and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project: A select number of wetland sites were inspected for the
proposed project and all were found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The Corps believes that
,this jurisdictional delineation can be relied on for planning purposes and impact assessment.
o -The wetlands on your lot have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction have been explained to you.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
^ There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the perrrit 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 deterrnination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the daze of this
notification.
o The project is located in one. of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
-Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding he Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Mr. Dave
Timpy at 910-251-4634.. ~ ~ ,
Project Manager Signature
Date January 2, 2002 Expiration Date January 2, 2007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH. OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM.

including wetlands, construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning
report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does
not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. All activities, including temporary construction, access, and dewatering
activities, should be included in.the project planning report. Our experience has shown
that replacing bridges with culverts often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider
the work as having more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly,
the following items need to be addressed in the project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected by
the proposed project.
b. Off=site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justificatign should be provided that
demonstrates that alternatives with lower wetland impacts are not practicable. On-site
detours, unless constructed on a spanning structure or on a previous detour that was used
in a past construction activity, can cause permanent wetland impacts due to sediment
consolidation resulting from the on-site detour itself and associated heavy equipment.
Substantial sediment consolidation in wetland. systems may in turn cause fragmentation of
the wetland and impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of the wetland. Thus, on-
site detours constructed in wetlands can result in more than minimal wetland impacts.
These types of wetland impacts will be considered as permanent wetland impacts. Please
note -that an onsite detour constructed on a spanning structure can potentially avoid
permanent wetland impacts'and should be considered whenever an on-site detour is the
recommended action. For projects where a spanning structure is not feasible, the
NCDOT should investigate the existence of previous onsite .detours at the site that were
used in previous construction activities. These areas should be utilized for onsite detours
whenever possible to minimize wetland impacts.
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
wetlands, an approved wetland restoration and monitoring plan will be required prior to
issuance of a DA nationwide or Regional general permit. For proposed projects and
associated on-site detours that cause significant wetland losses, an individual DA permit
and a compensatory mitigation proposal for the unavoidable wetland impacts may be
required.
In view of our concerns related to onsite detours constructed in wetlands, a cursory
determination was made on the potential for sediment consolidation due to an onsite

h. Lengthening existing bridges can often benefit the ecological and hydrological
functions of the associated wetlands and streams. Most bridge approaches are connected
to earthen causeways that were built over wetlands and streams. Replacing these
causeways with longer. bridges would allow previously impacted wetlands to be restored.
In an effort to encourage this~type of work, mitigation credit for wetland restoration
activities can be provided to offset the added costs of lengthening an existirg bridge. Of
the referenced project sites, TIP Project No. 4031 connects to a 170 foot long causeway
through coastal wetlands. It is recommended that this causeway be replaced with a bridge
and associated wetland areas be restored.
i. Based on the information provided and the recent field investigations of the
referenced project sites, the apparent level of wetland impacts and scope of the following.
projects warrant coordination pursuant to the integrated NEPA/Section 404-merger
agreement:
1. TIP Project No. B-4268, Bridge No. 150 on SR 1006 over Little Coharie Creek,
Sampson County, Action ID 200101169.
2. TIP Project No. B-4031, Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch;
Brunswick County, Action ID 200101171.
j. You have requested that the referenced projects be given a designation of
"Red", "Green" or "Yellow" as explained in your letters.. Projects designated as "Red"
by our office are specified above. The remaining projects will be considered "yellow"
projects. We believe that the "green" designation is. misleading and should not be used.
Should you have any questions please call Mr. David L. Timpy at the Wilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader ger
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island

~~r `
-State of North Carolina
3 -yiaa3 Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
June 3, 2002
~ •
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and.Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dome
NC Division ~ Wat ality, 401 Unit
From: Robert Ridings /'~%~1t~
NC Division of Water Quality nit
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B-4234 an~
In future reports, an Executive Summary Paragraph would be helpful. This should include brief
description of the work intended (i.e., replace bridge with another bridge or with a culvert), the
amount of impact to wetlands and streams, and types of possible permits needed.
On all projects, use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed. Sediment and erosion
control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream. Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024) must be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream
aquatic resources. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation must be planted on all bare
soil within IO days of ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
This office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and 150 linear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. While the NCDWQ
realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i.e. the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert
extensions.
Wetlands/401 Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]

;a°~~? ~n y~.
~~~ Subject: Bridge Replacement Projects CFY 2005 ~ ~ / ~` ' ' I
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:05:27 -0400
From: Bill Arrington <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DCM
To: "William T. Goodwin" <[e-mail]>
CC: Cathy Brittingham <[e-mail]>
Mr. Goodwin,
I have visited each of the 14 bridge replacement sites included in your
March 1, 2002 letter, located in the 20 Coastal counties under the
jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal Management.
General comments regarding bridge replacement projects would include:
1. Existing access to coastal waters and land adjacent to coastal
waters should be preserved. This would include trails, driveways, roads,
boat ramps, clear channels, vertical clearance under bridges, parking
spaces, etc.
2. The design of storm water diversion should add treatment prior to
discharging. No storm water should be discharged to the waters and
wetlands in coastal areas. Deck drains discharging to waters or wetlands
should be eliminated from bridge replacements. Storm water collected
from bridges and approaches should be disposed of by infiltration as far
from the waters and wetlands as possible. The planning and design of
these replacements is crucial to protecting the surrounding water
quality. Bridges within one half mile of SA waters or ORW waters will
need special attention dedicated to storm water collection, treatment
and disposal.
3. Without specific proposals including accurate details of the
proposed bridge replacement structures and associated impacts, comments
included herein are general in nature and give no assurance of the
ability to permit any bridge replacement proposal in these locations.
Specific comments below are based on the assumption that the bridge
replacements would be of the same general width, length and on the
current alignment with no on site detour. Bridge replacements that vary
from this would usually cause greater environmental impacts and require
additional coordination with the resource agencies.
4. Any structure required to be built in wetlands or over the water
to facilitate the construction of the bridge replacement or a detour
around construction should be a temporary bridge.
Specific comments on the above referenced projects would include:
1. B-3611 in Beaufort County - RED LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include CW, CS, PTW, and PTS. The potential for
significant environmental impacts exists. Any project in this area will
require a high level of coordination with all resource agencies. The
existing bridge and causeway impacted the AEC's significantly and the
potential for mitigation involving restoration and enhancement credits
is great. ( including the abandoned roadbed to the west of the existing
road)
2. B-4024 in Beaufort County - GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. This project has the potential for
minimal impacts.
3. B-4026 in Bertie County - DCM has no jurisdiction
9.B-4031 in Brunswick County -'RED LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
1 of 2 5/30/02 11:33 AM

-., ~S " ~/~ /~"
~.
~.
,~.o,_
..;
~S`~'~ j
"~ a,..
~,,,.
.~
. ~ North Carolina Wilcllife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
TO
William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co 'na r _
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 22, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements:
Beaufort County -Bridge No. 77, NC 99, Pantego Creek, B-3611
Beaufort County -Bridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024
Bertie County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026
Brunswick County -Bridge No.' 72, NC 179, Jinnys Branch, B-4031
Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065
Craven County -Bridge No. 10, SR 1111, Brices Creek, B-4086
Cumberland County -Bridge No. 85, I-95 Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
Durham County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1616, Mountain Creek, B-4110
Edgecombe County -Bridge No. 19, SR 1135, Cokey Swamp, B-4111
Franklin County -Bridge No. 15, SR 1.106, Little River, B-4113
Granville County -Bridge No. 84, SR 1141, Tar River, B-4124
Greene County -Bridge No. 46; SR 1091, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4125
Greene/Lenoir Cos. -Bridge No. 49, SR 1434, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4126
Greene County -Bridge No. 43, SR 1438, Rainbow Creek, B-4127
Halifax County- Bridge No. 11, SR 1001, Jacket Swamp; B-4133
Harnett County -Bridge No. 35, NC 42, Norfolk and Southern Railway, B-4.137
Hertford County -Bridge No. 67, SR 1118, Ahoskie Creek, .B-4150
Hyde County -Bridge No. 108, SR 1340, Old State Canal, B-4154
Jones County -Bridge No. 7, SR 1129, Big Chinquapin Branch, B-4169
Lee County -Bridge No. 4, SR 1423, Gum Fork, B-4171
.Martin County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1417, Conoho Creek, B-4187
Nash County -Bridge No. 56, SR 1544, Taz River, B-4211
Onslow County - Bndge No. 24, US 17, New River, B-4214
Onslow County -Bridge No. 19, NC 210, Stones Creek,
Pamlico County -Bridge No. 65, SR 1304, UT to Neuse River, B-4219
Pamlico County -Bridge No. 4, SR 1344, South Prong Bay River, B-4221
Perquimans County -Bridge No. 69, SR 1222, Mill Creek, B-4227
Pitt County -Bridge No. 98, SR 1407, Conetoe Creek, B-4234
Pitt County -Bridge No: 118, SR 1538, Grindle Creek; B-4235
Randolph County -Bridge No. 34, SR 1304, Second Creek, B-4242
Mailing Address: Division of Inlan~{ Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Cenrer - Kalei~h,1~IC 27699-172
Telephone: (9 I ~)) T 3-3633 exc. 2S I • Fzx: 0119; 71 ~-76;3

,. • ~~
" ;ridge Memo 3
May 22, 2002
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to muumize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This maybe accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silted barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity_
I

• ,ridge Memo s _ May 22, 2002
6. Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to the Cape Fear
Shiner, NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting
to discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Standard
recommendations apply.
7. Craven County - Bridge No. 10, SR 1111, Brices Creek, B-4086
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is also the potential for
impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts
to these wetlands. Other standard recommendations apply.
8. Cumberland County -Bridge No. 85, I-95 Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. Other standard recommendations apply.
9. Durham County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1616, Mountain Creek, B-4110
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the DWQ water quality classification, we recommend High
Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used. Other standard
recommendations apply.
10. Edgecombe County -Bridge No. 19, SR 1135, Cokey Swamp, B-4111
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Standard recommendations
apply. -
11. Franklin County -Bridge No. 15, SR 1106, Little River, B-4113
RED LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should
closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines-for Anadromous Fish Passage". This
includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to .June 15.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project. Other
standard recommendations apply.
12. Granville County =Bridge No. 84, SR 1141, Tar River, B-4124
RED LIGHT. The Tar River supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicuuty. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project. Other
standard recommendations apply.

.r~
Bridge Merno
May 22, 2002
YELLOW LIGHT. The Tar River supports a good fishery for sunfish; therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels, NCDOT should
contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to discuss special
measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard recommendations apply.
24. Onslow County -Bridge No. 24, US 17, New River, B-4214
YELLOW LIGHT. The New River is designated as a Primary Nursery Area on the
downstream side of the existing US 17 bridge. Due to the potential for adult and larval
stages of anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage'.'. This includes a moratorium on
work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to September 30. Other standard
recommendations apply.
25. Onslow County -Bridge No. 19, NC 210, Stones Creelc~ .,,
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium.on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is also the potential for
impacts to high quality wetlands at this site. NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts
to these wetlands. Other standard comments apply.
26. Pamlico County -Bridge No. 65, SR 1304; UT to Neuse River, B-4219
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality coastal wetlands at
this location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts to these
resources. Other standard continents apply.
27. Pamlico County- Bridge No. 4, SR 1344, South Prong Bay River, B-4221
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
aPP1Y•
28. Pender County -Bridge No. 21, NC 210, NE Cape Fear River
RED LIGHT. There are records of the federally listed Shortnose sturgeon in the NE
Cape Fear in the project area.. Due to the.potential for anadromous fish and Shortnose
sturgeon at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes a moratorium on work within
jurisdictional waters from February 1 to June 15. Biologists indicate that a bridge is
preferred. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
apply.
29. Perquimans County -Bridge No. 69, SR 1222, UT to Mill Creek, B-4227
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or muumize impacts to these wetlands. Other standard comments
apply.
30. Pitt County -Bridge No. 98, SR 1407, Conetoe Creek, B-4234
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
31. Pitt County -Bridge No. 118,'SR 1538, Grindle Creek, B-4235

edge Memo
May 22, 2002
39. Washington County -Bridge No. 29, SR 1163, Maul Creek, B-4314
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
40. Wilson County -Bridge No. 52, SR 1131, Turkey Creek, B-4327
RED LIGHT. Turkey Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicinity. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project. Other
standard recommendations apply.
41. Wilson County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1634, Great Swamp, B- 4328
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard
recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
Lf you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
cc: USFWS, Raleigh

~ ~~~ ~ o
~ -
rn .fl 2- 33
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ~~°
State Historic Preservation Office c <`•` `~ ~'~`r;'¢ °F ~
yAC'„ '4tAYS SQ'•
David L. S. Brook, Administrator ~~~~U~~,_ ~~,~~~ 0~
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Q~c~`l~q
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, D~
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 20, 2002 f ~j~~~~~~~
MEMORANDUM ~A~ ~ 7 ~~0~ I
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch -------____ __ _
NCDOT Division of Highways w -
-,,
FROM: David Brook ~~,i~1.,_,~..c-+1~_,~~-..
I`
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 21 over the North East Cape Fear River on NC 210, B=4223
Pender County, ER02-8581
Thank you for your letter of October 24, 2002, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or architectural
~ortance within the general area of this project:
Bridge No. 21
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any structures over
fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for conclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations fot 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, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning
this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:doc
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fsx
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

' 1'17 1 _ i/ Gk~b.S 13 ~ 4G
~.
~NT~O
~.
i - ~.. /J
IYI. LAJ 1 F'lltH -~ ytf511y1ti
~pn~er ~ount~
CUCJN fY MANAGER'S OFFICE
807 S. WALKER STREET
POST OFFICE EQX S
BURGAW, NORTH CAROLINA 28425
TELEPHONE [phone]b FAX [phone]
May S, 2003
Mr, tire~vry J. Thorpe, Fh.D.
Eavironrnental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
IS48 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
NU. b2'7 L702
~~,CElVFO
MAY j ~ 2nn;
Fur'+~wi+r~
RE: Resolution in Sr~pport of Reque9ting N.C.17D~ to Build a Temporary Bridge over the
Northeast Cape Fear River on N.C. Hwy 210, or Place the New Bridge beside the
Existing One
Dear Mx. Thorpe:
Attached is a copy of the resolution unanimously approved by the Pendsr County Board
of Commissioners on May 5, 2003, with respect to the above-referenced subject.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Respectfully,
~x~ ~ ... -
G 0_
Glenda Pridgen
Deputy Clerk to the Board
1GP
Attachment
cc: TSurman Casey

~1J/ l~ iG4~{73 13: 4ti IVI, lAJ I Y1JtH ~ yti~l'1y1t1
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
/~~~~~°vr~GCc q~

RESOLUTION: NOW T~Y7.E)F'ORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pender County
Boazd of Commissioners that
N.C. Dot consider placing a new bridge beside the existing one, ar place a
temporary bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River while the existing one is being
replaced.
AMENAMEriTTS
MOVED ~ i ~ Cn ~ ~1i
AP~ROV~
SECONDED ~ s !~ (4 n+5
NU.1~2'r D04
~ ~ '~
-,_ ..._-~-~-.--. -.: ~Q~S;- ~t~ickiaud---- -V~iHiams - ~ H~alland ~ _ __ , ... - -
- ~dow'S ~ I~ivcnbark'' ~~
~w.w~i
Dwight Strickland, Chairman
ATTEST
/U~ ~/5/03
~u~ ~. Date

PENDER COUNTY BUS 6ARA6E
995 PENDERLEAHWY
BURGAW, N.C. 28425
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
email- [e-mail]
SEC E l VF0
DATE: November 24, 2002
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D. SEC 3 P002
Environmental Management Director ~~~ ,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~ovF~ ~~ yS ,~~?
1548 Mail Service Center y~F ~FVELOQN'~5~~
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-15 ~~ titgt gNp~`(S~
l.~
FROM: Thurman Casey
Transportation Director
RE: Comments on B-4223, Pender County, Division 3, Replace Bridge #21
At present, Pender County Schools has 8 bus runs that cross Bridge #21 over the Northeast
Cape Fear River on N.C. 210. There are 4 Buses that transport students to Trask High
School on N.C. 210 in Rocky Point, 3 buses that transport students to Cape Fear Middle
SchooUCape Fear Elementary and Rocky Point Primary in Rocky Point and one bus from
Topsail High School that travels to Burgaw to Pender Learning Center. A mechanics truck
and a fuel truck also travel to Hampstead to do inspections daily on 16 buses and fuel these
buses.
If other routes are used for these vehicles, it will add approximately 250 miles @ $1.66 per
mile per day or $415.00 per day to an already strained transportation budget. In addition,
the ridership time for the students will increase greatly. Pender County is a rural county
and these students are already boarding the bus at 6:00 A.M. to arrive at school by 7:30
A.M. Students are currently dismissed at 3:00 P.M. and arrive home at 4:30 P.M.,,which
makes a 10 '/Z hour day. Adding additional riding time could affect student performance in
the classroom.
In light of all of this information, please consider placing a new bridge beside the existing
bridge or place a temporary bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to have input concerning the impact that this
proposed project would have on the Pender County Schools Transportation Department
and the students that ride our buses.
cc: Dr. Marc Sosne
Superintendent
Pender County Schools

Other problems I know would occur are those of law enforcement response, bus
routes, and hurricane evacuation. I know this because we lost the use of NC
Hwy 210 at the bridge during Hurricane Floyd because of heavy flooding. Which
leads me into a question: Can the east side of approach to the bridge be
elevated so flooding will not cause the closure of NC Hwy 210 at the N.E. Cape
Fear River in the future? Two bridges were replaced on Hwy 210 between
Rocky Point and Hampstead over the past several years but neither one of them
was elevated. As a result, every large flood event causes water to come across
in those areas (Merricks Creek and Harrisons Creek) and we loose the use of the
North Carolina Highway. It would be prudent I think to raise Hwy 210 near the
River several feet so we will not have this problem, in this area again.
Again thank you for requesting input and if you have any questions, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
~_~.
Carson H. Smith Jr.,
Coordinator
CHS

Na i- is
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERM)NATION
I~987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjectlSite: ~ ~ y ~ ~ 3 , .
ApplicanifOwner: ;'L'~ v c7-
Investigator: ~ :j L
Do Noemai Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No
is the site signifcantiy disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye o
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Ili needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data IDescnbe in Remarks).
is -Stream. lake or Tide Gauge
;~ _AerialPhotographs
~-Other
V Tro Recorded Data Available
Field ODsenations:
Depth of Surface Water:
(in. )
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (n.)
Depth to Saturated So;l;
lin,)
Date: ~ o? ~ ~/
County: ~~~,
Stale: 1V ~
Community iD: -Skxatp ~r7°sf
Transeci ID: ~-/a ~~
Plot iD: t,~,E.~~
Wetland Hydrology Indcators:
Primary indicators:
_ Inundated
_/Saturated in Upper 72 Inches
/ Water Marks
Drih lines
Sediment Deposits
i/Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Seconda.y indicators i2 or more required):
Ox;d~ted Aoot Channels in Uppc. t2 Inches
_/Water-Stained leaves
-Local So:i Survey pata
FAC Neuuat Test
-Other IEapla;n in Remarks)
Rcmorks:

1-1-3 1-IS
DATA FORM
ROUTfNE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(7987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ~ - t ~ ~-J _ S~~ yf e/
Date: /
Applicant/Owner: 11C (~ G7"
County: ~,I
Investigator: x.51
State: ~.1 L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly dsturbed (A Ical Situation ? ~ No Community ID: ,~'
tYP ) Ye ~o Transect 1D: r .S~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes{NO1 Plot ID:
Ilf needed, ex'lain on reverse ~~
V EG ETATI O N
Dominant Plant Sor-ties Sttattmt
t-~9cE-c r-t~loru.w~ .~_
?- /~11 u t~.~t u.a :1 ~ s roe I T
3- Lit r s~l~ i r\a.4i C Ei ut,;~;: I-f
4_
5_
6.
7_
e_
Indicator
~Ac
Ff}L
~ ~ GlJ
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL_ FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks: ~.fnl~ Ilo(~YtC' GLtOy~ r' I V~-• ~-.
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data IDescnbe ;n Remarks):
). _SUeam. Lake or Tide 6avge
y';` -Aerial Photographs
Other
_'~No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations
Depot of Surface Water: -.
lin. )
Depth to Frce Water ;n Pit•
• rn. )
Depth to Saturated Soil- 7 ~ t7`•
- (;n. )
Remarks: ^ r ~v~Gld
A D ~ ~ I If~U i Cv_~Or'"s
Dominant Plant S cries Sna~tttm
lr? dreat or
9.
t o_
7 1_
t Z_
t3_
14~
15.
16_
1r7~~o
Wetland Hydrology I*rd;cators:
Primary Indicators:
-Inundated
-Saturated ;n Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drih l;ncs
Sediment Deposits
Dra;nage Pancrns in Wetlands
Seconda.y Indicators t2 or more requ;redl:
_O><idi7ed Root Channels in VPPer l2 Inches
Water-Stained leaves
-local So;l Survey Data
FAC Nevual Test
-Other (Ea plain in Remarks)

1
.,
Wetland Rating Wori;sheet
i r,
`Project name !/i'i~ s;cn 3 - a `/~~ Nearest road .N ~ a l~
County l~~~der Name of Evaluator ~5.~ Date ~-a 8'-~j
_~
Wetland location
-~ _ on pond or lake
:~on perennial stream
_ on interuuttant stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Adjscent land use (within 1Cl mile upstream)
natural vegetation ~~~
. agriculture /~
suburban/urban ~D
.~
Soil Series ~Icrrcn ~ N1ury; t le rit~-k
'~ /predominantly organic-humus,
muck, or peat
. _ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
~ _ predominantly sandy
H_vdrolic Factors
steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
} wetland width >/= 50 feet
Dominant Vegetation

( (J~ /
(3)~i>~tR~L~s Iaur~~~~~,
Flooding and Wetness
~semiperminantly to perminantly flooded or
innundated
_ seasonally flooded or innundated
_ intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetlaad Type (select one)
i ~ _ Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
/Swamp forest _ Boglfen
_ Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
'ate rating rystem cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage ~ ~ * 4 = 2D
Bank/Shoreline stabilization ~ * 4 = ~G: a Total score
Pollutant removal ~_ * 5 = o~D 7 `d
Wildlife habitat _~_ * 2 = `d
Aquatic life value ~! * 4 = ( ~
RecreatiorJLducation ~' * 1 = ~
'add 1 point iCin sensitive watershed and >10"/o nonpoint disturhance within IR mile upstrLam

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fie Id 4 t3 ice
Post Qtliee Box 337?6
Raleigh, ~lorth Carolina 2'7fr36-372b
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina
waters
The West Indian manatee (T!'ICheChUS 111a11atUS), 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 shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down
if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the vessel or operating equipment. A collision
with and/or injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (919-856-4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252.448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and/or injuries 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

919/856-4520
Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.
~---
---_._~=

Ilustration 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.

i
Holly SheNer
Gome land

i
(NOT TO SCJLL~
~~~~~~~~
1~J1~~~
~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 33567.1.1 (B-223)
BRIDGE N0.21 OVER
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON NC 210
SHEET ~ OF
~ % 22 ,d 05

~ •
~~+...+s..r - -
-_ ((//, J
,,~ l~ ~.-,-~F
rf ~
~.' ;~
-;~,:~
:~ ,~.
~;
,~;~...
'~-~ .
i
. ~.,-' ~ ~
~ 4~ i
..
A '~a
r~: ~ ; ~~°
~' ~•.• • 1~ , Y
-.% . • ~ .a

R:
T.
',,, .sue- -- 1i~44 • ~ - ~~ . ~ ~ ~: - y', p~ - - - ~ ' j~ T „ i ~ ! `P'~ ~ ~ '
i v - . ., ~ .~ ~ ,
,, - ~ 1 \ ~ / ,~ Ty .~ -- `~ .[{rho .. ~ w 'T ' yr ti1 ~ l s ~,
~`• ~ - ti~ !~, t5j~ ~ r air : a - t~ l
.,t. i .~' ~~~-. -,t _ ~:/'_ lam` -~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~...~ ~. ~, r~t i'
t• ~, t - + i F, ~ ` •r'-~. _..-- ., ..~~~ ~ •,r~ z. ~.!C,,'st ',try ~~ti
.s'w~ l.. i''l ~~1 \ 1---t+P ~ \\ ~'. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~t r l ~. T ~4 `l J~
'. ~ ~ ` h ~. f ~ \ ~ Y a t gyp, `11~~ /j"'..:
~~1J'''~ I¶'"~'' V Imo' V ~
`lJ SLY ® ~L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PENDER COUNTY
®~ ® ~ ~ ~ PROJECT: 33567.1.1 (B-223)
BRIDGE N0.21 OVER
SCr~1LE: 1" • 1500' NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON NC 210
SHEET ~ OF ~}~'J ~.C 22 ®OS

REFERENCE NO.
1
2
~~®~~~ 11 11 ®V'V' ~1Le~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES
Cason Trask
River Rock Farms, LLC
3 E. Allen James
4 Hnll Family ProperEies of
WilmingEon, LLC
5 Randall M. BosEic
6 Wesley Williams
7 HuberE Harrell
8 Larry Moore
9 Lisa Mae HaEcb
10 KaErinn L. Robinson
ADDRESSES
2511 S. CanEerbury Rond
WilmingEon, NC 28403
2511 S. CanEerbury Road
WilmingEon, NC 28403
1802 FawncresE CE.
Vienna, VA 22182
718 MarkeE SEreeE
WilmingEon, NC 28401
10604 NC Hwy 210
Rocky PoinE, NC 28457
8635 TuEEIe Road
Springfield, VA 22152
P.®. Bo: 93
Burgaw, NC 28425
10567 NC Hwy 210
Rocky PoinE, NC 28457
New York, NY 10026
P.®. Boa 276
Rocky PoinE, NC 28457
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
FENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 33567.1.1 (B-4223)
BRIDGE N0.21 OVER
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON NC 210
SHEET ®F 1~? 4~22.0OS

D
Z
m
o
D
m
D

O
TT

m
D
Z
0
.Z1
m

O

D
-~
O
Z
u
O
O
O
D
n
m

m
x

z
0
~ E
W ro
d
.~ ~ ~ <

' W ~
~ ° m
o
~

~
O ~ o
x -~
~
~ ~ ~
a ro

.p N
W ~ 7J
.~
~
W _
N
o O
z
0

O z cn
D ~ ~ m
r

w
+ _
TI ~
cn
N
~
~~
1
.
w
r ~ O
O ~
t
~
a ~
~
~ ~
o_
~ ~
,N,~
(p N .-.
~ C

(~/1
O n
~ C
~. ? ~ N
O
n o
m o
~ m
o ° ~ ?t 3
N N ~
f] N N
O ° "a~ ~

o Q m T ~
°
0 °° n v -_ 3

~
° ° Va~
° ~
m m
--~

°
o m
~ ~
Z
0
° o
o m -- ~ <
n v ~ ~

~
o ° ~
~'
~ D ~

o

o

~ nm
~ n

~
r
D

Z
° o ~`~° ~ v

°
° v,
o ~
m
n
m n m
~
3
° ° `~ n
~ c~ m ~ -~
w cwn ~m ~,'.3 3
o ° v o. ~ D
y

° ° ~ ~
~
~
~
C
O ~ <
~
<
n n G
a .A ~
~ D

°
0
3 ~
~~ cn
C -C
o
~ ~ n
m
~ _
~ ~
~ ~ x --I
° " ~ ~ > >
m co
m ~ ~
,
_
X
~ ~ ~

°
° ~
3w~~ n
-~
o ~ ~ ~ ~~ (n
~ m ~
0 (~ Z
O
O ~ ~ ~
.~` pl (D C
O v~ ~ N
~ 3 -