20060364 Ver 1_Application_20060308 (2)

i
March 2, 2006
D~
~~ M
Mq OV
.~ ~
~~4 ~Fyh'. ~ ZQ V
~~SAiy~ ~'kIF~, ~6'
Sr~~ qU~ B
LYNDO TIPPETT '"~
SECRETARY
N. C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
2877 Highway 70 " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
Beaufort, NC 28516 ~ 6
ATTENTION: Mr. Bill Arrington
DOT Project Coordinator
Dear Mr. Arrington:
SUBJECT: Application for CAMA Major Development Permit for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 21 over Northeast Cape Fear River on NC 210 in
Pender County, Division 3. Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0210(4), State Project
No. 8.1271001; TIP No. B-4223, WBS No. 33567.1.1.
Please find enclosed the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, permit drawings, onsite
mitigation plan, design plan sheets, MP1 and MPS forms, and a copies of postal
notifications for Adjacent Riparian Property Owners. 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.
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
~ .~
/-~~~.
~...:4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'TIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW,ncdot.ori;
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27699

1 ~
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.
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 bridge 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 ing 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 Log erhead 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 Rough leaved loosestrife No E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered.
"T" denotes Threatened.
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened- Similar Appearance.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
CAMA: NCDOT requests that .the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit.
Section 401 and 404: In a separate application, we aze also requesting issuance of a
United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 & 33 and
Section 401 Water Quality Certifications 3403 and 3366 from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.

s ~
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Mr. Brett Feulner at [phone].
Sincerely,
(~~
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
~ Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/ attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
Mr. Bill Arrington, NCDCM Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Allen Pope, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Elmo Vance, PDEA
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Prog. and TIP
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE-Wilmington

t Form DC~f-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name NC Department of Transportation
Address 1548 Mail Service Center
City Raleigh State N.C.
Zip 27699 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
b. City, town, community or landmark
Rocky Point
c. Street address or secondary road number
NC 210
d. Is proposed work within. city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yes X No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) Northeast Cape Fear River
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Name a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Address Bridge Construction -Replace existing
bridge to the south. Construction of work
City State bridge, excavation and filling activities
Zip Day Phone
Fax b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New
c. Project name (if any) B-4223
c. Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Public
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Pender
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Bridge # 21 needs to be
replaced due to deterioration of the existine
structure (16.5/100 sufficiency rating). Typical
roadway construction methods and techniques.
Revised 03/95

~ Form DC1vI-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract 3,200 feet long and between 100
and 200 feet wide
b. Size of individual lot(s) Approximately 11 acres
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL approximately 10 feet above MSL to MSL
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Dorovan muck, Murville muck, Inversheil-Pender
complex and Alpine fine sand
e. Vegetation on tract Species typically found in cypress-
gum swamps and coastal plain levee forests
f. Man-made features now on tract
Existing Bridge and approaches
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
x Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
N/A
Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? x Yes No
(Anach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? NC Department of Cultural Resources
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a National
Register listed or eligible property?
Yes X No
1. Are there wetlands on the site? X Yes _ No
Coastal (marsh) Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? Yes
(Attach documentation, if available)
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
None
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial/commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.) Surface Runoff
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
NA
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under. which the applicant claims
title to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to
the

~ Form DC~.~I-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR) numbers,
landmarks, and the like.
•A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
•A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name See permit drawings
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
• A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to .this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
'2c~D ~-
This is the 1 day of /?~~r,~ ,~9_
Print Name ~.;.~~ p 5 • ~-7"~••-•w s ~
-y-~~,~
Signature YaC"'1('' ~ ~~
Landowner Authorized Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
_
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
_
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
_
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95

~ Form DC~M-MP-S
BRIDGES AND
ERT
L
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
1. BRIDGES
a. Public X Private
b. Type of bridge (construction material)
54" Prestressed Girder Bridge
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Northeast Cape Fear River
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL MLW 20.9ft
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge 590 feet
(2) Width of existing bridge 24 feet
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge 24 feet
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) All of the existing
bridge will be replaced
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
g. Length of proposed bridge 920 feet
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
13 feet minimum
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes X No
If yes, explain
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
26 feet
Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? Yes X No
If yes, explain
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? X Yes No
If yes, explain Additional Roadway Fill for shoulder
improvements. NCDOT will be opening an area
between wetlands
n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
concerning their approval?
x Yes No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
h. Width of proposed bridge 33 feet
Revised 03/95

'~ Form DCfi~I-MP-S
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
b. Number of culverts proposed
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge
(3) Navigation clearance
underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
f. Length of proposed culvert
g. Width of proposed culvert
h. Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain
Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes No
If yes, explain
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Depth of area to be excavated
(4) Amount of material to be excavated
yards
b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
No Coastal Wetlands No SAVs No Other
Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 375 feet
(2) Width of area to be excavated 110 feet
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 26,000 C.F.
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
An upland area to be determined by the
contractor and approved by NCDOT
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
Unknown at this point
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes X No
(Area to be determined by Contractor.)
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future
maintenance? Yes x No
(5) Dces the disposal area include any coastal
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands?
Yes x No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above.
in cubic
Revised 03/95

~ Form DC~I-MP-S
(6) Dces the disposal area include any area below
the MHW or NWL? Yes x No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2
above.
Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed below
MHW or NWL? Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled
(2) Width of area to be filled
(3) Purpose of fill
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands
(1) Length of area to be filled 530 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled 55 feet
(3) Purpose of fill Proposed roadway shoulder
improvements
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material.
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? X Yes No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled As per plans
(2) Width of area to be filled As per plans
(3) Purpose of fill Proposed roadway shoulder
improvements
4. GENERAI.
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Fill and excavation required
for nrovosed roadway shoulder improvements will
require onsite mitigation
b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
any existing utility lines? X Yes _ No
If yes, explain in detail Four County EMC and
BellSouth lines will be moved as part of this project.
Will the proposed project require the construction of
any temporary detour structures?
Yes X No
If yes, explain in detail
d. Will the proposed project require any work
channels? Yes X No
If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? NCDOT Best Management
Practices: silt fence, type B silt basins, etc.
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhce or hydraulic
dredge)? Heavy highway construction equipment
g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
to project site? Yes X No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts.
h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any shoreline stabilization?
x Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Riprap at end bents
NC-~T
Applicant or Project Name
~~~
Sigma ~e
3~~~~
Date
Revised 03/95

M
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 .approximately. 1.100 feet .west. of Bridge .Na..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 sryraciflua).
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.

v s
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_.~ 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.

Cgmpiete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if pesMcted Delivery is desired.
Print your name and addres§ on the reverse
so that we can return the ca[d to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space pem-its.
Article Addressed to:
Wesley Williams
3635 Tuttle Road
Springfield, VA 22152
A. S ~ '.,` ~ complete items 1, ~, and 3: Also complete
d Agent Item 4 ff i~estrictecl beHvery. Is desired.
X ^ Addressee ~ F'iint your nah7e and addrr3ss on the reverse
B. Received by Printed Vame) C. ats '` so that we can return the card to you...
'r ~I ^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
~~ ( ~ ~~ ~ or on the front ff space permits.
D. Is delivery dress different fiom kern 1? Yea ~~
ff YES, enter delvey address below: ^ No l~; 1. Article-Addressed to:
i -___ _ - •- -- --- - -
3. Service Type
~Certlffed Mail ^ Express Mall
egistered ^ Return Receipt for Merchandise
^ Insured Mail ^ G.O.b.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra fee) ^ Yes.
Randall M. Bostic
10604 NC Hwy 210
Rocky Point, NC 28457
igriature
"~,
eceive~py ( , tedName)
of Delivery
o. is delivery address different from Item t r ^ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below~o
.~
3. Service Type
J~ertifled Mail ^ Express Mall
^ Registered ^ Return Receipt for Merchandise
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D.
9. nas[nc[eo venvery r roue rae/
7003 311!1 aoaa 6901 6564
Article Number 7 ~ ~ 3 3113 0 0 D 0 6 9 01 6 5 5 7 2. Article Number
(Transfer from service /shag C (Transfer frbrri.serv/ce Isb~ `a-
3Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-o2-td-tsao i~ PS Form 3811, February 2004
Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the mail
8l),
or on the front if space permits. ~''
Article Addressed to: 4 ~
~~~ S"~
~.~
C
by
C. Date of Delivery
Is~livery address different from item 1? ^ Yes
If S, enter delivery address below: ^ No
Domestic Return Receipt
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
^ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the cans to you.
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
^ Yes
A. Sign re~
X
702595-02-M-754
^ Agent
^ Addresse
B. Re~eived l~ (Prin~ C. Date of Deliver
D. Is delivery address ~(fferent from Rem 1 ? ^ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ^ No
E. Allen James 5 Hall Family Properties of Wilmington, LLC
1802 Fa.wncrest Ct.

Vienna, VA 22182
3. Se ice Type
~ertified Mail ^ Express Mail 718 Market Street

Wilmington, NC 28401 3. Service Type

~certifled Mail ^ Express Mail
'^ egistered ^ Return Receipt for Merchandise Registered ^ Return Receipt for Merchandis
^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D. ^ Insured Mall ^ C.O.D.
4. Restricted DPu~~=^-' '~~-'- ~ ^ Yes
6519
-~-- 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ^ Yes
- - -
Article Number aoaa 691
70p3 311 2. Article Number 7~~3 3110 sass 691 6465
(fransfer from service label) (Transfer from servlce /abed
3 Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02-M-1035 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt to2sss-ox-M-ts

~.f~

~~
-
~ ' A
~ %I.

n>
I
1
~~
1636 v r
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
-~~ s~
~~ ~

~ p ---`.
~.
`~, ~,,~-
.~ ~f
•g1516 ~ ~
1519 ~~C ~ ~
B '
,~. jl
r ' ~
~ ~~
- ~
1518
1
s
(NOT TO SGLE)
A ~I ~~®~
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 ~~j ~.~ 22.E OS
NOF?TH CARCLIN

K
SITE 1
BEGIN
PROJECT
~a
~~
o~
z
-~.~
~\
~~.
END
PROJECT
ro ao
~_
NC 210
~~ ~" ~
11 ° TO US 17
~ -DRIVE
g m
~W
~~~~ ~~~
`lJ ~®~
DIVISION OF .HIGHWAYS
PENDER COUNTY
PROJECT: 33567.1.1 (B-,223)
BRIDGE N0.21 OVER
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON NC 210
~l ..C~
SHEET ` OF ~= ~ ~,122.~05

~ • ' f
i; `.-fir. ! - 1.1y.. _,.{ I _
~-
,, t i ~ •
J~~~ _. ~1 `S'7 '.mac .S^ 'r :c -sry/(•+~ - ~r
~ +,, ' J ~~'",,,,__ Ra.v~ cc's ~~ i ^` • C r ly ~ ./ r jt JT it ,.r,
tip • '~, ~ ~. ~' ~~ ) ~Zt~ ~~~i~~Y~ '°q°ii - i _ ~ ~ -. ~. ~ i.
;`,~ f ~ i r ~ ~ ..
.~~•~ 4 ~ift~''{~SA1c R 1V Jr~ • '
~~, ~r f .~ .(' .. .,
• ,.,,'G• ~ ~~
...r. •,y ~.....~
i
~, s
/~ ~.:Iy 1 f~g~~ e h 7jY
{~~
*~t~ :-~ ~1 si, ' ~ J ; ~ 1, ~ ".t i
F 4
N •f 4
a~~. 1 ~ ~3~ ~~ ~,~ ` \ +''~.w f, -'~ ~~'=fir- ~_' ~ - _ ~~.
C t~r~'' a ~°.' ~ ! ~ i r ,~ ~ fi.n ~ i-.~ t ,/ ~iY l'r"f- . /
A r ~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PENDER COUNTY
®~ ® ~ ~ ~ PROJECT: 33567.1.1 (B-223)
BRIDGE N0.21 OVER
SCALE: 1" • 1b00' NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON NC 210
SHEET ~j OF`~.'~ ~ .~ 22 / OS

r
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE N®. NAMES
ADDRESSES
2511 S. CanEerbury Road
1 Cason Trask WilmingEon, NC 28403
2511 S. CanEerbury Road
2 River Rock Farms, LLC WilmingEon, NC 28403
3 E. Allen James 1802 FawncresE CE.
Vienna, VA 22182
Hal1 Family FDroperEies of 718 MarkeE SEreeE
~ WilmingEon, LLC WilmingEon, NC 28401
10604 NC Hwy 210
5 Randall M. BosEic Rocky PoinE, NC 28457
8635 TuEEIe Road
6 Wesley Williams Springfield, VA 22152
P•O. Boz 93
7 HuberE Harrell aw
NC 28425
Bor
,
g
8 Larry Moore 10567 NC Hwy 210
Rocky PoinE, NC 28457
9 Lisa Mae HaEch New York, NY 10026
P•®• Boa 276
10 K6Erlnl L. Robinson Rocky 1DoinE, NC 28457

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac an
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft
Natural
Stream
Design
ft
1 33+52 -L- +/- 5 90',1 70',4 100' 0.520 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.350 0.014 0.008 0 0 0
54" Prestressed Girder

TOTALS: 0.520 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.350 0.014 0.008 0.0 0.0 0.0
AREA OF WETLAND RESTORATION = 0.956 ACRES
Revised 3!31/05

t ~
~~
`O
0
~
0
~~
---~_
Mi zV g,BS. ~-~~ ~~__
N ~~
Z ---_- --*-__- ~ y> $4
- l~ ,.. (`I, n ~~~_ _IRaTUR: 60 -__~~~-__-_-_-AETA-IN'.c.'Cfl
O
°e
DETAIL A
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
1 xor to $cpiel
Front
~ Dltcn
Npturd ~ pt SiOT $41pe
Vouna :/ D fY0
Min. D = I' Ft,
-L- S1A IRtSO TO f1+50 RT
L m IR.sD To Ta+ao Lr
DETAIL B
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
I xet to $cael
Front
Crouno y p p'wCigf Slope
Ia Min. D = I' Fi.
B = 2' Ft,
~- STA r+SD TO ZD+DO RE
X50.00 SPECIAL DISCN
~/ 60'00 SEE DETAIL A
.E E1-~E
_ - _ - - - - _ _ - pEAWVE i5'CDx[
~- / -
ti
NO IMPACTS wEAE
SHOWN ON THIS SHEET
.ODDS
CASON L. TRASH
O -~
RIPER ROCK FARM LLC
N
DETAIL C
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
(Nat to $cgel
Front
6arou o •/ D f`ptieC $~bpe
IJ Min.D = I' Ft.
B=3' Ft.
~ SFA Z7+00 TO TI+50 RT
TO FASTING
4!
C
fJ
N~
I - `~Q
-~- Cw+
' = Q.
~N
ix•2 ~Q
~ f-
v ~ =ln
UI
F- J
_ cE I

p Sr uTL UatE'vZ• .~
r
E
~

N
F
NC£ ~
2
q 0
O'Iif E
E
D
f
~ ~ p
k~
.
0
C' 19+75 .
.
s ~
a
~ ~ 6FD 1 .r' ' 'M
sPEau pra ({ t
?
SEE DEUII B } y~
~,~ ~

I"

~ OxC { tt ro~ Rlr Ru
f~'i <~ FSE.3 TONS
G rrt 5 ~ EST. iD SY ff
`PaG FRDfANE TAxK 4~ i
t~~J ~~ '
X0005
ti
~~ ~ F
caxc r pD F~ 4~ 5
.
I
i) tf y

// XO
II ~

I I
II
II
II ~.
r,

_,
~I
4
15
I~

~MULKEY
„, ae..~~.....
BRIDGE 21~ONNN~ 2C0
OVER NORTHEAST
CAPE~~5RIVER
E~1~LI~~
q
a~
P0.0kCT 0.EFERENCE N0. SIffET N0.
8-4223 4
RAV SHEET N0.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PUNS
W NOT VEE CONSTXVlTON
O
E. ALLEN JAMES. ETUX
JULIAN TRALEY JAMES, ETNR
.Dens
., ,R~ ~
`- 'i. .'.1 ~~
(-__ J
~~
SE011 ORCM
Sff DETAIL C
.~~~~
`\~
~~
t~
~~~
a~2i
F(1R -1 - PPOFUF SFF SHFFT 7

~ ~

~ ~
0

~_ 6 PRO1Ea AEFEABICE N0. Sl~T N0.
Ec = IIbB' -BL- 7
' -BL- 8
' ~'-MLJLKEY
8-4223
7
BREBAR WITH CAP fL = 1127
' EL = 928
8 R EB AR W (TN CAP 8 REBAR WITH CAP Rw SNEET No.
aaowAr DESIGN NroEwua
ENG1N®I ENGINEER
L
~
~

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
Ro xar uNl mNSrRUCnox

20
20

10
10

0
0

-10
-10

-20
-20
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-BL- 9
EC = II.R' BM-I EL = 754
N=254216 E=2950954 -BL- b
El =2299'
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA -BL- !I
'
8'REBAR WlIN CAP -BL- STA29+981A0135'LT BREBAR WR'N CAP BDX GIRDER BRIDGE EL = 226J
8'REBAR WR'H CAP
-L- STA 26+57/2 !87.4082' CT
RaLR0A0 SPIKE SET IN BASE DESIGN DISCHARGE = 24,0 Cf5
OF 18 OAK TREE. I DESIGN fRE00ENCY = 50 YRS
_
_
L DESIGN NW ELEVATION = 5.4 FT
1(A7 YEM DISCHARGE =27,000 Cf5
1(L7 YEAR FAY ELEVATION = 65 FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = J2A5 CfS
A'ER70PPING FREODENCY =200+/-YRS
A'ERiOPPING ELEVATION - 81 fT

DATE OF SOMEY = 8/31/04
WS.ELEVATION
AT DATE OF SURVEY ° 1/ ~
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

k j

L ''"" P0.OJEC7 AEFEAENO: NO. SHEET N0.
= eza
EB -ec- U Bu-2 EL = T26' t MULKEY B-4223 8
8'REBAR WITH CAP EL = 6B2
e'REBAR WIfH CM N=255286 E=2352658
-BL- STA.4515~ 295'LT RAY SI~i No.
-L- STA 46+g3)/ 2682a LT ROADWAY DESIGN HY ORAWCS
RArlfiOAD SPIKE SET IN BASF ENGINEER E NGINEER
-L OF t5' GUM TREE.
-

PRELIMIN. RY PLANS
W NO'f VSE PO CONSTRVCYIDN

20
20

10
10

O
0

-10
-10

-20
-zo

-30
-30
39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

DRIVE
-
-

2
to
to

0
0

lo
- lo
-

E

-20 -20
E

D
10
11 12 13 14

.r

r

N
H
U
O
l1
See Sl~ei 1-A For Index of SI>°e1s
>ee Freer rc ror l;orroennw>ol ~yrrrwns
.,\ r ~
G~ane lad Gnome lad
1
Q O ~ ~s tsso
PAO~I,,,E,Ctl~T ~. ~ `~
1 PeOJECf~ ^~~1~,1
,~ ~
® teas r ~~°
taw ~•
rasa ~ ~ r 'y
0 S ~~1``
O use rate ~ S
.1
wclNlrr MAP
rt+ot ro scA(s

I
a
4
0
z
r
~~A1T~ ®~ N®I$~IH ~AI$®]LINA
~IVI~I®N ®~ ~[I~H~A1~~
PENDER COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.21 ON NC 210 OVER
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE AND STRUCTURE
0
04~
~G ~
PRELIMINARY PLANS II
90 99f vee A. col+envrno9
ii ii=o
-~-MULKEY
LNOINL[R^ • 60N ^UL7ANT~
ro L9>a as 1 aT
R..u19X~ N.C. f997a
19191 961.1914
~ ~ 19191991.1919 I~Aw
W W W.MULR[YINQCOM

V
GRAPHIC SCALES
'
50 25 0 50 100
DESIGN DATA

ADT 2006 = 4,100
PROJECT LENGTH

LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4223 = 0.432 MILES Preptred In tre Of/!ce af:
.~-MULKEY
[N91N![R9 i GON9 ULTANT9
FoR rxR xoRrH CAROLINA DRPf.OF rRANSPORTArlOx HYDRAULICS ENGINEER DM510N OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ADT 2026 = 7,600
174 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 6223 = 0 sen srenuuen sracrPrc+rroxs
PLANS . TIM JORDAN, PE
~ DHV = 14 % RIGJIT OF WAY DATE: auuar a e c Pa
~
, ~ TOTAL LENGTH STATE TIP PROJECT B-4223 = 0.606 MILES PAO~cT auw+cm srcnuruAS Pg
s
~~ 50 25 50 100 D = 65 % APRIL 15, 2005
ROADWAY DESIGN
sre>E ~~ aivvcn~

~

0
PROFILE ,HORIZONTAL)
to 20 T 10 % `
V - 60 MPH
•
I~TTlNG ~~~
APRIL 18, 2006 RICK MOORE, PE
frmnwa6~,o~ ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIO
~ l0 5 o TTST 4% DUAL b%
V FUNC CLASS = NCDOT CONTACT. CATHY ROUSER
PE
P5
APPROP6D
PROFILE (VERTICAL) MAJOR RURAL COLLECTOR , sJCw,tvxs: DMS1oN ADMGNSTRA7e1R m>8

- TO US 17 I
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE PREFORMED TO THE IIMiTS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III.
rt~n rtan n9>tcT ~ 99 R®T mr~ t
~~„
~C• B-4223 1
n. N6 1•.~N1.„9 pIOV1,R1
33567.1.1 BRSTP-0210 4 P.E.
33561.2.1 BRSTP-0210 4 R.O.W., UTIL

~ ~
STATE OF NORTH C.~I3~LIN.~ L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
*S. U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.•
State line .........................................................
County Une .......................................................
Township Line ....................................................... --
City Une ............................................................. -
Resenrotion Une ................................................... _ . - . -
Property Une .........................................................
Existing Iron Pin ....:........:..................................... p
Property Comer ..................................................... -~
Property Monument ............................................... 0
Parcel/Sequence Number ~-°°-•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Existing Fence Une ............................................... _x-x_X_
P
d W
Wi
F
~~-°°••••••°•••••
•••••••• -
ropose
oven
re
ence
• •e-
P
d Ch
i
li
k F
•• •••••°••••°••°•°•-~---
ropose
a
n
n
ence s
P
d B
b
d Wi
F
•°•••°---~•• ••°••••••••••
ropose
ar
e
re
ence ~ -
Existing Wetland Boundary .................:......... - - - -~- - - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary -~•••••°~----••••••• •-•• • v
Existing High Quality Wetland Boundary ••~--°•• -~ti-
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary ~r
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary °•••°-°- ° - a
BI~LDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or U~G Tank Cap •••°°••••••••••••• 0
Sign ........................................................................ 0
well ........................................................................ o
Small Mine ............................................................. y~,
Foundation ............................................................. 0
Area Outline ........................................................ 0
Cemetery ............................................................. 0
Building ................................................................... ~-~
School ...................................................................
Church ........ ...........................................................

am .......................
.................................................
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water •••••••••••~•••••••• .............. -
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir ..................................... r----~
~'-----J
River Basin Buffsr ............................................... -eee-
Flow Arrow ..........................................................F
Disappearing Stream ..........................................>-- -
Spring ...................................................................per-~_,~-
Swamp Marsh ..................................................... ,~
Proposed Lateral, Toil, Head Ditch ••~••••••••••~~~ ~ ~
~~
False Sump .......................................................... ~
RAlLROADS.•
Standard Guage ...................................................
~ rwwsw.wrnar
0
RR Signal Milepost ................................................ ~nrrosr u
Switch .....:................................................................ O
s~vrcx
RR ,Uwndoned ........................................................_ _.,_ ~ ~.
RR Dismantled ....................................................._
RIGXT OF WAY.•
Baseline Control Point •••••-~--••••••••••°~~-°•••••••••••
Existing Right of Way Marker ........................... ~
Existing Right of Woy Line ••••••••••••••••••••••••••~ -
Proposed Right of Way line -°••••••••••••••••-•••••• -~
Proposed Right of Way line with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Concrete or Gronite Marker •'•"'•~••"•'•••"~~'
Existing Control ofAcceu ••••••••••••~•••~•••••~•••••••• - ~ ~ -
Proposed ContralofAccess ~~~~•••~~~~••~••••~••••• ••~•~~ -~-
Existing Easemeniline ............................... --E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement ~ e
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement•••••~~~ -7at:-
Proposed Permanent Droinage Eosemorrt ••••~~~~ -ppE-
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement ~~•~•~~~•~•••~ -rut-
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.•
Existing Edge of Pavement .... ........................... -----
Existing Curb ...................................................... -----
Proposed Slope Stokea Cut .............................. ---~---
Proposed Slope Stokes Fill •••°°•••-~~-~~ --~-~---•--••~ - F
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp •••••••°-•••-°°•~••••-~
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp ••--°-• cr
Existing MetalGuardroil •••••••••••••°~°•••••••••••••••••• -T--s--~
il ............................................
Pro
os
d G
d T T ,
p
e
uar
ra
Existing Cable Guiderail •••~-~°--~° ~-~-~~ ~ ~°•°•~-~ -~-~-n-
Proposed Coble Guideroil~-°~-~-~---~°°°•••••••~--°• ^
Equaility Symbol ..............................................
Povemeni Removal
I'EGETATION.•
Single Tree .......................................................... {~
Single Shrub ..........................................................
Hedge .....................................................................~.,,m,.,„,.„~,,....
Woods Une ..........................................................,~.
Orchard .................................................................. p Q Q D
Vineyord ...............................................'..................[--vr~erara
EXISTING STRUCTURES.•
MAOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert •••••••°•••••••••••••••••• ~~
Bridge Wirig Woll, Head Wall and End Wall •• ~ coxc rr
MINOR:
Head and End Wall ......................................... N.
Pipe Culvert .......................................................
---
Footbridge ........................................................... ?•---{
Droinage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB •••••••••••°•• ^c~
Paved Ditch Gunter ............... ~............................ -----
Storm Sewer Manhole .....................................
Storm Sewer ..................................................... ,
UTILITIES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole .............................•-............ ~
Proposed Power Pole .............. ........................ b
Existing Joins Use Pole ....:............................. -~-
Proposed Joint Use Pole .............................. ~-
PowerManhole ...................................................
Power line Tower ...............................................
Power Transformer .............................................. 8
U~G Power Cable Hand Hole •••-••••••••••••••• --~ -
H-Frame Pole ..................................................... e--~
Recorded USG Power Line •••••••••°••~--~-~-°-~•°•°°
Designated USG Power Line {S.U.E'
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole ............................ +
Proposed Telephone Pols •••••° ~-°~-•••--~•••~--~~~ ~ -0-
Telephone Manhole ............................................ 6
Telephone Booth ................................................ ~
Telephone Pedestal ........................................ D
Telephone Cell Tower ••- •-•• • •••°••••••••••°----° - ~
USG Telephone Cable Hand Hole ••-~-••••••••--
Recorded U•G Telephone Cabla •-°•••~-----••~•
Designated UG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.')-•• ----~----
Recorded U~G Telephone Conduit ••°••~---~~- *~
Designated U~G Telephone Conduit(S.U.E.'~- ----rc----
Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cable ~-~ -~•~°°--•••• <<~-
Designated USG Fiber Optia Cable {S.U.E.')•• - - - -~ W- - - -
~~'~ noa~ rrrrar~ wa :Her ao.
f-MULKEY 8-4223 1-B
•.,... ~, rHar ~.
RoAOw~r orswe
racireat Mrouwxs
eacn~
WATER:
Water Manhole ....................................................
Wafer Meter ......................................................... o
Water Valve .........................................................
Water Hydrant ...............................................:..... ~
Recorded USG Water line ................................. ,

9 ( ) ...............
Desi noted WG Water line S.U.E.'
_
---~----
Above Ground Water Line °•••°•••~°••••°- -•°••••••• uc r~~"
N:
N Satellite Dish ................................................. ~
N Pedestal ..:......................................................
N Tower ..............................................................
USG N Cable Hand Hole ..........................•.•..
Recorded WG N Cabls • ................................. ry

Designated UG N Cable (S.U.E")-~-•~-~••••~••-•• ----^---~
Recorded UG Fiber Optk Cable °~-~-- •°- --•°• -^~~-
Desi noted U~G Fiber 0 is Cable S.U.E' ^'^---
GAS:
Gas Valve ........................................................... ~
Gas Meter ..................
Recorded WG Gas Line ••••••••••••••°•-••°°•••••°••°
9 ( ) .................. _
Desi noted U~G Gas Line S.U.E.' ---~----
Above Ground Gas line .................................. "'c c°°
SANRARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole °~°••••••••••••••••••••°••°•-°
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout ~~~ •~•••••••••••••••~~••~~•••••~• p+
lbG Sanitary Sewer Line ................................... ss-
Above Ground Santary Sewer ....................... us smear s..K
Recorded SS Forced Main Line ~~~••~~•~•••~••~~•• •~~~ ~~
Designated SS Forced Main Une {S.U.E.') ••~~ ----,n----
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole ........................................................... ~
Utility Pole wNh Bose ..................................... p
Utility located Object ........................................ 0
Utility Traffic Signal Box •••••~•~•••• ~•••~•~••••~~~~~••-•••••
Utility Unknown 11K, Line •~•~~~••~ ~•~~~~•~~-~ ~ ••••••
U~G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil ..............................
ABC', Tonk; Water, Gas, Oil •••••~• ~~• ~~ •~~ -••
WG Test Hole {S.U.E•') ••••• ...............................
Abandoned According to Utility Records •••••••
End of Information ........................................ .
-~-
0
m
AATUR
E.0.1.

1
SURVEY CONTROL SHEET
-1- PT STA44+30.62
LOCNJZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N = 254,918.4658
E = 2,352579!835
AERiB3KE No. sNEfl N0.
a~na I{
anon and Surveys
NCDOT GPS 3TATrON 84223-4'
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= Eb6,780.~2
E= 2,364,029.386 •
~0 •
NCDOT GP3 STATION 'B42235'
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N= 266,348.822
E- 2,364,980.647
NCDOT BASELINE STATION BL-11' NCDOT BASELINE STATION BL-1 '
NCDOT BASELINE 9TATI N 'BLS' LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES LOC~ZED PROJECT COORDINATI~
N- 254 614.976 B= ~ ~gy'R~9y,~
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATBS E= 2,31;1,7782]9
S= 22,~3~9~9. 6 ~p~~~pp77~~ ~~ CppT ~y
LOCALIZE PR~0./EC~TA000RDINAT&S LNO('AIJZ~PROJECfA000RDlN~ATES
LL~~ ~~~~ LL.~~ N- 254,209.419 E~ 2.~46Z201687.~981
NL~ZEDPR0.IECTP000RNDINATE,4 E- 2,361,223.854
N- 263 dR0.486
E- 2,30,497.009 NCDOT BASELINE STATION 'BL-16'
NCDOT GPS STATION 'BlE29-9' ~DpT T~~ LOCALIZEDpPROJECT COORDINATES
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES NCDOT BASESL~ STAT~ON BL-yy' NLOCALIZE~D PR~O,IECPTA000RDINAT 6 $- ~~~ •~
N= 253,288.148 LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDWATE3 NN- 264767220
E- 2,949,20E.OB1 E- 2~b'0~0387~26 NCDOT BASELINE STATION gL-9' ~ E= 2,.85'2$19.813
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES m
&= 8,35'0~84~8~Ji98
m m BM 2
BAI 1 ~
11 " - ' `~\
N 66' 2B' 51,8' E ~
__ _ N 5g04'435'E ~~
n`
7
8
a
-L- POT STAIO+OOrA7 / II II / ~`~
LOCALIZED PROJECT CLbR01NATES
N = 253.3837032 -C- POT STA/B+OODO ~' II L- PC STA25+3193
E = 2.3495!6.6025 BEGIN STATE PROJECT 33567!1 ~l II LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
LOCALIZED PROJECT 2~3,70N29449 u it EN= 2,3505212694
E =2,3502501451 II ~~
-L- PT STA28+4477
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N = 254!328123
E = 2,351,19167
CONTROL DATA
NCDOT OPS STATION 8422.4-2'
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N- 262,199.472
E= 2,949,666.947
•
DATUM DESCRIPTION
THE LO.ALIZED D701RDINATE SYSTEM D_NEID°ED FOR TNIS Pi01ECf
JS &BfD Ok THE STATE P1ANE OLU40lNATES ESTABLISHED !A'
N(BOl FOA NON1NENf 'Bi223.3'
WITH NAD 1993/95 SPATE PUKE OHIO CQARDINATES O<
NURTHIN& Z53~&146UB EASTDN:23492a2D8AYD
THE ,WEAAGE aWB]NED OR1D fACJOR USED DN TNIS Pe01ECT
rcNalxD ro celmrs 0999913219
rNE NcIAreEer seta BEarrNG Ara
IDCA(lZED hpRlZOYTAI. GA0.9r0 DISfA1Cf fA6W
~4P233' TO {• SIATIDr 18+OODD IS
N 61'28D6' E 1,1349 ff.
A!1 LINEAR DIIIENS10N5 ARE IDCN.r1ED ApR170NTA! DISTANCES
VEeIlCAL DATUM USED r5 NAVD 8B
•BL-
PDINT DESC. NORTH
3 GPS 84223-3 253266.1460
6 BL•6 253448.7350
7 BL•7 253629.1330
B 8L•B 253838.4850
9 BL•9 254004.6360
10 BL-10 254209.4140
11 BL-1] 254514.9760
12 BL-12 254757.2200
13 BL-13 255019.7900
14 BL•14 255343.7290
15 8L•]5 255606.5010
___--EAS7••••-- ELEVAT[ON•-•• •_ ____L STATION
• - - OFFSET

2349202.0840
IL37 ---•
OUTSIDE PADJECT •-•------
LIMITS --
2349619.8850 11.66 11.20.65 18.41 LT
2350036.1250 11.27 15.74.30 17.72 LT
2358497.0090 9.28 20.77.25 18.43 LT
2350846.5990 11.37 24.67,30 30.61 LT
2351223.9340 22.99 29.08.87 56.58 LT
2351778.2190 22.63 35.33.80 57.34 LT
2352213.8130 8.24 40.33.99 53.83 LT
2352687.9240 6.82 45.76.78 27.02 LT
2353233.4350 14.33 52.10.54 17.88 LT
2353673.9030 12.68 OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS
BM1 ELEVATION 7.54
N 254216 E 2358954
L STATION 26.57 187 LEFT
RAILROAD SPIKE SE7 IN 18. OAK
BM2 ELEVATION 7.26
N 255286 E 2352658
L STATION 46.94 268 LEFT
RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN 15' GUM
s~
8
-L- PC STA36+5279
L~AIJZEO PROJECT COORDINATES
N = 254522.0262
E = 2,351,910!141
-L- PC STA46+533
LCCNJZED PROJECT COORDINATE
N = 255D38.37
E = 2,352761!63
NOTES:
nova
-L- P07 STA52+97.42
I\
LOCALIZED PAOJECT COORDINATES
N = 255.373.0310
-L- PT 57A49+85.40 E ° 2.353,3AJ510
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N = 255212b951
6 E = 2.353D49.474/
S
Ni
9
-L- POT STASO+OOAO
END STATE PROJECT 335671)
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDINATES
N = 255220!999
E = 2,353D62.0031
THE CONTROL DATA FOR THIS PROJECT CAN BE FOUND ELECTRONICALLY BY SELECTING
PROJECT CONTROL DATA AT.
HTTP:\WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE,IVC.USPRECONSTRUCT/HIGHWAY/1~(JCATION/PRONECT
FILE NAME: b4229 te_contJnl 060ll4.tzt
SITE CALIBRATION INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR THIS PROJECT.
IF FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, PLEASE CONTACT THE LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
~ INDICATES GEODETIC CONTROL MONUMENTS USED OR SET FOR HORIZONTAL PROJECT CONTROL
BY THE NCDOT LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
PROJECT CONTROL ESTABLISHED USING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM.
NETWORK ESTABLISHED FROM EXISTING HARN MONUMENTS NAD 8395
BY THE NCDOT LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
NOTE.• DRAWING NOT TO SCALE

I .
1'

-~
30' 8' 12' 12' 8' 12'
11' WiGR
' I VAR.
2' PS VAR. 0'-18' 6' TO 24' 2' PS
w GRADE
POINT
0
08 0;02 , 0.02 ~ 0.02 _ 0.02 0.08
6.1 SO 3•~ "
------ --- ---- ~ ba
V~•
T C2 9.5"
13.5" C2 ~
_
~/~~/~1~~ ~
El Dl 6
D1 12 " T
GRADE TO THIS LINE GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS
-L- STA. 22+75.00 TO STA. 25+15.00
-L- STA. 43+25,00 TO STA. 46+75.00
-~-
30' 8' 12' 12' B` 12'
11' WiGR
2, i' ` 2,
T
PS ~
PS
GRADE POINT
0"08 0.02 J 0:02 0.02 _ 0.02 0.~
6'~ TO 3.1 b•1
R'
VP 13.5"

.. ~~i~'lA~lD; T b" ~
Dl ~ b" T
J2
GRADE TO THIS LINE
6 TYPICAL SECTION N0.3

I; USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
~~
a AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS
-L- STA. 15+25.00 TO STA. 28+92.00 +,~ (BEGIN BRIDGE)
r -L- STA. 38+12.00 +~ {END BRIDGE) TO STA. 43+25.00
0
I~
i
.a
'' r~o>ECr ur~PPrx~ ~a. SH~r rw.
''
•~MULKEY B-4223 2-A
~:: ~~ ... aw snEEr No.
POADWAY OFSIGN RYDAAUIICS
EHGIlIEFA MGIN®
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
0o xor um coNe~xurncev
,~ _ - h\1VA1\VAUV
VP
C~-DRIVE-
VARIABLE 2' 6' b' 2' 8'
SEE X-SECTIONS
i
GRADE
POINT
0 O8 0.02 0_.02 0.04 3~ ;~~0,~9,c~i
VAR•~0 3•~ 4.1
7.5"
~I~V~I~~~ T b" b" T
Cl ~~
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS
-0RIVE- STA. 10+12.00 TO STA. 12+00.00
•~--;~'~,c1~1,~Pi
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
d I/r'ASPHAU CAMCRETE SURFACE 110URSE.TYPF S 95B
CP .!'ASPNAV fxMCAE7F SURFACE COUItSETYPE S 95B
d P%'ASPNAIJ OLNCRtTE fNTERYEq~OE OOURSE.7YPE N9L8
n +'ASPNAIT gpYCAE1E BASE opfRSErn~E BPSBB
,q f1 ASGREATE BASE aAN:sE
JP 8AS61~Aff RASE (bIIRS'E
T
IA7fE. A EARI'N YATERJK
u P~VEYENf EDGE SILWES ARE YUNIESS OfNERWKE SHOYN.

i
1
0
r
A
~yol

r~ '
DETAIL A
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
INOt to Scdel
fDDront
Sb~
N 1 1 ~ A'~t{eT De
D
Mln, D = I' Ft.
a. 51A Il+50 TO 11+50 NT
L SL ll+l0 TD 77+00 Li
'~~
~MULKEY
~~ ~:~~:

2G
NOODE

0 W
~R

CASON L TRA51(
~
S
6
~ w
~2
ESS
M
P
h

1
DETAIL B
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
l Not to Scdel
t ~ ~ front
CrouM D A;O'c10i SbDe
0 IAIn. D : I' Ft.
B : 2' Ft.
-I. STA 71+SO TO 77+00 RT
- 7 PINC 14+0 . I o3
f-L- Sta. 15+14.30 LT 11.12') t~ ALLEN EE,~uES~EST,Utc
JULUN OB R27YPG IN ' ~
FOODS
+
f-L- Sta.2O+7725 LT IB.43')
•-
~"'~-t ~ /6D~ YE DFfANA
~
~"" + E
- .
.. ..
__--~.~- _uT L~
' ~,~~_ _ -,_ _ _ AETAIN i 'CB DNC
w' 7L -~.y ~~-- -~~ E +
E
_ ~
_
z~
-
-_-__-
D:r.~ N -
'
2 -- ---r------
=--=___
~ G9
+e'w _ _ _
I AEMOVE EYONC r - -' a4TllP1 Tim
BEG,F~ +
-i- 7 *-
~ EfAavE Ls'co

+ E - - _

E _
_
I 51'AITL GATE
E - _
' SPFCUI DITCH

SEE DETAIL A

~
I+ '-
E
E
r e{ F~+'~ I I
I ~I~I, E
I
1 I Bip i~

I I SPKUI mCIE
EfE DFfAtt 1
~
~ i I~ ~ i
~
~
"`
°
EGIN PROD T~NL
I
PaoP~
L
-"
2 ~
~- Sfo.18fOO ~
l ~
:
J
1l ~!T
II ~
~
I I CONC P1D 4t
I I
I
~~ ~
II
O I I wt, ( I
B~
PA ~uc II ~ ~ i I
S fl ~ ii.J
DETAIL C
SPECIAL CUT BASE DITCH
(Not to Sodsl
fpront
Cround D A+w; et Slope
LJ MIn.0 = I' Ft,
B = 3' Ft,
L STA ddaed m D., 4d et

FEaECI EEFgENCE No. 91EEE No.
8-4223 4
7w sx~ No.
IDADWAY DESIGN
FNGM~ MYDEAWCS
BNGINHA
PRELIMIN
m NOT' vee RY PLANS
CONfTRUCIION
To E)OSiRIG

f wB
r
I
tt ro' Er EAr,
EST.7 rau
esr.lo sr ff
MOODS
~ .
~~
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 7

Z
0
Z
1~{
6
D
s"~
~~
z~
0~
~~
3N
{0t~
a
8
`1
~1 V1
® DENOTES HAND
CLEARING
Q'
UL
~~
Q L
r:w~--~
6 -L- POC SYa.25y
S Zi'59'q
D OFD BBL ~ Stggq z4+97.61
1EE34 56' LkFT
~ \ R&~VSP~I E IN 18'01

O
RIVER ROCK FARM LLC
DB IK15 PG 725
I
.
II
II O
I ` '
I E ALLEN JAMES, ETDX
JLKlAN ~AR~ ~
F ETVIA
~
, IM

/,,
0
~o
0
~~
2~'
-L-
PI Sta 26+88.46 PI Sta 40~MIb4
o= sls'lsrrcTl o= s4r5oarcn
D = r4r D66' D = 028' 389'
c = 31284'' c = mB4
T = r5653' r = 389.05'
=
3
~ - 12,000DO'
S
5E
=
~ E
V=60 mph V=60 mph
-DRNE-
PI Sfa IO+9976
= 9445'16
5Erl PI Sta 13+7698
TJ
RT!
'
'
'
.
o o = 60
r
23
419
D = N435'296 D = 11435 291'
1= ~39a c = 5va
R
~

8 =5 R=
W

~ ;
1+ 14 ~

~ e
~ :"
~ ~ e
~
~ ~ ~ '1
~ rl
~ ~
\'' ; ~
~ ~ ~ \ ,
~
/ '
woDDS I
~~
` ~ ~I
~
~ ~
~
I ~6' WD %FA
~ ~

~
+ ~
r r
Rw
~
wD Pa
----
~ ~
,1.._
- J ~
-- wo rasT
i N DD05
~ ; CIASS II AIP AAP
.
SrRUCNAE PAY OTAI
+75.00 ~ .
~ \~
~-c- Pr sra.2 a+44n
c wA1D
wnEA PDIIP -~

~ 1
BECIN SHLQ BEGYN SNL0.
GUlTER ~~GIRTEA
~~
_•L- s_a _r_ -sue
-_ L.-_ MTl
-__
_
~r ~7
woaps
IF- Pf CY

e~
>~
DETAIL D
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
I Not fo Sodel
R
-
pe ' 1
I'/Ft, 2 '"r ~
L".I b = 5' FT.
MIn.D =I.S' Ft.
B = J' Fi.
1 71+50 A1. TO STA 79+b AT
+
--~-+~ci' ~ d - w-
\ 7BDI
~ 7
~ '. 17 .. E01
Yd7 FUIOW$ E E
wmoD a E1A;
w0005 CONNFC10A5
~--~15LEEVE GASI0:75 ~
~
.~
~ -
0
\
^

11
T
' ~ W ~ +
.• ~~
..~~ ~
EAM EASE ortcTN
SH DETAII D ~
~
~ i~~ ~
a T' pP AM '.
~E EST. DDF . t,loD tY
~ 1 ' % ER.10 ~ R
E
E E
+ SN%ELTER
91! • w
bJ
r
EN CONSf
- NE- PrSYo,14+00
04
HALL FAMK.Y PROPERTES
OF N~IL~T TON. LLC
/
PG Y
2
N
-
6
1' ]5' 79' E
502.26'

m NOTE: 6' DECK DRARJ TO BE PIACED
j AS FOLLOWS AND SHALL DISCHARGE
,IL IMO A CLOSED 16' SYSTEM
FROM STA. TO STA.
29+171T 32+171T
Z9+17 RT 32+17 RT
32+41 LT 37+96 LT
32+11 RT 37+96 RT
NADGE
~~ E ~-
F
pL PAOPDSEDPO~HET~% TAOPSAL
T2EB WATER AND SEVER DISTRICT
W
C
8
U
W
wr iNA Epw11 /ewfw V[ EIEN[xi
E
~-~'
't-MULKEY
wooDS

PAOA.CT REFERENCE N0. SHEEI N0.
8-4223 5
:x~1 ND.
IOADWAY DESIGN HYDAAlARCS
ENGWFEA FNGAEER
I

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
W NOT 086 mNmtocwwH
.1
I ~
l
L~~
~\
0 ~/
RANDALL M. BOSTIC, ETAL
OB 109i PG R00
~~ VB FE PC 59 ~~Jr
/ ~
.-i
,' w ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~`~ :
i ~ ~
~ ~ `~ ~_
\ ~ ~, L-( ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ 52.19 ~ ,`~..
~~
UJ
HI
~ % QQ

E
j
- ~
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
aAtt A RA' W
STRUCTURE PAY RFM
~ ~ PUE
PUE ~ PUE PUE
"- PUE
FOODS END BRIDGE
~
LRLITY EASEMENT - -
a + -
~ AOCKY PONT / TOPSAI
NATEA AND SEVER DISTRICT 1~
o
O°
C
06 c
NN
E
rou
NESLEY AL
N
LLWIS A ~ ~~
^
X
Y f ~
qu
~~ •Y
a ro' ur AAr
T
~
~ ;n m EST. J TONS
EST.10 SY R
+
PAVEMENT REMOVAL
AREA OF EXCAVATION
~ ~ FOR -L- PROFll£ SEE SHEET 7 ~',
SKETCH SNOWING REUTM)NSNIP Of BRIDGE 10 PAVEMEM AND $HOUlDERS

$ ~~„ ~~_ ~ fl~~~11
~ ' " .~IIII
~ a ~ '~ ~~g~ b Q 3I I ~ ~i
'a b
~ © I
g ~ a W ~'°Q'a~- - -~ I $
.1rb 8 + ~
~ ~ ~W~ ©? a
S <N ' ' I .. T~sn ~~
Q~ Q /~-~ ~~ ~~ ~ I l c
¢~ s I ~ III[
j \ Ur
J• o cE
~::~.~ \ \
N a.
~ ~~ ~; I
\\\v~\~~` ~~ + ' I I
~` . I I
/ r ` \]]~~\ JW 1 I
sz, ,~~, I
W ~
•~ I ICI
O~~ + ~ I I~
~S' , ~ =3 ~ ~ I I~
uT / II I
¢g I~
I
I IIII
~~N I jl~ll
` II II I
W I IIII
~ ~ IIII
Q V'
~ ~ I I~
a~ ~ I
~ N~ti N ~ ~ ~~\\ l
.. ~~
~ J w
x
~ ~
~ ~ w
~~~ ~ w k
~~~ ~ a
I ~-t
d 1 ~! 4 I
.. g
Q
~ ~
1 '
P
v. - `\ \~-~ L~J .89'[90'1 '
< \\ ~ ~ 3:C5. S.9Z 5
~ • J ® \\/
~ ~o
°~~
r uS~
v .00'ZSI
.~0'OR - 3.OS .LY.OC 5 '
. X .. _X~
3.05 d~.OC S '
~ I Q ~ ~ X o
Q ~ ~~
O q~~ r ~ gm
W ~ ~ ~+
- _ ~ 2
'WS~.~- -._~ x X X
_ `~-~_
Q . ~---x-XJ ~1' r.Oj ~ ~ In aO
,. .. .. .. .. ~Mby~pO,NNp
in o x tD
r o .. .. .. ~QO~F~~N~
s
lJ ~~ ~rE~ ~ ' II I 1 I
/~ ~I I
I
' ~$ ~
I OM ~ M
F8 ~ ~ ~ 1 V I I
~ \ ~ p 4 y II M N
\ \\ ~2 I ~ I ~QOvF~~vWi~
~ ~ I ~ I
t''' ' ~ 73'~"~29 I I
~~- ~~
/
.y 1 "
I r ` ~~ ~e~- : o I
I I`
~ *' I
J ~ I I ~ W
+ m y
~ i 71 I Y ~ W Z
~o ~I. 1
+ } II Ir ~ ~ ~~
r II I
o ~ ~I II I ~'
v+-i II I
~ ~ ~ ~ II I
~ `: I I I
s ~I ~ •. II I \
.. _ ~I I
~aG ~~ ~I ~ II I ~ O~$t
j \ .. ~ I I
,• ~/
`~ ~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
\ r ~ N:
I"
~ t ~ ~' v~ ~ I ~ ~ c7~~
/ '~ ~ ( ~t ~ ~ n I
// ~ \\ ~ ~ II ®a ~
~ \ ~ ~
~~
lLl ,~ ~ Jr--~ ~ ~ ~ I~~ I ' ~ ~ I~ g
~ °z / Q p ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
. W ~ -~ ,
l ~ ;~ ~
I ~~ I
t_J 1 I ~ I ~ 1
~/1 W S ~ 33 S .OlSH~1dW
'9 'ON 73~lIVd Ol L•BW3SY~ 1.1I1W1 1PA~fiMYV713d.SL O~pfP/
soars rwlslnaa xvM do ~a
srals~
~UypQ
uON

U 0
C
v
~_
Coo ~" O r
e °
~

N ,
,
8
QUf
J ~ C ~
W
~
a
Ogg
Q
w
a
N 8

}
~
~ ~
4
T

N
~~$ LL Q
WGy~ ~ NIJ-
O
~;
a 2 ~o
~ ~. KO ~ }O
tLCi
° ~~ oa
u
N
QU

~
i
J ~ ~ +
p~$
~ O
N R
_
F +
9
g o
~

!
~ ~ a

3 rd
~~
~$~ g
~ d
~~~ a
~~~~
.,

g<
8 ~ a
g
E
g
a - G
ro La9zw soozizzi9

~- $ f" PEOIECT AEFFRENCE N0. SX~T N0.
Et • u 6B' -~- T

' -B[- a ~MULKEY
8-4223
7
eREBA R WR'B ~ EL • Nom EL • 9 Y9
8'REBAR WR'N CAP BREBN t WR'N CM „. :,' ~'4 .. ... FAV sNEEtNO.
~, ~ I •
• •
O'• SOADWAY DESIGN M'DAAWCS
'~~ - FNGINEEE ENGINES
l

i ~
~

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
ro nar uw connxurnoN

20
20

10
10

0
0

-10
-10

I
-20
~
-20
~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2T 23 2 4
-BL- 9
EL - u.3)• f• ~ E~• ~. BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA ~ ; ~
B RE BM W!!N CAP -BL- STAB~+gB,00135'U 9REBA R WR'H CAP BOX GIRDER BRIDGE BREBM WR'H CM
~- STA 86+5118 /8/A0.9P' U
AA<lROAD SPIXE SET 1N BASE DESIGN lXSCHA4GE • P~A00 CFS
~ ~ ~ TREE'
L DESIGN FREOUEMa' • 50 YRS
_
_ DES~GR MY EIEYATNIN • 5A FT
100 YEAR DlSCNARGE • 9AD0 CFS ~
Itl0 YEAR MY EiEVATpN • &5 FT
OVERTOPPING lNSCHARGE - 3PA5 CFS
OVERTOPPING FREOUENd •800+/-YRS
wERTOPPING EItYATKW - 8l FT

• 8/31/0}
DATE OF SUAVEY
W S.EIE VATIpY
A7 DAT £ A~ SURVEY • II ~

',
20
20

10
10

0
. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . 0

0
-10
ao -10
.a
~O
a
-20
-20 i
S; I
Cg ~
~' 2 5

a. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

N -~
I ~
~ }_ ; ; ~ . .,7 i . ~ ' tI ice. r; .., + t, .;. ~ r:' 0 10 REF
FROJ. EREN CE N0. ET N0.
SHE
`' ~ ~ B -122
+

~ a
{
~
~
•
I. ' ~

' ~
-
.
,

y
.
. I. ' t+
Y , _ I ~
11 - I
1 '1-}} t
~ ~1-F
_ 1
-H -

r 1

Y
1 _ +
I. t 1 .L _ i

-ht - ~ ~+ ~ ~ ,
, r + , _

- - ~ ~ -
- _ -1 }
t
~ ;

+ _
1 f
!..
I ~.
~ 1-~-~ ~. +
I
i J ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ I.. ~
1 - L -
- ~ - , + a
-~ -+ r '~ ~' ' ~

~ ., a ~ '+ +
, * ;
-~ ,-

~ ht 1
~ + 1 ~ ' f } {~ {
'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ + -4+ 4 .i ~ . ~ ~ + ~, ~ ~ a + + -

~ ~ +
T
i. ~ r _. ~. . -} .1
r _ ~ II i ~
~ ~ ~J -f ~ J
`
.
+F ~ }}{{ i1 ~ ~+.. FI4
1 ~ ~
~ ~ ~I1 r ~.
-. f ~ ~ + ~
~~
t ~ + 4 ? ~ y
1 - h' y
~- - - 1 -
T~ i x'1 1
~ _ t
F
~
. ~
t .
{~ ~ -I-
_
a. +
_ . ~ _ rt .
rt.. y. i + l t ,i ~ -X. a - ~ -.
~~ ~{~T~- 1 rt ~:t - r ~

-}}~

-I L - r 1 ( ~ ~- f. _ _ _
i _
~
~ + + r . N _~ ~ '+ ~- -t 'f -Y ~ -
+ ' t Y
_
"~" ~' ~
~ ~ '
- ~ ~ _
r _
~
a ~'1 ~ ~ + ~1
_
.y J.. .I _ ~ .t ~ ~ F Y I ~ 1 ~I 1

r ~I i f i + , ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ `` r,

t ~ ~ -~
'
~
'~
-r
~
~

-

1
-rt ~
_
i
F
~
~7
+
~
r ~ ~1
t
_ _
'
~ ~ 1
_
.
t ,
i
~+.~ 11
_{{ ~~. ~ L h _
T

~ ~-{ +~r 1 J.,
1 f•
++ 1
}
} Tl
' 1~.~
/T
1~
~ .ii
~ `
~ _
~} ~ -+-'-
J-j T r~
~"
' . Y
f _
F
+
f _
~
a i s ~_ r l t
iT .
T ~
't{'~~ ~. +- ,,. ~ r J yf ~ ,
414 '-tili ~ I~I- F :1 -11 i ~ : T } t
t
1
~ 7i ~ i -r- _ l YYt#
1 T ~ ~y . t 1 7 + . , ~ l i1 .
i _
~ , ~ .-t+}+ LL .1 1. + ~'~iYt h1
-, T-~ 1
y }
F L if
~ + ,+.
~ i '
' ~ ...~.. ~ * ~ '
~1 1~f + ~
~ -~tr t~ _ ~ -
T
~ ~ }'`t
, ~ t`,{i 1r _f .
{
• .T ~t.,.
~
~
'
1
- 1y ~-11-L .
~ I i
~.
1 i. f r

r

» `

l+ ~
H'Y
-"~ '

I I y
~

u-
:
~ 1

1 ,

i

r .
~
~
~ ~

" ~

' .- J-
,+.~ 1#

j
~

T - .~ 1
r
~ .i "+

`i- ~~

rt

r -+ ^

1 1 - Y ~ 1

~

~

~

7

~

} ~ f

i"1 1

I }..,

~
' "" i
r r ...
. } i _ ~ " -l '~ fi -r+:-: -
. 7 . 1 } + . as :- .~ i~ . err .} , ,~ +I -I ~i '~ ~ -I - rl
'- I- F~ 1
~~
l

1/7/2006 \7677 AY
A7~%ro~lM.11W.OSf
T 1 i _ 8/23/99

- ~ F - - -~
- } 1 ` -
+ +
1 . i:j. fir. ~ - - 1 _ _ L
~ _ - ~. - ~ -

~ ~ i-
+ . ~ t
~ - t I - ~ ~- +tli F Fr
HH
` r if+ F'r
y '~ 1
L
..
I 1
~ .-11
..
~ i ~';
~
~{ T ? 1 '~ i _

~ I'r

11

_ ~ 1 I .1
~}
~ ~ _ - _

~ '~ ' ..

1-'-

- ~

- _

_

- _ j

I- _ _ _

-
_ _ _
ti f L f ~+t~ r` ~+-. - ,. - J. : ~ ~ + j~ J{r~1T{i. ~ `, - - ~ "~-;- . ; i t ~{ - ~- ~'- - i

~_~ -1-1 T~
~ r ~ ~
~
~ u -~~_ _ ~-L _
I~ r C
r - ~
-~ -
+
~ _- {_ + ~

~
} Ft
1
- _~ -1 -F' -
FF - '''
-
i
-a-r+
i
~
-~-
1 T
~
- -,.
fix-} i
~ 1-
c 11 - r _ ~ _ _LT _ ,.-

L - -

+ T -

} - } 1 _ T _ r~-.. -j
~ I i ~ / J .-i~. 1'i ~ ~ t~- J _
.L IL ~ _ _ ~ ~
t
} . _t
i
J
I~
}-
~
.
~ ~1Y ~

L + ~
~
'
,
~

~

+ -

l
~
+

'
' L
+.
{
-
1
! I _ ..
a
}-i
{.-
t
_ _ 1.;.r .
} J- -
y
i F -
-t
~
_ _
- _l _ -
- ~Y
~.- _ _
1 ~'
4 T - '. _' - _. _ ~ ~1
- y

r
' -
1
~ ~
i 1 i-
i~F
:
~
l -
- -
-
_
~` _ ti 1 i,
+
1' _ 1_
~+_ l _
r _r,
r
jµr 1 L t~ ~ _ _
-4 4 -~
r.I~t
~ ~
4- ~ -

~ t _i_

~ -f_~+.

+

;

~
} J
1 4 _
~i-
rT~

t _ _ _
L' T

4 -
l i - -ri
y
• a - ~ - r~
- t~
t ~~
~
-
r
-
F _
-
.- ~
.
_

/ j -r
-~~}~r~-~ ~ ~ t'~ ~- ~J ~~ ~ - 4 ? f _ . j - _~. _t;r _ ~ _ ~'1_i _:- _ Wit.

~ ~ ' ~
-f- ,~ h _
;-L LI J - _ _ L _ _ _
_
~
~ ~ I '~

u r ' '~
i r-r ~ r -L - -
l -t 1 I! {- ~ ~ ~
' ~ 1 '
L
1 .1 tt J } \11 1-~~t ~Y 'H'r'-~L-L
-~
~
}{ 1 4 - .1-J. rt 1
~'-1-
L _ 7~
J
'}' i- 1 .L}
' 141 .~:..{
- -r
r -~
}-{
- ~ - _ - 1 ' 1~ L ~
~ "_
~
_ +
{-
_ ' } ~
- -~' Z}~
~
i-I- i
~,{
t r .1 . l
l .... { ~
_
.1 _ _ ' i _ ~ - 1
1 ~ t
t} ~ j i _ r
i ~4F' _`+ t 1 _
it N f-ra 1tt~~' '. L ~ T ~ t 1
~
~
f
'
r+i
~
~
' ` _ L . _
i i
r~ +~ 'IY
r
- _
_ I__
L
~
L
~- -
r - -
~ y...~
~
i-+-~!-{
'-
~I
Yr`{
-1
-.-' ~
+~-+
' ~
-+ r y I
1-1 T
_
i Y ~
t . !T
-t : ' r - -
{-
# ; fit j-F
t :
-
- 1~LL
-i-L' _ _
+ j-
-J -
1 _
_
_
ITj.

.
i1
.
-
-
~i
i
rl-
,-
$ ~.
..~~.1.:.' ~ FL ~ I ".y'1 "_.~ _ •
1 j-r ~ ~
-1 +
-r _.. -~ ~
[
y
-*t_'-F--M - r t-' _
+ -~ - 1 _
:+.I - _
_ ~ - rr+.
}t~ ~a+k 111 ~ ~'+ r~~
j ~ •~~ I"i
~ I} ~ r f - ~ *
.f .f. ~ _ ~ _{S
~ ;_.
T~ H ~
Tt. I•
_ ~4 : _ ~ i- f~
I -
- $ _1
~ [
t ~~ f ~ _ +-
+ __~ ! - _
r t
~
- ~ j
t 1-+L
y
~:
..
i } r ~ ,_ :

1~' ~t1 ~i ~ rli~ t~.~j-
r r- ~ r +-1+; ~'~ ~ y~' T-t 11
~ _ H'~
~- 1tL
~ , 'i ~_rL~{ _ T . _ ~ + .{
- - 1~. it
-+- t ..
+ _ Ir ~-J
i T/- - _-_~ .I- __
L - 1~
- +~~ - ~
y
~ -
J
j _ ~ 1}y F.
f ~ +
'~ J
~ .1 :. J-L.
j
}' J
~ ~- 1~
~ ! - 1
' -a1_
~+i .1
~ L -
~~ _
It
~ _ ~
-I -I- _
1
~
{ ij.~ .~
#
a_r _ _ 1.~- _
' 4"
i._:1 -~~ '
-t
_ . t'+y . _ _ -. _ _ _7. _ i _

_
{{
.. _
(-t

_
1

+ _

.

_ }jy{~.

_

~

r

~

~

_ _

+
i1
~ -- t . .I- 1 - J - - _ f - - -~ - -

t it + '- +~ _--
~.} r {'J 1 T - -:+. _ i ! - 1

. T
tit ~
1
~
~

1 - - i F _ ''
}
1
_ Tj _
- 1.
L `r
: t
i- t _
1 _

-'.` - j
~-~-i_ _~~ -}
_ -•-

~" l
' J' -_ t
+ r,+'

~ +
_ I ~
i- _ F

~' }
~~~y+.
I+,l
+
~

-

-

J -

1'
~ I

j
T ,
~ _-+
- -- --
-
~} 1- - - - J 1. l~j.. - 1 -1 -~- -
_ _
1
~
~+ti-'l
4
+-i j
J
-
:.ti
- i-i.r
.~- 1
'.L i
J
1
Y.1..
'
~-~
t
1-~ - _ _

J
E
t
t' '- - ~ ly" ~ ~~! - T!T ~ - ~ L *
Ti.,
$~~-t __ r
!t~ ~fi~'I
~
+t
1
r rl , ~
~ L..I- .J
* _
L 1 ~
_
_,~ L _ ~ 1
~t F _{ ~ T '.
~~Y ~
ij_ _ ~ T
_ ' ~,
t ;
4-' 'I-
1
~
~ ~ ~
' - ~ 1
~
_
-.-
.
Jy
~ i _ r
-N l +
' r I- :_ ~ j.
t ~
;fir
i } ~. ~ .-t-I_ - ~ _ } i.. -
11 + _ t-~
yy ~ {--~- ,-11
4 . ~~ ~7'4"` ~
y ~ ~' :
-~ Fi ~ ~ -~
~
~-
- ~
t -r r
~ t '
~ jL
L~ r
_ J
~
~ I
_ ~+ +
- +$ ~ `
i+
- ~ i I
} J t - ~~
~
~
l
J T I~.L~ I i t - 1-F ~ t- -T ~ I _
i _
, _ .I + 1±- ~~ Y~- _ ~~.
11 ~ ~_~ _ i i'r~ ~ f t }i ~ I ~1 ~ ~~ ± i- , r L _ :.I Tt _ .~ -1 - F _ _ - - ~{- _
f L-~LJ '_ 41 1_la
1 . + _ L .-J-L } _ ~~LI 1 + - + µ
~,-~- _ _ r ~ t_~"
*~i
~ {-
a, S r-~~lt~ ~
+ ~
~
'
~
± + ,Si ~;
_--u ~ t .LL`r
~-*' ~~
3 { I
~ ~
F I
~:
- -
_ ~
~ _
- +~,
t;-1-
4
- ~
'-+-; _ ' J~
_L ~ --
~I -
L
r - 1
O
j }t ~
~l
~
~-~ ` _ ~7 :_~ ~- ~ i_ t _ _ _ i 1
_ t
~t ~
}i ;~
ZI rl
F + , "-'
1 Fr-~~ Lt I i.,.{
~~; ~ Tr +
_ +'
~ +
r~
~ 1 't_
2
~ T ~+' ~ t
+-'- Y ~

- ~~
~-`}
-1I- ~
+
i
µ_ -r !-+ hNi
W , Z
n„
z
yam' L
I 1 ~LJ_l!. t-~ + Y~~ ~} y -1. ~ ` ~ _ ~ ~ - _ _ } j ~r tr-
'1 ~ i - -~
- ~++ - r .y
_
-!~ Z
.
I~'_I. rr7~-I
, ~
~ + $-~-"'. ~ r.:. _r.j.
1
~ i }-~'~1+4 ~'-f~-1
+ ~ f~
~ `I - ~L
I I _ _ _I 1 } _ _ ~ t _ ~ ~ _l.} _ _
7 A~ .~ _~
1 -
{ ~
} 1 ~
L I t
*,~
f ~ ~'i ~
i
L t ~t Lj i
T~ -
- ~; Lrt r ~
y

1 ' t TT
J_ S-4~
~ ~
1 ~
t ~
-
_ ~ ~I ~j -F--i -I-

1y +-T_ ~..+ .i --~

_ L ~-~
_-
_ y~~

X S
-+ :- +
i '
r ~
I } -. - i• i _
rr ~
-, , ~ r 7 -Lt
l .~ i
I i- ~ -}i -~~ ~ ~
_~t,~ ~S {1 r+~+. ~~.5 .
'} J ~ 77.
:{
~F
~-tF a '

... ~ +-`
j~~
1
+
"

.~~

. r
_
~
_
1
_ 1 ' _'1 t -~~ . ~

_
_ _
~I_ *A - { ' --~
L.
L!
J
~
+ ~

_

- ~
~jr- j
-
-. -
~
_ -j-
j
r1
r t '

+
~ ~ Z
O
.y+
I~~ `1 -F
~~ ~J if.i~.. _. ~ iY
x
;-l
1 ~~ i+H+i- - }. ~ _'} I
~I
~~
~ .~~-~T~- ~ : _ 1-1 ~
1J_' ~ _ .
_ L.
l .. ~ J ' _ .; :.

i

~~
~~I
.e

N ~ ~ ~~ r ~ -,~..+ .. ~ _.
-,
~
.r
,.

+

,

_

...

_

~

O

0

E N0. SHEET NO
PROD. RE
m
~ 1 ~
~
~~
X-5
~ ~
F ~ ~ ~ ..
+ ~ ~-. ~. h T 1 ~.. t 4
~t +:
1+
+ ~-
.j.
+ , ~ ~
r.
*,,

,

. +
}_ ,
~~
` ~ `
i ~~+ ~ ~ + - ~ ~ - ~++
w ~ .
t ~
~ ~ {
+ ~ ~ -r -F
~
~ H- ~
.
, ~~
~
T 1.. -1
i.
~.'(
.i-.j_
.{
. .
41
"
'
k _
~
~
+
r , ~ 1
~
j
~ ~ _ y f ~ ~ ' 7~ ' f + j- r + - } !-+-, .»t { t

~ : -.... i r ~
~ , F . +t t~ ~. ~ ~
~

J.
~ i
+a
..-
~
I
-
.+
~
~
_
rl.
-
+
~ -
,

' ~ ~1 i ' 7 - - t ~ f 1
i
~ + ~ Y~
- ~ _ .
? ~ v- ~ i
T+ i ~ --
_ } ~~ ~ - -

~
T
1. 1- +
~~ i r ' - r iii
~ _ i"~ -F. T
-ra
~
t + i ~ - y -
+
~ t
~~
+
~ ~
h
H
~, _ + ~

}~' ~} r ~~ ~ -~r++i-
r{- - - ~ $Ti' 'F - _
~ 't
~
- h 1 `rt _ .F f ~ ~ ~ J
} + . _
-' u
{~ i _

T ~-
~..~ ' l -r' -I "T
L { -
~~I

~i~ ~ ~H ~ `
- i ~ }~
_

;
+ t' t
+ ~ ~ r ~
~ ~ + ~
~ ~ r ~
+.'~
~ ~
~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ -a - 7 ~ H
~
' f
i-t _ ~ -F - i _
~ ~ -+] i ~ -

~
~'

~ .i_
~

».

~ *7 t f
r
i
.
I
'
'
-
} , y ,.y ., f . .. ~ l

~j.+~ }
~
4
71 1
~~ ~
J "
~ ~F { - T ! ~ +
+
J ' F+1
~
L
{ tfH
t;:~
~'r*
~i~
Fl~ ~
~~ - -~
~.
fi }
r ~
' L
~ .
~F r J
~+-i
7 ..
.
7r -
~~ t
~;
+
~
`
-
t~
~
.,
r '_',{_- . .I
~. ~ i
i ~ ,~T ~ .
i +
,
"
~ l
~ ~t
+ Y, t, T } i ~_ ~ T1T t

,..~.~..~.,~ . ~'~
,~+ ~~'{ ~ i j '"T~ r-., ~ ~.al
_~
~
a .
»{ ..*
r ,
+
i
T~
a,++

i
-

1-{
~
+~
1

- , ~-I

,t
~ .
om ~
fi
~
r
L
'
~

1!

~, -
~
+
1..
.F
~J

~ +~

-r

i

1

1
'
T

i

;;'

.
.~ ~ '+' _
1 YY
, ~"~
+
+
~
.~i+
~,
y
-!-+-=+~~~ H-+^r+.~-
-+-+k~+..~' +~r,
,
~ ~
!tY t .~
t1+ ~
- -
-~ i ~~
~I
r
~+h tf.
+r+ ;_. ~t
- rG ice
,.~. '-
: -
~i -
+~ "
a~
-
~' Ti :
~ N ,
:.a. ,.A
r
*a-
~i
F1~
,
i
T~
r ~ '` a
;
{1
dT - -
-~ ,.:
1
11~~~, ~
~
; ~,-
~'• + rl
rJ'- -'
~.~-~ ,. _li, -t~~ ~ ~

N
' ~ _.
I ~
~ ~ 1 .i:~
~'
t r
1
T<-r
~-
-:
.y.. ,...
.
_
,.
, ,
.
•
~
_
-
r
_
,1
7
~
~
y
t
~
-
-
~
t.;.
:.
~r
_
,}~:
a:
i_
'-
"
-
*
r
-~
"i r
0
10
PR
OI.
REF
ERE
NCE N
0.
S
NE
ET
N0.

~ i
~ ` ~ 8 -4 213 X ~
rl ' + ~ r. r q-..

J7. "--ta ~Tx'1'{,. +} ~ f -mar=
~ { . }i_
- ~
~+
, 1
,
-
~
~,-
,~ F
+
~
.
~
~r
r~~
} + r

~ ~ ~

+
J
"
'
;+,~

+
1
t
T
I
1
'
1

+i

'F.

I
-

T

.+"
±1
~Y.y.}
-r,
~'
I"i Y
t
,i
'F.
t
t.
.

_

~
-~-i-
'+
.I
1
_
i

-

-

~

~
}{~
'1-F-
,. li
~
+,~~f

I
~3
T r
-

~
- ~
- F ~ ' j { t ~ -
_ ; 1, 1 - aT
~ + ~- ; . ..,. . ~ tN ~ -i . ~ r r ~- -~ -F ti -1 {~
I

I i" r }i rl }- 1 ' - - -
~ i~
-N-
iFi
~
r _
~ ' -r

_ i . E't 'f-~' i.t t T ~ ~ i . 1- - ~ t
~ 1 .
~ ~ r
+ ~ - -~
- + , ~ ~ r ,~ ~- -~ ' -

t ' ~ +
~
t 'f' i
~
~ ~ ' 1 ~
y
7 _ y !T T,
I
t - -f- ~ '-
i ~
.1
.x.6
li
,~
y ~
.r:rt ~
t
i
-~
-'F~~~.
'[}l
J ~
Y7.
. _
.
..~
. .
1~
r

'
~' ,

.-
+ ~
1

,

~ -

1 - -

T

.

1

_
-

~

z
+ t + +

j + L
1 ~~
1
~ ~
~~- - ' ~ $ 1
~ t~Y "" J -~{
r '
-I ~.{lf la-L
j
{'t~ H
~ ii
-
-F ' ~~ ~
-f {- + l
~
.
~ -
, 1 ~ $1 J. , ~ _ 1 - .~
i ~
~ - -
~ 1, ~ 1 ~ ~-' ~ { ~
~ - ~ ', '; +' ~ f - ~ -t - ~
- - , ~ , ;+
1
~.

~ ,
_
..
,_

+

~ Yi-
~
x

T

~

~

~
f
~
T ~ 7

~ t

}
Y
~ -H
- Y-
F
1 ~1 T ~'i ~
"
1
,~--
'
i_
-
_
~

~
1
{-
~'1
1
_li

1
_
_
_

J
J-}

A
Y 1-. ~ , T . lT . . _. . .T ~ I ~ ~ i ', ,"F
IT
,y_
~
t'I'!
~ ~ f ~ 1
iy- _
.Jyi-r
~ .~~ ~1 1y 1 U ' ' i '
te ~ ~ . Ly
~ { .
Y ~ ~ ~ ~+.
, ~ L Tl _

` ~ ~ ' h
~ ,
~
+ T ~l ~ ~ -G
" 1.~ . ~
~i " t
+1'Ff' t 1 ' ' -.+`-~i -r "r a~ . 1 1 . .y +}
~
~ ~ . .y }}. 1 -
~ ~ ty- ` ~ +j ' _
~ . i t~. ri~ + ~ ~ , , , ~ f _ r~ -~. ti' + 4 ~'I~~- I TI~ + + L

1
~ ~ -'} -~-r ~ _ _ ~ I"~ H ~ + ii~ ~ . I ~ { L~ "_ _t, . J $ ~ T _j.
~
' } y-r -

. ''
r

_
'
}

'

-

_ i

~h

_
-I
--r

i

.

t
-

-
, ~ + , t~ +
t

i I
~ t l
! N f ~- .. ~_ _
,~
~'
- i~ ~ ~} a . ~ _ T ' ~ 4 r + . ~ ~ + - ~ N ~
r r err ~ ~ }~ f - 4- ~
t ~ ~ t i y~. ~. I t;..r ~ iJ- ~I ~ i?'a + r ~ ~~ ~ .. :y J- 1 _} ~ i ~~ ~- r - ++ ''i +~~ _ a ~ ~ i~~
.j _ ~~

~

~ ~. ' _
r ~ ~ L . La~ -
4 i
-1
i
. rt ~
~ -
~, ii -
. + -~- --
~ t~~ ' - T ~
~ F! ~ - F ~
~ r~. .~
~
1- ;.~.i-~r
~ 4 +V-F
-~~ ,--r
~+r ,
Y ~
i -

~
i
,.~ _.~ T ~ ."' ' .. r Y
•i- ~ - ~1 } I

~
}
LL _~
.} i''..

/.~

~

~_.r

r.
i-t

i

..Ir'~T

I

J
~L }

l -
i~i ya

L~
LI

/S }
VI 7.

i

.f- ce-

_

~.'
.~+1

~ {
,1- _

f
t

-

IT

~
t

'

1

{ y

~

.

~

7

I

r

,:

~
*'

I

~

{

,-f

_ y.

1 ~

~

_

y
y

~,
l.

.

t

~

+

.lr _

~ -

~~ ~. {
~

1!
'

}''

,,

~
-

-r.~
, i - r ~ ,
- i. dry Lia }}.~ t.~' ~~~ ~ u+ ~' ~; 1t}~~ ~- i
t i' ,y * + i" ~. + iif" ~ - ~, t!'ti'hi F
~+ ~

«:
t 1 ii+N. ~~ r
r~ 7.+y1-~ .
~~t+'

'+'~ ~ ~
x

~
-Y'-.+i
~~ L
~ t.`{-
~ 'ri-~~1"r

,~
1,, al
J ~ +
. -h
,

'!'}
7

.~

'

`
Y +
i a~
~

~
-!-~

~. ~ ' --
yrtr

-J f.-I t
~-.,

k-
~ ~
T;
*

+i
~
+y~
I-r

_

~ a
~~t

`

~ ~
~}

^

}-(
y~ .,

~1yJ~~
1 ;
~ ~-~{
+i
e-
t;
~ 1
-~+,4

i ul
+' V

xA

T
tri
'. t1

y
_ ~

_t _
~.
-?

+
~

-
~

,-
i .
7 ~ ~.y
~

, L ~
~~
*

-
~

~
J

~ '~i
1 .11 -
' ~ µr
~

~.

. -i
+r

#
t
'~

*'
_.. _

1_
.
- , ~~ +
n 7 ., .. rl S`'-Yir+ 1~;1 _ -h _ ,
~T 1
4
+~ `
.
+~{-.;T
1 , ..
7 ~. _ .t

! _
~ `r _

~ ~~

'-`

'r -~

~

~`
!7 L r .

} i7* ~ , Ft

~
~ ,

r

~

~

-

f i Y +'_

. T~ _
}

I
,, -
~ ~
f -.

''

~ ~

~ - - i '. '_T.1 ~ ~.

~

~ .
i~

~
,~- ,
~-'.'-~` L -~ -=r' }_ -! ; _.
~ I ~ ~
, ,
a-i -' ~ ~ L ~ -; ~ .I :~ I I- 1 ;. + j fi ~ ~+ Y ~ H +-- ! - +! =1:r
~~
~~
Ci

.~
e~

$a~
5
$e

T t '
T
' ~-
! ~
'
{ _ ,~ - _ 1 ~
C ~ ~ 1 = t i~ ~ '1 ` t ~ r r - ~ t ~ ~ -~- -M
-+ f- _r -k
- -N
H-I . ~ { ~ !
f is
~~ ~.
f F$i a-'
I
+ +

0
~

~

~

r~T
_

~~

+

}_'

~

~
_
i I
T
t

. -
+~
-
Y'
+

J

~
~
+T
1
Tr
~
,~

-

+
..
~

+
~~
I
_
~
~ _
7rT"
~ i

~~

~
' i

,'1
I 1
t
~-
'i
~
r }-Lt ,
i
l tr
y- ~l i•~f+~-~.
ri I.i t -{ y
- ~ ~
r~
i`
I r
- ~
TT, J.
:!
-
1Y x ~ ~ xr _ Li _ _ r.. ,_.,. ; _ _r T"1 _ ~ Y _. - ~.~, r
. r .I l _1 -r~--"-~ -
iT
T7
~ ~_
1 ~ -+-t
.t
, ~r
T ~
y -
1i-. - +
-7-
~- ~ n -~` -'
~ ~"
'
{' ~
- Trr_
T ~ !
T ~,
i
f
r
_ +~ ~
i-r ~
.
I r _ ~ ~ - ~=i
1
_ '
~ J
- L
1~-~ r
V-f ~ . mr
I~ ~ ,~ ~ Fey;
r..{ f ~,~4 ~ ,
~ rrl -
T ~-~ ~r
-i 1
r
- - F~ ~ ~ ~
Z
W
~ _
'.
_
-
1
~
-I-1 _
-_
t
.t ~
T.I_
_
_ t
_ - r-
, -
'('f t
' ~~{
1'Y -
- ~ -rr
~
- - -
~ ,
~~
1~-
"
_
T.
.
r
_
1
- -;
- r i,i~l
_
r~+-tT~T~-1~
~
{~ -
-~i--r
1+
N i I 1- F-! - - - - i-f~'-~+; 4 =j
- i - ~ J I . ~ + l ly t
.ttrl
YT ~-F Ytf
~ a
T
I
~ ~ 1 - _
-
-
t -
} ~ -+
+ ~
~~ - ~
!
- -
~-t
.

r ~
~t
' '
~ r~~ tI
'
i- .i
"~ T{~
~ ~ T _ 1
- ~
{ ~- T~ ''
~ ;
, {
~ f _

-
I
1 ~ I
T
~
d
~ " - - ~ ~ - ' -i- -r _ - - _ t i ~
T%'y t1
T T
' ii I .I -~ ~ r (-r ~
lr
~ r.

~,~„- I - '^' f T ~ _i_ 1_ { ~- T - T + - L 'T r -I . H` + - t {~ _f_~ ~ _ ~ 1} I _ ~ 1T _ ~ _y '' . 'ri l -. 1 {+ t.
C + ~ 1 r .
i _^ ~ 1 ~ - ~i T -I i ' r1 I ~ ` r - i

'fi
t-
~
_
_
I
r
~ }}~~ 1
1
1 _
i
~.. . L ~
~
~-
fi
t -L
O _ - .{ - + ' -
T ~ - r { T _ - ~+, 1 1 - - + 1. - ~-
~' {~T1 '+ ~

-T r +
~
I ~
~ - ~
L +r~ r T
'
~ I t?
~ l
-F T
.~ ~
- ~-
_
i..
_ ' t
.~ ~-L _
_ ~ ~
I- L
}
'L
- t~
{' ~
- r
'
'"
- }~ ~. ~ 1 ~ r
r =T-J{~~
- j
I ~ T
-t _
_r . ~ . - .' '~ r'% _
- _ _
- _ t
- _ { t - T _ ~ T
i '~ I ~ ~ ~y
i ~
.
- ..
'
~ ^ j r
- - r-r '-- f t- .i - - - - I-YY ~ Tl f -
r r I -~ ti
r -~~ * 1 -•j
i
'~ - ~ -{ ±
1

_.

_
I-•
I Y

~ ~

{
Y~

~

i
? ~

T

? _

. .. y.. _ "' T I

~ - _ _ _
_
~

~ ~- Y'~-
_
r- +

~ /- t+

r ~

-

-

t -

I t
t

w
~ ~ra_

~ '{r .,1

T

~

1 ~. 1.
L
{
~ -1 ~

i ~ 1~ -~_

- -~ t

L
j r~ '

t~ ~
-h t
-
-
-
`~ - - ' i'' L i
rl
+
T . _
~~~ iill-- .
"II-- _ _ .
..
I
I_ _ _ r rr y _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1.1_
i- Y r

- T 'om' _ t'-I- '-F ~ r : _ _ ' - ' -.- 1 ~- r + H 'r+ T ~ ~- rL ; -l- ~_h `-

~ T ~ , ~ ~ Y r ~ l -:. ,- r
1
-
1 y ~; 1 ~ }y ~~
L~ I - r + ~.
- . -}~ I- J
f' .
i
} ~~' ~ ~ ~ - rr r - y" I+
LLY i. -L _ +~}- + t r'' h ~ I ~{ y-
- r
-r
~i.t i
*~ Y-r~ " -
:
-
I-1-r ~-
~
" ~
" ~'}
. ~~ ~
_ t"
'
'- ~Y+ ~. '?-
1
r i i ~T
.
I' - t- I .-
' + r r r
r ~ - - - }- -+ 1- i ' + i~ . f
~ ` l_ ~ } ,_ T
t y t_ rt
~- t i ~ -' ~~ - . ~ - 1 t - ~ ' I- ~ ~ $ ~ ~ -J +# ~ T J
~ (
_ _ _ .. - i 1 ' r r 1 r - T 1~ -
~
i~
I

~ '
+
_
Y

l
{
~ _ ~
+ ~

~ ~ - t ~ ~' - ~ ~
. ~
.T.
. T
~ _
.F
_j_ ~- r-1 f1
r _ i- 1
+: ~
1 -

r

+_ ~
r

i y.

- 1

f.

I
~

~ i _.i

- ~

T
~ I
k T

-r r"i ~ .

~T
+ 'I- -1 I
{
yt f _ _
+' - _~ t - t
~ ~
T r
_ _
1 -1
_ _ r• _ .!-T r
. _ _1 .'._
I- }
f` r
r'_ -,1: _ ~ I
-+ Ti
r h
^ -
i 1 . yt
t' ~
r
- _ - rT T ~ ' F '
~
2
' '-~- {tt
Y '~r~
-i '~ i
~ -
- _ ~ _ _ ~ ~ +
J _
_ _
_ ~_ . I _ 1
}T~ ~T
Y ~
~ _
{ i .. I.
tF r ..I,t
y ~-1 f ~ - 1 ~ !-t
~-- ~
F1--I _ µ
-1 1i
1

I _ ~ ~ r t r ~ ~ ~ t ~ t-1-
~ - r ~ T - N~ ~ r
~ `
- -' --F Y - - - -i
--r - + -' - i -
i.
T
~ -
~
-
i
I r ~ - - - -~~ - +f. r
~~
_ _ _ T I
t I -

` ~- ~ t I ~ i~ ` +
- - -
_ -
_ ~

- - _ -
-
r 1
-
'f
'
_
_ - ~
_ r _
-
~ ~~ t'
r 1-r _I-

_ r i

r-

t~ r
L

-
_
r
-~ -}

r
. 1- ~ =r -

+
~
~ -i _ _
- `r -
~~ - r+.i
' - -
-
- .i
_
_ -
~ r-
~ -
.
~~ t-
~ r~
; -}r
t T~
~y ~. ~~..~
_j
1 +L.
1 li~
-t .
- .F. .}.
I ~ _ ~ _ r 1
} ~
I'i } ~ ` _ _ l T - - - _ _ . Li -F It . _ i .. ' I"~ {._ T~+y{ ~ `yi I I.
.. [ L~~ T
.F. } + { 1
~' i }.
- { ~
{~
L
_ _ -~~ - - ~~ I + ~
T - - - - - r -
~
L'f ' ~ ~t
- ~
~
7 ~ ~ r-
~~ _
- -
- _ _
- _ Y
-
t - _ ~~ F
'1 - - - -
-
i - _
~
_ + t . _I f

r
u , - - - _ ' ~ , i-
i - f _ r i -I - ~t- _ I-~
rri r ~ ~~ -r .
r i j
~, - - - - 7 - ~ ;~ n' I
~ ~ ~ I
~ ~- t
_ ~ t
- 7 - - + ti -1 -~ 1 : , ]_ $ ~
r;;
-- ~

~ TT ~.
--r1 -- -i
' ~ - TT4 tom- '- _ - L
~ Y~" t ~ -i-

t i Y~'r
~i_ _ ~ . L . _ _ _ i _ _ _ -~, -4
-i-~-~ ~ Y- t - - ~Y
7T - -6 j- - _ _ ~-
' +-
r T ~ i - I
t-` _ ~ ~ -.
T
t-
..
.
.
._-
-
. -
-
_ _
-
Fi r - - _ - ~ - - - - - - T ": I Y • ~ - - T - - - - -
_ - - - _ t ~ _ f

~~ _ . }.
T
-~i'
I
~-
- {
~
-
~
_ }
_
_
~
C
i.
'~
-r
_
_
~- r -~ - - _
-~
r
-
F -
t
-_
_
t
: ~
r
r~ - - -
-

_ -'-+ - - ' ~' - - _ - H*'~ _ _
- _ - -

.y + ~ ~ ~ 1 .t. _
i 1
_
i~ _
{ ' -
-
~
- -
~b/EZ/ 8
~ia^-~-a~~lcowoana
m mec~ so~/u-

x T
= + - -

~ - r

T

-r t ~ - - I- y ~ r,-r i it
r

{ - - r - _ - ~ . t _ r ~ '

Y T` L ~," F
L 1
~ ~ r ~ .J
-
-1 ~- ~ - tt ~ 1~ rT t ~ l r! - ~ ... ~
-
~
r7
'f~ ± r I ~~ ~ ~- ~ TT' i -i ~~ 1-~ }
!.
YT r
W
l
~ ~ _
~
~ I_
F I'1 ~ ~
~ .~ ~ j
~ i~ ~ _ - ~ - -
+ ~
T
T
u N tt - - ~ r ~ + ~ _ . ~ r

- - I.
1 _ { _ ti _ _ ~~ i r _ _ .} 1 ~ i _`.Y
f ~{-r-' r - -{- r !-7
T T F } T-'t ~
~ „ f _
- ~ -
~ - _ - 1 ~ H - ti ~
~- ~. r}_ ,
~`
`"~ r +"1 _ _ ~ Lt T
h _ -r t ,
:-t
I -~
F F _ j- _ -1 {.1 1 1 ' +T T S

- _ i-
T _ f' - ~- 7

' J _7 t L~'~- -t'~. L . I~'
~ y. f ] i .-~ T - - L ~ _ _ _ }l + ~ Z 'r ~ T ~ ~ 1 '. f ~ T- rf~ 'r

' yy
~ ~ _
r - -
, 4 - I-
F T-t .T' ~ i ' ~ _ !
~ r ~ T- i f ~
+ -
~ y
r ~ +
~
t '
t
~ }~ ~~ ~~+
~ 1 ,- !
t X.]+ r,t . ~ rrl tY~
~.-h {~
i
-h
i ~}~
J
-'
-I
J
1
~
~~ ' ~ - ' r 1 ~ i'
AT ~-r~ _- ~ ' Vi - ~ } r ''1-
Fi "~ - - - }}
t - ~ I
1 i - t! , _ ;i
~ ~ r ~-!t
Y-+ '
-~ -,-,:-
_ . ~ L
~_ -
_. _ . t. ~ ~
~ L +
L1 +
L
:-1 .r
~}.
- -
f' Y
t
~T
t-ij-4 tF_
~, - - - r i ' }~
-r I +~_ -'
~. i
{ _ , r ~ } ~ ~ ~
_ + r.
Y _
+ _
t t -+ - y ~ ~ 1~ ~ - - 7 '}- ' -Y ~t ~'' ' ~-' I - - r + ~t i ~ T ~ ~ ~~~` t-
_ _ ~ ~ _ ~- { ~ i _
_ I - -- - f. - i. - ~ - f-"- - •T ~~-~t ~- lit-, + _ _ i-
- - "~ T ~ * ~~ r - - ; + ~ ~ ~ _ L I - ~ r r -
i
t
+ -i.
_ ~ r t - r ~- 1 1 {
-~ ~ _ .,- ±±Tt ,
y
y

•

- .Y
~
1'I
'
t
~~
i
n k.
'r7-Iit Y-
~~~
t{
1.

.~
~l
i
~ rT
~
.
~
_i ..
.~ ~
~ ~' - 1
' 1 -'
y F
1 ~

t
r '-T
' ' ~~ Y. t f
-1-
_ - t +. _ - +, _ _ _ _ i ~ }.. .. . j ~ .- ~-ff ~ ~' -~ ~_ -r ~ ~
t - ,~ k r _ , . -t~-i
' F
.~ + ++
-~ ~~ 'r '~"~t ,-
- . I ~ T :1 .1- : ++ , F- ~- F r -
r
t ~
- t
1 -T - fi d ry - F
y r ~ r ~ 1-1 -{.
' t .. i . r -
~ - _
~
I _ _ ~~ ~ r

; -1 ~ t

..
'
~- ~a
r ~ } T1 i
~
~ i~ - _ i ~ 1 ~~ t I ~-I ~ ~ - - r F- ' t ~ _. ~
C -. ~
?
---III}` ~..~_.~~
- r-
L ~ ~ 1~
} I~~~.
~
h ~.
_

r - .
_
~

_

-

_

_

-
_
'
t
~
_
~
~
I

L ~
_

~~ -
-
r.. .
~ - - - I _ , _ } _
T~
~ _ ._1 ~ y I
i r-- r
~+ ~
+ - it
rTi _ r' ~
'1_ _ _ _ T 'I $ 1 I L. -}- f - '
;-{ . _ r_ _ _ r r - 4t ~-.~ t l ++~
_ _ ~
- +
~
H-r +- +- _ - r~- - - - i
{~ _ j _ I ,
_ _
-
~'
~
? - -
t. ~. j_ -i- ~ ~
i - ~ - - -. Vii ` ~ ~ { ~ r i+ ~ .
! ~ }
- - - - - - - - j ~ ~
~ +-
1
-_ _ r - - _ _ - - - + - +- r

_ i- 'T T 1 1J- ~-
-I
- - f - - 'fi _ '~ t - - - - - - r

F
_ _ 1
-}
+
~
-
f
r-l
~
i-
~ T - ' _ i i - - - ~-r -r
-r - J _ ~'} ~
1+ tvi-t }'
r
-~ j ~
h- ~ 't ~
" ~ r '
f r - ;- -
T -
- ~- -
~ f 1 -
~
~
~ ~ ,
T
7
-
Z-
~-
I ' - ~ - 1 1 ~ ~ {}
t' - ~~ _
-~ ~
f ~ }
L ~
-F - - t , 1 I I
'
7T
TTt
t - ~ ~ r T' '1 -Irf
Ft, 4~

~ ~ -r 1 - _ ~ - $ - th~ ~ 4
+ r _ ~ t~ ~
r 1
~ r
- ~ ~ - - - - - - _ ~ ? H
`+T r '-`~ -
r -r~ { -
T
_ ~
~ {- L - - 1 ~ ~ r ~ r. r ~ -i- - ~ i Y
' -1' - - y ~ _ - ~ - - - - " *'+ -i ~ t~ _ ~ ~ ' f - - r + 1~-~ {~.1- ~ j ~ _ L1
r~~ ~1 j.
r - ~ j

-i
{ ~r T-' _ _ i~ i r

_ -
- t-
_
_ _ - i t ~
_ ~ +
_
_ _ +

_ I ' .t }.

- _ r - - . i-
}
t

-

- -

T

~~ -

T +

-
L

-

-

-~~ - rt. T T -

Lt .

~ ~.

- 1

t

1 ~

h ' .

I" f

~
rt_'v +` r 'ft +~ T - i ~- - T r ~ ~ - 7 _h ~1 1
} i- r ~ - - _ - -r T r1 ~ ~ - - T
1- ~
~'- } _ - -
- r - _F 1 ~ f_ T
. - ~i-F- ~ 4
t
~ -
r,
.r
_ - - - ~ t r '
_

i ~ ~
,-
~ ! Z. . 1
~
.
-
~- 't
I
-
~- _ - - _ - - ,
_
n t f _ _ _ ~ - ~

66 /E 2/9
~~~~~~~II~V
m sost~ wot/u-

)I
~r, .. ~ , . ._ t71 ~ - T -TT '._ s-- r w r' : ~ ;. . ., ... - rr -~ t 1" t ~ 'T -' - r+ f-'F'; ' - - -_ ~ ,~a l _ - - }`i ~ aj 7 ' r . ~ ~ _ _ ..~~ .~ + + +FY 0 10 PROD. REF ERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
, T ' ~ ~ ~
~ * ~- ~ 8 -4223 X-11
'
p ~ . . - Fr ~ 1 r ~ ~

'(
1 ~
_ ~ f
}
1 . - - -- } ~~ + I -n t~
+ r

+
h,
+
~ ~
-
~
'
z
a G
tr l~~
r
:
i
~{
i
+ a
*'
- +

-

-

-

I~

r - -

-

1

:
. ~

~ -

_ _
,~,
i
T
~ _ T ~ ~ - Yt i '~: r
_
~
+
+ 1
-i
~ =
r
t
,+
-
+-+

r h ~ f -r t
+ ~
r
± a i .~ t~
k+~
l
i i ~ +-

'
_ , ~ ~ ~ _
~_~ F. - ~ - w -
d+
; - -

J ' 1

~~ > 1 - - - ~ ~ ~ . t -
r t ~ J T -i
- ~ ~ 1
i ' ~ + y .j.~ { 1 . -tl ~ .J . ~ - t-

I

x-~ ~ - +

i

a'

Y _
1
=

~
1 H - y ;

.

FJ

}

J.J

7

-

_

- + -
- -
-

~ _
+

-
+~

-
~t~ _

rtr~

I ~r 1 _

i 1.
1

- ~ 7 J i+~~ ~ ~ - I

.t .i ' i } ~ J 7~ L t r
LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
1 _f . 1J L ~' .
r -
~ + ~
~ ~ ~
i -t -j - F - -t+ i- "f . t + ~ ~ . ~1 - - ~ rt, -

- ~ ~ ~ ' -
l a ~ ~
'~
~
~
~ _
~
~
~r
-t
+J
~t
1
~
J
~'

;

I
r}
lx
+
~
t ~
J-.

t
~ - ' ~ ~ ~ t i ~ - '- - .. ' -- - -~ - .
1
-
~
-
_. ~. - . . . 4}Y ..
~
+
t ,y
~
-I
i ~
~.4
i ~
~-r
- ~
-
T ~
t -
~ +

N

,' +
!
F F 't
-
T
'I-,- ~

~
- _ ~ ~ ~ ~ - t - 7 ~ ~ ~Y { ~ Fig i- ~, { yJ '{ ' t. .t ..aY ~ - ~- ~ ~~ t ', 7 ,~_ _ ~ ~ _ ~
+t tt ~ ,t t +t ~ ~ r 1 t' T! ~ + ~ a ~ ~r - r J -1 t a- ~- ~~_~~ -r - , ~- I + U F ~ + ~t -
~
1_
f a t
~
J'~ ~ i ~
~ f . y, ~. ~ y f'
'' ~' l ~1tr-I
+
t -t$ ~
~ Y 7 ~
~ _ l+ `I 'i
J -}~~
T1 -,
~ -~
T
-
~ 1
i
' , ~ J- ' T ` ' y ~{ `i 1~
- i T ~ F - ~'" F ~
t+ }. {.
i t ~ i i -'- ~ -~ *F 'r tF
'^i t ~ + ~ -t + t
'1't' i ~_ ,~
- y
r ~ + t ~ ' l~.
~ , '~ 1~- >
T
3~
p~~
i
it

_y ~ ~ 4
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. No. B-4223
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIl~TISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE Gregory J. Tho .D.
Environmental Management Duector
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
~-3a-a~r ~ ~~,
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 Fear 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 Carolina 27611
•.•`~~N CARp~'•~.
Date J. A. Bissett Jr. PE '
> ' { ~ SEAL 9~~
Branc anager ~ 14842 •
~s'hFS ••••.NE•~~~•~~.
29 0
ate amela R. Williams ~~~"""""~••
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~~1,''L-~ ~- V `
Elmo Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
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
April 2004
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
(SV) 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

~ /
V :L
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/Utilities 109,675 70,000
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 for right-of--way, $3,000,000 for construction and
$300,000 prior years.
Page 3

1 ~
~ +f
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 (tJSGS) 7.5-minute orthographic
quadrangle was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape
chazacteristics. 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 are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
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 chazacterized 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 azea 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 azea.
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 azea is generally characterized as nearly level.
Natural elevations in the project study area range from 5 feet (1.5 meters) to 10 feet (3.0 meters)
above sea level (USGS 1983). 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 azea 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 azea 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 neaz 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

1 ~
A. t
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 `,`'oin
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 particular 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 Carolina 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-II Waters
occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream or downstream of the project study area.
Upstream portions of the NE Cape Feaz River above Rock Fish Creek aze 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 Fear River
Basin were sampled to determine overall water quality. Benthic macroinvertebrates from the NE
Cape Fear 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
JC
1223 - Brid a No. 21 on NC 210 over Northeast Ca a Fear River, Pender Count ,

Common Name

Scientific Name Life Stages
Known to
Occur

Shortnose stur eon2 Aci enser brevirostrum J, A
Atlantic stur eon2 Aci enser o 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

1 ~
t !.

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 Red rou er' E ine helus mono J
Ti er shark' Galeocerdo cuvier J, A
Lon fin mako shark' Isurus aucus J, A
Gra spa er' LuCanus riseus J
Stri ed bass2 Morone saxata/is E, L, J, A
Summer flounder' Paralichth s denfatus 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 shar 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).
2Per 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 primazy
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 ston-nwater 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)
NC0003875 Occidental Chemical Corp. River in New 1 07 downstream
Hanover Co.
NC0007757 Thorn Apple Valley Juniper 0.65 >10 mi. (>16 km)
Swamp downstream
NC00~1113 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

S. 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 azea and vicinity, and agency comments received
during scoping.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study azea 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 PinelHardwood Forest
Mixed pine/hazdwood 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 styraciflua). 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/hazdwood 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 aze 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 Feaz 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

1
c. Cypress-Gum Swamp
Cypress-gum swamp covers approximately 2.1 acres (0.9 hectare) (13 percent) of the project
study area. 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-regular basis distinguish cypress-gum swamp from bottomland hardwood forest.
d. SuccessionaVClear-cut
Successional/clear-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 area 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 appear 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
area. 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 azea 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 area are
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 area.
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 Feaz 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 furcatus), and pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus). Additional fish that
can be expected to occur in the project study azea 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 gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum) have been documented by Menhinick (1991) in the NE Cape Feaz
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 Feaz 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 Family
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 corridors will not be
substantially impacted by the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the project study azea
are commonly found within fragmented landscapes. The bridge replacement will not alter
fragmentation within the study area.
Page 14

Table 3. Anticipated Impacts 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. B Temp.
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 around 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 are expected to result from this project. No impacts are 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 azea. 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

J,
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Antici ated Im acts to A uatic Communities
B-4223
Alternatives Surface Area of
Stream Impacts
(Acre/Hectare) Linear 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 are 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) are defined by the presence of three primary 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 Cowardin et al. (1979). The
floodplain of the NE Cape Fear River exhibits characteristics of a palustrine, forested, deciduous,
semi-permanently flooded wetland (PFO6F). 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 PFO6 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 January 2, 2002.
Table 5 contains potential wetland impacts within the project study area.
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 LAMA 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

S 1 ~.
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 temporary 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, are 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 on-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 Alligator 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 amaranth Amaranthus umilus T No effect
Golden•sed e Carex lutea E No effect
Rou h-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia as erulae olia E No effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana 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

x
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 Fear 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 Mazine
Fisheries stated that anadromous fish, including the shortnose sturgeon, utilize the
Northeast Cape Fear 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 similazity 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 hazdwood 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 temporazily 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 large
head with blunt jaws. The cazapace 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

a
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. elliotii), 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 neazshore 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 azea. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study
azea 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 rare 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 1 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, Grifton,
Muckalee, Torhunta, and Woodington. Each of these series are sandy foams. 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

~ f
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
vaz. weatherbiana SR-T Y
E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, SR -Significantly Rare, -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 area, 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 years of age within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the
North Carolina 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 azchaeological 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 a.n inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
Page 25

J
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 are 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 are 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 area.
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 area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. 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 are 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

Harty Shelter
Game Land
`~
YYiINrd ~
5 ~
4 \
-a,dxl, Mi
~ w, m,
1 Nie
.nla, ~ S 11

, M Fbr
~ 1021 urn ~ ® ~
/// Atninan l ~ {

'~~~,. l
. ~ P Wxdf
E ,x 0
N ~ , ~
R Nair ends
4zl F . ~ ~ ~ y~~~f, .
~s ~ ,
Bridge/IVo. 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

30 ft. 8 ft.* 12 ft. 12 ft. 8 ft. 12 ft. 6 ft. 10 ft.
(9.OmJ (2.4mJ* (3.6mJ (3.6mJ (2.4mJ (3.6mJ (l.BmJ l3.OmJ
2ft. 2ft. zy
PS ~ ~ PS o
(0.6mJ (0.6mJ
W ~ - 7AY)/,lyl/AVt
. TO 3.1 0.08 _ _ 0.02 _0.02 _ 0.08 6:1 ,~ = 0 31 SLOPESLE
VAR. 61 ~ 6:1
-~~~~~~ GRADE POINT
* 11 ft. (3.3m) WHEN GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED
TRAFFIC DATA
(EXISTING YR.) 2004 ADT = 3,700 LOS C
(CONST. YR.) 2005 ADT = 3,900 LOS C
(DESIGN YR.) 2030 ADT = 8,300 LOS D
DUAL 6°~
TTST 4°~
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
MAJOR COLLECTOR -RURAL
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
(PROPOSED)
. 3 ft.. 12 ft. I 12 ft. . 3 ft. .
GRADE POINT
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
(PROPOSED)
(I.OmJ (3.6mJ (3.6mJ (l.Oml

0.02 0.02 _

ia~m

'~"~ ~ T.Z,P. No, ~-4223, Federal-Aid Presjeet No. ~RSTP-0210(4), State F'rc~j~*ct Na, 8.12? 10(1 t Fender Cnunty>
NC 21013rid~;e No, 21 over Noah East Cape Fear River
FIGURE 4

APPRdXtMATE SCALE
20i}0_ 4 2400 FEET
~ x~~ rua ~ts~~~cE ~~o~rw
ZONE C
~ ~~
~. ~!
~~~~~ Fta00 NISURANCE RATE MAP
,a
-422p ,,';,~; ~~~~~8 coQxT~,
~~~~~, NBBTH CABOLII~A
tbt6 ~ .~, tn~~XG~~Pd$A'~'E~ ~~~~~~
'~~,~
,~
~, ,'~~'
~ ,~ri~,
i~ b'
I~'~~ P~. ~~~ ~ ~1
L t54E wig 4#Dix ff)11 ~Alv{~,e itOT fRfNT[~!
nlil
2dNE ~'fl'' i
K~ Rio '~~ ' '
.-'''~
a
C~~MtI~TX-PAl4EL It~tEl!
s , s, 3Tfl3~4 A3T5 C
~~ d ~~
MAP SEYiSED:
ZdME C lUilE 5, 1934 I
M4t?RE TOWN
mm. a .~ etedet mar a • aaa«~ a a~. ~o~. good ~•a ~
,ka. eectteat.d u.k+p Fit oni,m. Zt+ne da.. ewt rell.ot ohm..
or arae vN#ott tnM h We beat mrd- sutxeque++t 4n Me diN an tM
dtN flock. For ih» tatwt peoauet i~tbrmetlon about NeMOesel ftood hwtwsrme
Psoprortt food mM~e check the Ft?kiA Flood Map t3toee K w~vw mso.feme.par

FIGURE 5

S. Department of
Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
P. O. Box 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Dear Ms. Williams:
Commander
United States Coast Guard
Fifth Coast Guard District
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: Oan-b
Phone: [phone]
Fax: (757) 3J8-6334
Email: [e-mail]
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, '
i'
`~G~/ n
~(/~ r
WAVERLY G G Y, JR
Chief, Bridge Administratio Secti
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District

U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
United States
Coast Guard
Commander
United States Coast Guard
Fifth Coast Guard Distrid
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: Oan-b i
Phone: [phone]
Fax: (757) 39B-6334
Email: [e-mail]
16593
21 Jan 04
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
P. O. Box 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Dear Ms. Williams:
This is in response to your request for Coast Guard review of a project to replace the bridge
(#21) over the Northeast Cape Feaz River in Pender County, North Carolina.
Since this waterway is subject to tidal influence, it is considered legally navigable for Bridge
Administration purposes. This waterway also meets the criteria for advanced 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 Guard has given his 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 regazding this matter, please contact Mr. Terrance Knowles, at the
phone number or address shown above.
Sincerely,
~~~
WAVERLY REG~RY,
Chief, Bridge Admuustra on Section
' ,
r
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guazd District
,~

.~
•~: ~~ .-" rU.~. Department commander
of transportation 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
V~ ~~ ~
431 Crawford Street ~ ^~ n~
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004 2 et
Staff Symtwl: (Aowb)
Phone: [phone]
16s9o ~~ ~ ~ V
03 DEC 02 ~ fiQ
Dl=C ~ 0 2002
L'1V?,fi~l OF
Ht r,wAYs
•'~i;r'. ~'L~''VFLOPt~
Dear Mr. Thorpe: ' ~ ~"~ t ~!
T',.is is in response ±O yo~ar letter 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 Cree
Withrow Creek and Pinch Gut Creek all located throughout North Carolina.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard 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 Guard 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.
New River and
the uc m orma ion as, ><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.
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

~ `1~
- 16590
03 DEC 02
local agency who may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the project. If you have any
questions, please contact Terrance Knowles at the phone number or address show above.
Sincerely,
--~-
ANN B. DEATON
_ Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
2

•~ ~
r
~•~r~~
~~
Ti r r
~ 1 I i.
1~ `+:', r
DEC U 9 2~G2 ~~ ~
~~-r~rrwrrrrwrw-w+rr~-+-
Gte$o~ J. Thorpe, Ph. D,
~ftvlYOtlmCnt~l Management Director
Project•tkwelopment and
F,trviranmental Analysis $r~1Ch
NC~ Ocpartmprt c-f Transportation
1 S48 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 271599.1 S48
Attention- John Wadsworth, P
ikar Th. Thorpe
UNITED STATte~ t~EPAATMENT OF COMMQRCE
NoCionsl Opsrae ar~d Aunaapherla AtMwnitstreClpn
iJ,T'1Dh1A~ M,4r+lWE i~HC-HIES SEpYICE
Habits! Conservation Division
101 Fivers Island Koad
l3eaufon, Tvflrih Carolina 38i l6-~~~~3
December 6, 2002
The Nstivnal Moline F aherieS Servicr (NOAA Fisheries) has reviewed your Uctober 24, 3~tU2. letter
requesting commcttts on eight bridge rzplacert~et'It projects included in the Nonb Carolina
Oepartmetu of Transporration 3002-?008 '1'ran3pertation Improvement Ptan Wr untleratand tlta~,
the NCDUT is preparir~ the planning and envirotmental studip noocsst+ry to prowess tlte~e projects
ss Categorical Exclusions and offers the following comments for your considerJlti~n
The tn~hronmental documems for these projecu g6tw~d udcltess measures dcsi~ed to a••oid tend
mirtirtrizc lass of open water and wetlands that support fishery resourrrete [~ addition. ~• a support
findings contained in the May 9, 200?. letter from the Wiii+~ingtpn District, U.S:.~rm. Corps of
i»ngineefs. which idetrtified the• following issues Arid ConCClnS as bei~ rele~.-ant to the proposed
bridge reptaccment projocts: •
- Rrplacing bridges with cuh~rrts
- Permanent xnd •temporary wetland lasses
- Of>`'S+te verStJS OnSKe detOttTX
- lime of year restrictions c+n instrearil wort;
w Trratmeat ol'wetlaatd t+estotation at+cas
- l~~cibting bridge demolition and removal •
-Lengthening existing brid>nes as ~- wetland restoration measure
Group 1-The fbllpw~+ng projects will have no impact on resources for which NQA:1 Fisltei ies ltas
atr~~ardship responsibl'lity;tberefore, vue have no comments: _
Prxctl ro I~jtiled papa
~«~
"~ :~
.~ , .. ~
Y
`•~ P
~•

Brddgt Number ProjRCt Number County
No. 4l6 B - 4103 Davidson County
No. 28 $ = a25S Rowan County
Na. 34 B. ~ 4282 Stokes County
. ~sroup !1 ~ 17~ese' prc~jeCtB ha~~D the potetuiat to afl"Cet fisfidy resources and theif dSSOCiated habitat
~
which NaAA Fisheries has stewardship respo~ility: .
Bride Number Project Number Coanty
Na. 12 B -1382 Sampson County
• No_ 2b T3. 1382 Sampson GoutY<y '
No. 72 ~ B -403' Btttnswick County
Na. 24 B - 4114 Onslow .County
No. Z t B ~ aZ23 Patder County
Bridges !2, 26. Z1 tend 24 are loctttod in the Cape Fear and New River basins and in areas which
provide ltabitat• for at~adromous fistury rosow~Ce3 including American shad and river hemn~;.
Bridges 72 and 24 are located in auras with brackish to saline waters that also support estuarine
depettder~t fishery resources sttch as spot. Atlamic cfoak~ar, and blue crib. Ttt addition, tbest projects
may~affcu Essential Xrislr Hi6itai For Federally managed species such as rod drum and shrimp
whicharc managed by the South Atlantic 1!ahery Mana$ecneat Courual, and surrrilEf floandcr which
is marmged by the Mid-Atlstttic Fishwl- Mant~ernmt Council A~ccardingiy, wt recommend that
tip ~ssemiai 1•isTt Habitat Assessrnert 1'~e includedm any em+ironmetttal docutne»t fcx tbr,~ >m'J~s.
Spaaming and nursery habitat for attadromous and estuarine fishes may be adversely impacted bS
these projctxs unks: measurts to avtaid and minmti~ impacts to waters attd w~etiatid3 are includod
in the p~j~ P~-S- '[herefore, NOAA ~tshaies may rid asainst Dcpartntent of tlto Army
autho>uatian of these projects under Nationwide Permit 23 unless the following reaammendations
are incorporated:, ~ ~ ..
~ FoUov~-ittg irnrpap avoidance .and minimir~tion, uttitvoidabiC wetland losses shall be of{'set
t~bfnttgh implemontattati ofa oonopa~sacory mitigation plan that hps been approved by the Corps
of Engineers and in rsotts~dteticm with NQAA Fisheries.
.
K ~-
.~,. A!I ccsastrtiction activities in waters end assocaateKl wetlands shall ut~7.e techniques that dvoid
and nunimize, adverse impacts to those systems and shear associated 9orr and fauna

,~ ~
in order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may unltze 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 granted by the
Corps of Engineers following consultation with NOAH Fisheries.
If these projects are processed under Nationwide 23, they will 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 forwarded to you.
Finally, the shortnose sturgeon, a federally protected species under the purview of NOAA
Fisheries is found in the Cape Fear River. These comments do not saxisfy federal agency
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of l 973, as
amended. If any activity `Rmay effort" listed species and habitats under NOAH- 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
projects_ If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field
Office st 252-728-5090 or at ron.sechler@noas sov.
Sincerely,
~~
i~
~r7 Andreas Maser, Jr
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

_• ~ .~ p y2a3 , .
` - UNITEO BTATES OEPAgTMENT OF COMiHiRCE
~/ ~~ ~ ~ National Oceanic end Atmoaphsric Adminlatration
/~ rr ~/ ~ .•' NATIONAE MARIN£ FISHERIES SERVICE
abitat Conservation Divislrni
101 Pivers.Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28.51 G-9722
June 7, 2002
William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head r~0
Bridge Replacement Unit ~ ~ t
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~ ~;
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, Nortn Carolina 27699-1548 s ~ J ~~°
~~~
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
The National Marine. Fisheries- Service (NMFS) ,has reviewed the Natural Systems. Technical
Reports (NSTR) -Group 2, for 22 bridge replacement projects identified in your March 1, 2002,
letter-. These projects are scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2005:
By letter dated May 9, 2002 (copy enclosed), the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers identified the following issues. and concerns as being relevant to the proposed bridge
replacement projects:
- Replacing bridges with culverts
- Aermanent and.temporary weiland`losses ` ~ .
- Offsite versus onsite detours ~~
..
- Time` of year restrictions on ~nstream'woTk "~ ~ ~= _= =-'~ - `= ~=~•
- Treatment of wetland-restoration~areas= -
- Existing bridge demolition and removal _ ' ~ --- _--' ~ ~ .
- Lengthening existing Bridges as a wetland restoration measure ~ ~ ~ --
. __. .
e NMFS agrees that these issues should be fully addressea~wrfh regard to impacts and mitigation. ~ ~ - -
VVe also agree with the Corps' determination~that identifying projects-involving these activities as
Green Light Projects is misleading and'should not -be used. 'Therefore, the following Group 2
projects should be identified as either Yellow or Red Light projects.
Section I'- Yellow Light Projects (YI;Ps)
The bridge replacement projects listed below are located in areas`that do not support NMFS trust
fislyery resources. Otherwise, the~~ have normal environmental concerns and, therefore, are identif led
as YLPs.
'~~
~ a
Printed nn Rcc}rled Piper ~ ~ F
9~~VLMO
'}.

_..~ ~ r.
Bridge Number Project Number
Bridge No. l 3f B - 4025
Bridge No. 108 B - 4 154 '
Bridge No. 1 l8 B - 4235
Bridge No. 191 B - 4272
Section I1 -Yellow Light Projects {YLPs

Location
Beaufort County
Hyde County
Pitt County
Sampson County
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 Location
~
~. .
Bridge No. 45 B - 4026 Bertie County
Bridge No. 29 B -4314 Washington County
Bridbe No. l 0 B - 4086 Craven County
Bridbe No. 4G B - 4125 Greene County
Bridbe No. 49 B - 4126 Greene and Lenoir
.Counties
Bridge No. 43 B - 4127 Green County
Bridge No. 67 B - 4150 Hertford County
Bridbe No. 7 B - 4169 Jones County
Bridge No. 5 B - 4187 Martin County
~enc~er'Cnud
- Bridge No. 69 ,B `- 4227 ~ - Perquimans County - - .
Bridge No: ~98 ~- - B - 4234 . - Pitt County --
- Spawning and nursery habitat foT anadromous fishes-may:be~adversely impacted 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 Departmentof4he:Army authorization of-
these projects under Nationwide Permit 23,unless the following recommendations are incorporated: -
1. Following impact avoidance and minimization, : a~navoidable-wetland -losses `shall be offset - ~ - " -
through implementation ofa compensatory mitigation plan that 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 techniduesthat -
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 l of any year unless prior approval is .granted by'the .Corps of Engineers following
consultation ~a~ith the NIvIFS.

Y ~4
Section I11 -Red Light Projects (RLPs)
Red Light Projects are those that include extraordinary resources or concerns that will require close
coordination to ,complete successfully. These projects involve high quality wetlands, extremely
valuable ar rare endangered species habitats, or other limited or unusual resources.
The bridge replacement projects listed below may effect estuarine waters, intertidal salt marshes, and
tidal freshwater marshes and may be located in areas designated as primary nurseries by the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. In
view of the fact that work in these locations could adversely effect NMFS trust fishery resources,
they are classified as RLPs. In addition, some of these project areas include Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) for species managed~under authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act(P.L. I04-297) and other statutory and regulatory provisions. if these projects are
processed under Nationwide 23, .they will 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 a copy will be forwarded to you.
Bridge Number
Project Number
Location
Bridge No. 77
Bridge No: 72
Bridge No. 19
Bridge No. 24
Bridge No. 65
Bridge No: 4~
B - 361.1. Beaufort County
B - 403 ] Brunswick County
B - 421 S Onslow County
B - 42 ] 4 Onslow County
B - 4219 Pamlico County
B - 4221 Pamlico County
Finally, tl~e shortnose sturgeon, a Federally protected species under the purview of the NMFS is
found in the Cape Fear and Roanoke. Rivers: These comments do not satisfy Federal agency
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered. Species Act of 1973, as amended.
If any activity. "may effect" listed species and habitats under NMFS purview, consultation should be
initiated with. our Protected Resources',Div~sion at 972] Executive Center Drive North, St.
Petersburg, Florida 33702:
We appreciate the opportunity. for early participation in the review of these bridge replacement
projects. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at the letterhead address or at 252-728-
5090. ~ .,
Sincerely,
OrJ
Ron Sechler
Fishery Biologist

. -:.; ` r
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North 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:
GEI YEO
N~V ~ ~ 7nr~
~ pNf£~ ~ a
F tjt~• h
POD`, CT n ~ t ~ .. ~ i, ,~5`
. r...
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 Coordination 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:
a=
?al

. ,~
1: Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practical;
2. 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 via conservation easements, land trusts or by other
means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges. For
projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be aligned
along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of fish and
wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be entirely
removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including trees if
necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive. areas should occur outside fish spawning and
migratory bird nesting seasons. 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 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
comdors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to
alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming or
constriction of the channel or floodplain. If spanning the floodplain is not feasible, culverts
should be installed in the floodplain. portion of the approach to restore some of the
hydrological functions of the floodplain and reduce high velocities of floodwaters within the
affected area.
Enclosed are lists of species from Sampson, Brunswick, Onslow and Pender Counties that are on
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as federal species of
concem. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as

.,
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, htt~•//endangered.fii~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 maybe 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 LJ.S., including wetlands, that are 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.

i ~t
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning processes, including your off cial determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
~~
/ ~~
~~ ~ Garland B.afdue Ph.D.
. Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure -
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

-`~~
., ~, =_,
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ):geld Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, Noah 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
Deaz 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 Yeaz (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 aze:
1. B-3611, Bridge No. 77 on-NC 99 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County;
2. B-4424, Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 over Pantego Creek [Canal?J, 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 Count}
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
Count}

~s ~ •'~
2
16. B-4187, Bridge No. 5 on SR 1417 over Conoho Creek, Martin County;
17. B-4214, Bridge No. 24 on US 17 over the New River, Onslow County;
18. B-4215, Bridge No. 19 on NC 210 over Stones Creek, Onslow County;
19. B-4219, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1304 over an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River, Pamlico
County;
20. B- 4221 ,Bridge No. 4 on SR 1344 over South Prong Bay River, Pamlico County;
21. B~4223,.Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County;
22. B-4227, Bridge No. 69 on SR 1222 over Unnamed tributary to Mill Creek, Perquimans
County;
23. B-4234, Bridge No. 98 on SR 1407 over Conetoe Creek, Pitt County;
24. B-4235, Bridge No. 118 on SR 1538 over Grindel Creek, Pitt County;
25. B-4248, Bridge No. 170 on SR 1101 over Shoe Heel Creek (Gaddy Mill Road), Robeson
County;
26. B-4272, Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek, Sampson County; and,
General Scoping Comments
Some NRTRs contained only maps of the immediate project site and a verbal description of the.
project location. In reviewing our records of known locations for Federally listed species, it
would be beneficial to the Service to have a map showing the location of the project. Each
location map should include at least one municipality or sizable community to facilitate locating
the project area.
The title page for B-4024 (Beaufort County) states that Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 is over
"Canal." The body of the report states that this bridge crosses Pantego Creek which appears to
be the correct designation. Title pages should reflect the correct location of the project.
General Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands
For each project, we recommend the following conservation measures to avoid or minimize
adverse environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practical as
outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region
should be avoided. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur
outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
2. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along or adjacent to existing, roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed
areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. At the completion of
construction, the entire detour area, including any previous detour from past construction

~.
.i~ ~
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. Opporhuuties
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 research 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 yeaz for accurate identification. The biological conclusions of the NCDOT for
plants should include the time of year that a survey was conducted, the person hours of
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

.`
4
construction if vegetation disturbing activities, e.g., regular mowing or timber harvesting, occur
at the project site.
The NCDOT should carefully consider potential impacts to the West Indian.manatee (Trichechus
manatus) of bridge replacement projects in coastal counties. Several NRTRs, e.g., B-4235 (Pitt
County), state that manatees require at least five feet of water. Manatees are able to use shallow
channels that may not seem suited for such a large mammal. O'Shea and Ludlow (1992) wrote
that. the primary habitat requirements for the species are access to vascular aquatic plants,
freshwater source, and proximity to channel 1-2 meters deep (3.3 -6.6 feet). Therefore, the
NCDOT should only consider reaching a "no effect" determination for the manatee when water
depths at the project site do not rise above one meter. Manatees may become entangled in
erosion control and siltation.fences placed in shallow water: Measures to prevent these devices
from harming manatees are addressed in our 1996 guidelines to NCDOT (USFWS 1996). The
biological conclusion of the NCDOT on impacts to manatees cannot be based on negative visual
surveys of the project area. These mobile animals may not inhabit a given area for extended
periods, and manatees may move into a given project site where the species has never been
reported previously. The best procedure for ensuring the safety of these endangered mammals is
to follow the Service's precautions if the area is suitable manatee habitat.
Surveys for mussels should extend 100 meters (328 feet) upstream and 300 meters (984 feet)
downstream from the project site. Environmental documentation that includes survey
methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results, should be
provided to this office for review and comment.
If surveys for a Federally protected species should determine that a given project would adversely
affect the species, a biological assessment (BA) maybe prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2)
requirement and in determining whether formal consultation with the Service is necessary.
.Please notify this office with the results of the surveys for the listed species that may occur in the
project area. Please include survey methodologies and an analysis of the effects of the action,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
Project Specific Comments
In addition to the general comments applicable to all bridge replacement project, we offer the
following project-specific comments:
B-3611, Bridge No. 77 on NC 99 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County -The NRTR states (p.
16) that habitat for the manatee exists in the project area, but that no manatees were seen
during natural resources investigations. The report concludes that the project would have
"no effect" on the manatee. The Service does not concur with this determination.
Manatees are seasonal transients in North Carolina from (primarily June through
October). As noted, potential impacts on this species cannot be based on limited field
inspections. The Service recommends that future project documentation include

5
commitments to follow procedures 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. 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 area, 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 "~rnarginal habitat exists fotiough=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 on rough-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 azea (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 azea." 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) are `Sunresolved." Wood storks may
undertake post-breeding season dispersals from June through early autumn in seazch of
food in swamps, marshes, and mudflats. The NCDOT should seek to determine whether
the prof ect area 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 year, the Service would
recommend that this project be scheduled outside this particular period.

.g
6
B-4086, Bridge No. 10 on SR 1111 over Brices Creek, Craven County - With an average depth
of three feet, Brices Creek is not likely to used by manatees. The Service cannot concur
with the determination that the project would have "no effect" on the sensitive jointvetch
based the lack of observation during site survey in 200.1 and an absence of historical
occurrence in the project area. The.NRTR notes that suitable habitat for this species is
present in the project area. 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 sensitive jointvetch..
B-4154, Bridge No. 108 on SR 1340 over Old State Canal, Hyde County -The NRTR notes that
habitat for the sensitive jointvetch is present in the project azea, but concludes that the
project will have no impacts on the species, based in part, on a failure to find the species
during surveys. 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-4219, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1304 over an unnamed tributary to the Neuse River, Pamlico
County -The tributary to be crossed has an average depth of approximately four feet and
the NRTR notes (p. 15) that "marginal" habitat for the manatee exists in the project area.
The Service does not concur with the biological conclusion of "no effect" for the manatee
and recommends that future project documentation include commitments to follow
procedures given in "Precautions for General Construction in Areas Which May Be Used
by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina."
B- 4221 ,Bridge No. 4 on SR 1344 over South Prong Bay River, Pamlico County -The NRTR
(p. 3) notes that the average depth of the water to be bridged is approximately 3.5 feet and
later concludes (p. 15) that the waterway is not deep enough or contain sufficient
vegetation to provide habitat for the manatee. The Service cannot concur with the stated
conclusion that "no impact to the West Indian manatee will result from project
construction." We recommend that future project documentation include commitments to
follow procedures given in "Precautions for General Construction in Areas Which May
Be.Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina."
B- 4223, Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 over the Northeast Cape Feaz River, Pender County -The
NRTR notes (p. 20) that manatees could occur in the project area and states that impacts
to the species are "unresolved." The NRTR also recommends that a "follow-up survey"
be conducted. A one time survey will not determine the presence of this species at a
particular construction site. The species moves through North Carolina coastal waters on
a seasonal basis. If there is any chance that the species could occur at a construction site,
the Service's guidelines (USFWS 1996) should be incorporated into project plans.

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 Taz River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The
azea 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 hazdwoods in the interior areas, and the mazgins 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 project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Howazd Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely, ~~~~;,
l ~ ~,r~'"
/~'~^-'
.~a ~ Dr. Gazland 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.).
Raze 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.

. ,~
8
cc:
Ted Bisterfeld, U. S. Envirorunental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Michael Bell. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office, Washington,
NC
Eric Alsmeyer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, Raleigh NC
David Timpy, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office,
Wilmington NC
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Northside, NC

• ~
Action ID: 200101172
0

0
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
County: Pender
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property ~ Authorized Agent:
Owner: Jeff Harbour, PWS
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager/ Environmental Services, INC
Project Development & Environmental Analysis 524 New Hope Road
1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 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:
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.
Management to determine their requirements.
There are wetlands on the above described properly which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be .verified by our staff 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
andlor 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.
-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 detemunation may be 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 properly which are subject to the permit requirements of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the raw or our published
regulations, this detemunation may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification
The project is located in one. of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal

Gov 2 s 2002
May 9,2002 ------------------------
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200101169, 200101170, 200101171, 200101172, 200101174,
200101175, and 200200726.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Reference your letters February 18, 2002, Macch 1, 2002, March 18, -2002, and
Apri124, 2002 regazding our scoping comments on the following proposed bridge
replacement projects:
1. TIP Project No. B-4268, Bridge No: 150 on SR 1006 over Little Cohazie Creek,
. Sampson County, Action ID 200101169.
2. TIP Project No. B-4272, Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek,
Sampson County, Action ID 200101170,
3. TIP Project No. B-4031, Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch,
Brunswick County, Action ID 200101171.
~4. TIP Project No. B-4223, Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 over NE Cape Fear River,
Pender County, Action ID 200101172.
~5. TIP Project No. B-4214, Bridge No. 24 on US 17 over New River, Onslow
County, Action ID 200101174.
'~6. TIP Project No. B- 4215, Bridge No. 19 on NC 210 over Stones Creek, Onslow
County, Action ID 200101175.
\,7.. TIP Project No. B-1382, Action ID 200200726, no information provided.
Based on the information provided for each project in the referenced letter (except
TIP Project No. B-1382) and jurisdictional delineations conducted on October 9, 2001, it
appears that each proposed bridge replacement project may impact jurisdictional wetlands.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated or fill
material in waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with these
projects, including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will
depend on design of the projects, extent, of fill work within the waters of the United States,

°r
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 aze always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided that
demonstrates that alternatives with lower wetland impacts aze 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

..~
detour at each of the proposed project sites. Based on these inspections, potential for
sediment consolidation in wetlands exists at several of the proposed projects. Therefore,
it is recommended that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at each project site to
estimate the magnitude of sediment consolidation that can occur due to an on-site detour
and the amount of undercutting that may be necessary. The results of this evaluation
should be provided in the project planning report. Based on our field inspections, we
strongly recommend that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at each of referenced
proposed project sites. The following projects are considered as "red "projects as
described in your letter of February 18, 2002.
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.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if recommended
liy the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled on an upland site and later
used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
appropriate. For projects proposing a temporary onsite detour in wetlands, the entire
detour area, including any previous detour from past construction activities, should be
removed in its entirety.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish. The work
must atso not alter the stream hydraulics and create flooding of adjacent properties or ,
result in unstable stream banks. In addition, the report should address the impacts that the
culvert would have on recreational navigation.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the impacts of
constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the bridge demolition policy
recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999.

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 existing 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

1~
~.
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Dorney ~-
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621. '
Mr. Doug Huggett
North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management
-1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. David Cox
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1141 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Howard Hall
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement ;
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Allen Pope, PE
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 3
124 Division Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA/EAB
980 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605
.y
s

~r~
State of North Carolina
3'~~~~aa-~ ~ Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
BiN Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
June 3, 2002
1 ~ •
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 Dorne `~
NC Division ~ Wat ality, 401 Unit
From: Robert Ridings /~%~,~.~~ r
NC Division of Water Quality~~1Q1 Unit
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 10 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 1501inear 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 919-733-(786 FAX # [phone]

For permitting, any project that falls under the Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permits 23 or 33
do not require written concurrence by the NC Division of Water Quality. Notification and
courtesy copies of materials sent to the Corps, including mitigation plans, are required. For
projects that fall under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 or Regional General Bridge
Permit 31, the formal 401 application process will be required including appropriate fees and
mitigation plans.
Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Additionally,
vegetation should not be removed from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary.
NCDOT should especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut
trees must be removed, then the trunks should be cut and the stumps and root systems left in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization must be minimized; rather, native vegetation should be
planted when practical. If necessary, rip-rap must be limited to the stream bank below the high
water mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water.
Rules regarding stormwater as described in (15A NCAC 2b.0216 (3) (G)) shall be followed for
these projects. These activities shall minimize built-upon surface area. divert runoff away from
surface waters and maximize utilization of BMPs. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed
in order to allow it to be most effectively utilized for storm water sheet flow.
Special Note on project B-4234: these waters are classified as 303(d) waters. Special measures
for sediment control will be needed.
Please note that project B-4234 is in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. All activity should comply
with the Riparian Buffer Rules for that basin.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost.

::) r-!
{'?,.~ ~'~` ~ Subject: Bridge Replacement Projects CFY 2005 ~ ~ / ~`
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 19 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.
9. 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-4029 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-9026 in Bertie County - DCM has no jurisdiction
4.B-4031 in Brunswick County -RED LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
1 of 2 5/30/02 11:33 AM

project area include CW, CS and PTW. Construction of the existing bridge
has significantly impacted the AEC's. Restoration and enhancement '~
mitigation potential is as great as the potential to adversely effect
the AEC's.
5. B-4086 in Craven County - GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. Parking area as in the northwest
corner should be maintained.
6. B-4150 in Hertford County - YELLOW LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. Parking and access to the road along
the creek should be preserved.
7. B-4154 in Hyde County - DCM has no jurisdiction.
8. B-4219 in Onslow County - YELLOW LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include PTW, PTS, CW, ES, EW. Wetlands surrounding this
bridge should be protected as much as possible. Tidal wetlands in the
northeast quadrant and wetlands in the Coastal Shoreline Buffer have the
greatest significance. There exists a moderate potential for mitigation.
9. B-4215 in Onslow County - GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. A moderate potential for mitigation
may be possible with the lengthening of the bridge.
10. B-9219 in Pamlico County - RED LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in project
area include CW, CS, PTW, PTS and EW. The existing bridge has impacted
the surrounding waters and wetlands. The inlet for this creek has closed
in and only has water exchange at high tide. The bridge needs to be
extended and the fill causeway removed. Great mitigation potential.
Should preserve parking spaces for public access.
11. B-4221 in Pamlico County - GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in
project area include PTS and PTW. Access to farm roads in NW and SE
quadrants should be preserved. A moderate potential for mitigation may
exist with lengthening the bridge and removing causeway.
12. BB~422J,in Pender County - YELLOW LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. Any realignment or expansion of fill
slopes should move to the south to avoid impacts to the access and
business and residence on the north side of the bridge.
13. B-4227 in Perquimans County - GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. Access adjacent to the bridge should
be maintained.
14. B-4319 in Washington County- GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in
project area include PTW and PTS.
Thank you for providing DCM with the opportunity to comment on these
projects in advance of their planning. Advance notification of
environmental concerns should allow the design and permitting process to
work more smoothly.
Thank you,
Bill
of 2
5/30/02 11:33 AM

t ~
- ~ ~~.
~ _
'~~
"~ j
::~.
.~ . .
.,
. ~ North Carolina Wildlife 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 diva 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-402.4
Bertie County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026
Brunswick County -Bridge No. 72, NC 179, Jinnys Branch, B-4U31
Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065 -
Craven County- Bridge No. 10, SR 1111, Brices Creek, B-4086
Cumberland County - Bride 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 i 544, Tar River, B-4211
Onslow County -Bridge 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: Divisi~~n of Inland Fishrries • 1721 Mail Service C:entrr • Italeitih, NC ?7699-1721
Telephone: [phone] csc. 2S 1 • Pas: (919; 71 ~-76;3

Bridge Memo ~ 2
May 22, 2002
.~
Randolph County -Bridge No. 257, SR 2824, Vestal Creek, B-4245
Richmond County -Bridge No. 129, SR 1321, Big Mountain Creek, B-4247
Sampson County--Bridge No. 150, SR 1006, Little Coharie Creek, B-4268
Sampson County- Bridge No. 191, SR 1$45, Great Coharie Creek, 'B-4272
Vance County -Bridge No. 3, ~SR .1107, Ruin Creek, B-4298
Wake Courlty~-.Bridge No. 189, SR 2333, Little River, B-4305
Washington County -Bridge No. 29, SR 1163, Maul Creek, B-4314
Wilson County -Bridge No. 52, SR 1131, Turkey Creek, B-4327
Wilson County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1634, Great Swamp, B- 4328
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should riot discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with-a spacing of not more than 10'x10°. If possible, when using temporary
structures. the area-should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
. root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A cleaz bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species maybe
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
~.

,~-a
` :ridge Memo
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 minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temposry 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:
1. 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 (similaz to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream, and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled 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.

Bride Memo
4
May 22, 20G< .
•~r
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry dunng normal flows to allow for vv~ldhfe passage.
~.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever ~ .
possible to avoid channel reali~unent. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the mlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site maybe utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. Beaufort County -Bridge No. 77, NC 99, Pantego Creek, B-3611
YELLOW LIGHT. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is potential for
wetland impacts at this location due to the width of stream and site elevation. Due to the ,_
potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Strew
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". This includes.a moratorium on
work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to June 15.
2. Beaufort County -Bridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024
GREEN LIGHT. No concerns indicated by biologists. Standard conditions should be
appropriate.
3. Beaufort County -Bridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024
GREEN LIGHT. No concerns indicated by biologists. Standard conditions should be
appropriate.
Choowatic Creek B-4026 NCDOT
4. Berne County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110,
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location,
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.
5. Brunswick County -Bridge No. 72, NC 179, Jinnys Branch, B-4031 NCDOT
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location,
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Pa i s go"
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February
June 15. There is also the potential for impacts to high quality coastal wetlands at this
location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts to these ".
resources. `~

' ~ ;ridge Memo ~ May 22, 2002
.y ~ _
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 abridge 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 standazd 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 1 S.
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 perfonn a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should beheld
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
standazd 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 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.

Bridge Memo
6
May 22, 2002
13. Greene County - Bridge_ No. 46, SR 1091, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4125
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this sit
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Standard recommendation
apply.
14. Greene/Lenoir Cos. -Bridge No. 49, SR 1434, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4126
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Standard recommendations
apply.
15. Greene County -Bridge No. 43, SR 1438, Rainbow Creek, B-4127
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts.to these wetlands. Standard recommendations
apply.
16. Halifax County-Bridge No. 11, SR 1001, Jacket Swamp; B-4133
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.
17. Harnett County-Bridge No. 35, NC 42, Norfolk and Southern Railway, B-4137
GREEN LIGHT. No comment.
18. Hertford County - Bridge No. 67, SR 1118, Ahoskie Creek, B-4150
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 comments apply.
19. Hyde County-Bridge No. 108, SR 1340, Old State Canal, B-4154
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
20. Jones County -Bridge No. 7, SR 1129, Big Chinquapin Blanch, B-4169
YELLOW LIGHT. Big Chinquapin Branch supports a good fishery for sunfish;
therefore, we recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1
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
recommendations apply.
21. Lee County -Bridge No. 4, SR 1423, Gum Fork, B-4171
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
22. Martin County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1417, Conoho Creek, B-4187
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~urisdictional 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.
23. Nash County -Bridge No. 56, SR 1544, Tar River, B-4211

,~ ~~sridge Memo 7 Ma 22 ~
y , _002
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 recormendations apply.
24. Onslow Courrty -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 v-nthin jurisdictional waters from February 15 to September 30. Other standard
recommendations apply.
25. Onslow County -Bridge No. 19, NC 210, Stones Creek.
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 comments apply. -
27. Pamlico County -Bridge No. 4, SR i 344, 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
apply. .
28. Pender County -Bridge Na 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

Bridge Memo
S
May 22, 2002 - '
.~
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. 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:
T
32. Randolph County -Bridge No. 34, SR 1304, Second Creek, B-4242
GREEN LIGHT. Standard comments apply.
33. Randolph County -Bridge No. 257, SR 2824, Vestal Creek, B-4245
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 comments
apply.
34. Richmond County -Bridge No. 129, SR 1321, Big Mountain Creek, B-4247
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 standazd comments
apply.
35. Sampson County-Bridge No. 150, SR 1006, Little Coharie Creek, B-4268
YELLOW LIGHT. Little Coharie Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish; therefore,
we recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June
15. 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.
36. Sampson County-Bridge No, 191, SR 1845, Great Coharie Creek, B-4272 ~^
YELLOW EIGHT. Great Coharie Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish; .therefore,
we recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 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 stnadazd comments apply.
37. Vance County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1107, Ruin Creek, B-4298
.RED LIGHT. 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 beheld 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.
38. Wake County -Bridge No. 189, SR 2333, Little River, B-4305
RED LIGHT. The Little River supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 fo 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
standazd recommendations apply.

'__ $
• , ~,dge Memo 9 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 moFatonum 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
. FELLOW 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.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at (33b) 769-9453. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these proj ects.
cc: USFWS, Raleigh

' , +t
North Carolipa Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
navia z. s. crook, Adtn;nietrstor
Micstael F. Eas)sy, Governor
Lasbeth C.lrvaas, Secretary
Je~ey J. Clow, Deputy Secretaryy
Offxe of Archives and History
September 10, 2003
MSMOR~N'DUM
Division of Historical Eesoarcos
TO: Miry Pope Farr, Historic Architecture Supervisor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCl7OT Division of Highways
FROM: Davin Broalr ~~
SLTI3JEC'T: Histoxit/Architectural Resources Survey Report, Bridge 1~To. 21 NC 210 over
Northeast Cape Fear River, 8-4223, Peoder County, EROZ-$581
'T'hank you for your letter of July 31, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Vanessa E. Patuck, NCDCYT.
The foIlowiug property is determined not eligible fox li,~g in the Nadonal Regxstet of Historic Places:
Davis-Trask House, NC 210 (Larne's Ferry RoAd)
Davis-Trask House, NC 21.0 (I.alae's Ferry Road), is not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places because it is no longer retains its outbuildings and cannot conveyits historq as a farm or nursery.
The house is not associated with persons signi5cant' firom our past Further, the house is not atchitecturally
distinguished in form, construction, or design.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section; 106 of the National Historic Prescatvatiazi Acr and the
Advisory Councsl on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Casnpliance with Section 10G codified at 36
CFR Part 800,
Thank you far your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental revie9v coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all futaze
communication concerning this project, please ate the above referenced txacl~g number.
c~ Greg Thorpe, NCDpT
www. hpo.derstsite.nc.us
Locstfon ~ Miiliog tddreast ~ TelephotdFu
AdMtNi$7'pAT10N 507 N. Blount SL. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Cert[er. Ralei~A NC 27699-4b17 (919) 733-x763 •731->l65]
RFSI'ORA710N SIS N. Blount St, RNeigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC Z7699-0b1 i [phone] •715601
3[iRVEV ~ rulvNa!NC S lS N. Bbunt St.. Raleigh NC 1617 Mail 5crvicc Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 {91q) 7336545 •715.4801

y . M ~ y~ .r-w
.~
' ~ '~~
•la,,,,s• J~P~ ~ _,,
.North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources G0 2 ~~
State Historic Preservation Office ~'a`'F F ~~xi'~ °~ ~'~
'G~~'T HWAYS ,t PP
David L. S. Brook, Administrator ~~c~,~ 7~c~ . ~~~,~~~ 0Q-
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of o~c~~Q
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Du
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 20, 2002 ~~~~~~~~~
MEMORA1VDiJM J~~ ~ ~ ~~02
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ------------------------
NCDOT Division of Highways
-~ r,~l
FROM: David Brook ~ ~,r ~f ~cl.~.,..~~~~e~_~.
j
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 for Compliance .with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you foz 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 ate the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:doc
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Faz
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
Restoration S 15 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 51 S N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

d~s~4~
y' ~
-
•~""~ n ~.
•.w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
Match 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways ,
Department of Transportation
~ n ~ t
• ~~
~~~
Division of Historical Resources
David ]. Olson, Director
MAP, ? 3 `r'0~)?
FROM: David Brook ~~i' ~~' ~J~
N 1~
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 21 a~`S~ 210 over~Cape Fear River, B-4223,
Pender County,, ER 02-8581 ,/ i1
Thank you for your memorandum of September 25, 2001, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the 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.
Because the Department of Transportation is in the process of surveying and evaluating the National
Register eligibility of all of its concrete bridges, we are unable to comment on the National Register
eligibility of the subject bridge. Please contact Mary Pope Furr, in the Architectural History Section, to
determine if further study of the bridge is needed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 29G
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 919/72929-47629. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Ralctigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
TelephondFax
[phone].733-8653
[phone] •7151{801
[phone] •715-4801

!97/lr5/~IOF~J.S 1J:4ti
. 7 ~ •
u~'Tro
• •
i . ,.. /1
Nl~ 11U i r11tH -~ 7ti~1171a
~en~er (~ountg
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
soy s. w~R srrt>;t;~r
POST OFFICE BOX S
B1IRGAW, NORTH CAkQLINA 28425
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
May s, ZOOS
Mr, tireQory 7. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Pro3ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1 S48 Mail Service Center
Ralei,8h, NC 27599-1548
NU. b2'7 D02
~~CEIV
~1QY ~ ~ ~~;

RE: Resolution in Sopport o, f RequeBting N.C. LQ?'to BueCd a Tempornry Bridge over the
Northeast Cape Fear River on N.C. Hwy 21 t1, or Plrice the New Bridge beside the
Existing Dne
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Attached is a copy of the resolution unanimously approved by the Pender 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.
Rcspcctfully,
~ ~~~
Glenda Fridges
Deputy Clerk to the Board
1GP
Attachment

CC: Thurman Casey

YJ.7~ 1J/ GYXJJ 1J~ 40 1W. LJtJ 1 rLChi y 70.711710
NU. YJG ! I~Kl3
~ , •~
INT$ODUCEn BY: And Hedrick t 'm Coun ana er Date: 5_ /S/03 I"IE.M NO:
Resalutiott in Support of Rcguesting N.C. DOT to Build
a Temporary Bridge over the Northeast Cape Feaz River an N.C.
Hwy 210, or Place the New Bridge beside the Existing Oue
SUBJECT AREA: ~ommuni ~ Development
ACTION R1rQUESTED:
To request N'.C. bOT to build a temporary bridge over the Northeast Cape Fear
River an Hwy 210, or place the new bridgo beside the existing aue.
HISTORY/BACKORUUND;
N. C. DOT is preparing to replace the bridge oven the Northeast cape Fear River
on N.C. Hwy 210 at lane s Ferry, Pender County Schools is requesting N.C. DOT to
coasider placing $ temporary bridge across the river while they are buildiab a new one, or
placing a new bridge beside the existing one.
RVALUATIQN:
If the existing bridge was taken up and replaced, not only would it be costly for
the Schools' vehicles having to dotopr, it would also put hardship on the students by
having to increase their riding time,

_ _
l~"J/1,~~bb3 13:4ti Nl. LAJI F'1JCH ~ yC~11J1t1
~_
~~
MANAGER'S RECONIlVIENDATION
~ ~ G t~ rat ~+~{ ,'~..~ t~

RESOLUTION: NQW THEY~I'ORE BE TT RESOLVED by the Pender County
Boazd of Commissioners that
N.C. Dot consider placing a new bridge beside the existing one, or place a
temporary bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River while the exis6ag one is being
replaced.
AMENDMENTS
MOVED ~ i yGn ba r~
SECONDED ~ i 1i ~ a mS
rvu. ear ve4
~ ~ '~
.: --~-~-.--. -.- XQT~Sr St~ield~d-- -Williams ~, H~alland ~ - a~5 ~ Rivcnbtattc._. ~. _ . __ _ - -
:r
Dwight Strickland, Chairman
ATTEST
'""``"~- ~. ~/5103
~u~ CQ~,k. Date
i
I

~ - ya23 .
R . ,~
r ..-
~CIt~¢x ~~Ltli~t~
i COt1NTY MANAGER'S OFl~ICE
l08 S. COWAN STREET
~..- POST OFFICE BOX 5
~Np~~ BURGAW, NORTH CAROLINA 28425
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
December 11, 2002
Mr. Don Eggert
Rural Transportation Planner
Cape Pear Council of Governments
1480 Harbour Drive
Wilmington, NC 28401
bear Mr. Eggert:
As per your suggestion, I aAn forwarding comments on the planned replacement of Bridge Number
21 (Highway 210) over the Northeast Cape Fear River in Fender County to you for submission with other
continents from the region. The Fender County Board of Commissioners supports this planned
replacement. Fender County would like the Department of Transportation to consider a couple of items
as it proceeds with the project.
The first item is that Fender County wants to advise the Departmern of Transportation that Pander
County has received permission from the Council of State to bore under the Northeast Cape Fear River to
~cate a water transmission line just south of the current bridge location. Several discussions have been
neld with Fender County Department of Transportation employees as to the planned location of the new
bridge, but no one was abie to advise about a preferred placement. The installation of the water
transmission main will take place in calendar 2003. Tt is fender County's request that the location of the
raew bridge structure avoid placement where the water line will be located.
The second item for consideration is the poternial disruption of traffic during the construction
period. Highway 210 is the preferred route for many visitors to Fender County beaches and eastern
Fender County fiom Ynterstate 40. Zf prolonged detours become necessary due to the bridge being located
where the current one exists, Fender County requests that alternate routes be heavily id~errtified on
Interstate 40 and Highway 17 along with notices at state welcome carnets in eastern North Carolina
concerning a detour to arrive in eastern Fender County. if the bridge is to be constructed in a different
location, Fender County requests that the current bridge continue to be used until the new bridge is
operational.
Fender County appreciates the opportunity to commeirt on the project. Fender County looks
forwaxd to the completion of this needed transportation improvement.
Sincerely,
Andy edrick
Assistant County 1Vlanager
TDTAL P. 03

«PENDER COONTY BUS 6ARA6E
995 PENDERLEA HWY
BURGAW, N.C. 28425
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
email- caseyt.pco(a3pendea.schoollink.net
~ECEI~FO
DATE: November 24, 2002
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D. SEC 32002
Environmental Management Director `p
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~o~Fc ~~ 1~
1548 Mail Service Center y'yF ~EVELOpN`~a
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-15 NlAt gNA`~g~
l," /
FROM: Thurman Casey
Transportation Director
RE: ~ Comments on B-4223,: Pender County, Division 3, Replace Bridge #21
At present, Petider 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'/: 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 Gke to thank you for the opportunity to Gave 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

~ ..
. ~
' V
Pender County Emergency Management
Carson H. Smith, Jr. Eddie King Jan Dawson P.O. Bax 28 - Burgaw, NC 28425
Coordinator Fire Marshal Addressing Coordinator Telephone [phone]
smithc~pender-county.com kinge2 [e-mail] dawsonjQpender-couMy.com Fax [phone]
August 8, 2001
Mr. Davis Moore
State of North. Carolina
Department of Transportation .
Project Development Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Moore:
Thank you for asking for comment on the replacement of Bridge No. 21 on NC
Hwy. 210 at the N.E. Cape Fear River. I am sorry for the delay in getting this
letter to you. As you may know, NC Hwy 210 is the only road that connects the
western and central .areas of Pender County with the eastern areas. This route is
vital in emergency response. 1 understand the bridge in this location is
somewhat longer than other bridges in the county that are- routinely replaced and
a replacement bridge would require more resources but I think that having this
road cut off for several months (or even a year) will pose a real problem in the
response of emergency vehicles.
The fire district in the area east of the bridge is covered by Rocky Point Fire
Department. The fire department right now is about 3 miles from this area. With
the NC Hwy 210 bridge out another fire department would have to respond. The
closest fire department to the area just east of the bridge would be about 12
miles away and in some areas on Shaw Hwy homes would be 17 miles from the
nearest department. As you can see, this would cause a significant increase in
response times. ~~. _
The EMS side is similar to the fire. Most of the time an ambulance is stationed at
the Rocky Point Fire Department. That ambulance would handle calls in this
area and again would be about 3 miles from the area just east of the bridge to
about 9 miles to some of the areas on Shaw Hwy. With NC Hwy 210 closed at
the N.E, Cape Fear River the closest ambulance would be out of Hampstead and
should the long term mutual aid be worked out that ambulance would be 13 to 18
miles away from this area. 1 think with the emergency vehicle response problem
this would create a temporary bridge would be the way to go.

- s
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. y
Sincerely,
~~
Carson H. Smith Jr.,
Coordinator
CHS

PEHDER COUHTY BUS GABA6E
995 PENDERLEA HWY
BURGAW, N.C. 28423
one
Fax [phone]
email- pcbuses(c~intrstar.net
DATE: July 23, 2001
TO: Davis Moore
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department Of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
FROM: Thurman Casey
Transportation Director
RE: Closing of Bridge. #21 (NE Cape Fear River - N.C. Hwy 210)
Project # B-4223
At the present time Pender County Schools has 5 regular school buses that cross this
bridge twice a day.. This number could increase by 2 or 3 buses because of the growth in
this area and the building of 3 new schools in Rocky Point. Routing our buses to our
schools without passing over this bridge would be very costly and would increase ridership
time for students. Our buses would have to be routed into New Hanover County or to
N.C. 53 West to accomplish this task. This would put approximately 50 miles per day
extra on every bus and an additional 45-60 minute riding time each morning and
afternoon for the students. At the present time, it cost approximately $1.60 per mile to run
our buses each day. At that rate, it would cost the county an additional. $72,000 to route
these buses around the closing of this bridge for our 180 day school term. We also have
remediation classes after regular school hours which have students that live beyond this
bridge. These students would also have to be taken home in the late afternoons.
We also have a fuel truck and service vehicles that pass over this bridge to service the
buses at the schools in the Hampstead area. This would also increase the cost of
maintenance of our buses, if we have to detour around this bridge.
Yes, this would create an "UNWORKABLE" situation for bus transportation for Pender
County Schools.
If you have other questions, please ca11910-259-0141.

s Na ~ is
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(l98? COE Wetlands De)ineation Manual)
ProjectfSite. ~ ' y ~ ~ 3 - • Date: ~ d? ~ O j
ApplicantfOwner: ,>>r'(t (~ G?" Coun
r ry = c° ~
investigator: ~ .~ L State• >U ~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community 1D: sk.r~
• is the site significantly dsturbed IA ical Situation ? ~ '---~~Dr~'St
~'P ) es~~ Trensect ID: ~-//3 ty
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID_
Ili needed, explain on reverse t"'e•~'~
V EG ETA710N
HYDROLOGY
Retorded Data IDescn~e in Remarks):
~; -Stream, lake or Tide Gauge
~+° -Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: ~ l;n )
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (rn.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: ~ l;n )
Wetland Hydrology Indcators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_/Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
/ Water Marks
Drih Lines
-Sediment Deposits
i/Drainage Pancrns in Wetlands
Secondary Indrtators 12 or more required):
Ox;drted Root Channels in Vpper i2 Inches
_/VYater-Stained leaves
local $oil Survey Data
FAC Neutral Test
-Other lE~,plain in Remarks)
Remarks:

r
SOILS
Map. Unit Name J~ l
" l'~ ~1~ 1c--
)
~ ~ ~ '
Dca:nage Class: y. , ~GL-l Yt-L~.
L
(Serie3 and Phase
: (/Q1 F:e1d Observations
''']''
Taxonomy lSubgrvcrp): / yQ' L ~P~ts~- 1
/~~! S T.S Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Prol-le Desc-:ption~
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Cobrs Mottle Texturtr. Concretions.
Inches Horizon _ lRRurrscA Moistl ~ Mtmse~ Moistl Abundance/Cont~ Sttvctv-r, etc.

to y ~ ~/d- s~lx ~,~-w--
Hydric Sor7 Ir-dicatoa:
Hi~osol _ Concrctions
R~istie Ep:pedon _ 1-figh O-ganic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sols
_
_ Sulfidic Odw _ Orgaric Streaking in Sandy So,s
/ listcd on local Hydric Sols List
Aqu:c Moistu[e Regime
_
Reducing Condrtiorrs
• _/isted'on National Hydric Soils list
_
>/Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Othe- tEaplain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Mydrophytic Vegetation Present? es No lCircle) ICircJe)
1Netland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Sods Present? cs No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
::
.• Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
f
i
i
i
I

HJL
8193

~3 i-iS
w'
DATA FORM
RQUTiNE WETLAND DETERMtNAT10N
i1987'COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
Project/Sit e_ ~ - ~~a~ - _ S~~ iff D`
Date:
Applicant/Owner:.11r'(,t (~ G~ County: o~
Investigator: ~ ~' -
State: ~ L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye No Transect 1D:tD. s ~ ~S~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot tD:
hf needed, ex*hin ~n reverse d-`d
VEGETATION
rruKVLOGY
-Recorded Data (Descn~e in Rema+ksl:
Wetland Hydrology lndc
t

Y
~'
Stream. lake or Tide Gau e
- 9 a
ors:
Primary lnd+cators:
, -Aerial Photographs Inundated
Other Saturated in Upper 1Z Inches
Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Dritt lints
-
Sediment Deposits
Field Observarions: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands

Depth of Surface Water: ~..._

(in.) Secondary Indcators (2 or mere required);
Osidried Root Channels in Vpperr )2 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit:

fin. ) _Water-Stained leaves
Local Soil Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 ~ >~
(in.) FAC~Nevt+al Test
Other IEaplain in R
_
emarks)
Rcmartis: /~ tr ~,I~~~O~ ~
`~ '( ~ ~ 1 r ~ s
i C~'~Of

SOILS
>• ~
Map Unit Name M
(Series and Phase): r r S~r1~ Lid "~OfP'JAi~
~•~~ Drainage Class: V . ~ ~ T~2( I'~Q d
_~ J F:cld Obsrrvations
Taxonomy ISubgrovpl: 1 ~DiL -'1'iQL~,'S[~: I S~.j Co~~irm Mapped Typet Yes No
PrvfOe Description•
Depth Matrix Color Moue Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon IMurrseA MoistL ~ MunseO Moist) AbvndancelCo ast Strvch-re. ctc.
orl~?~ i~yR `-~13 , ~ rec. ,~.d
L 7 D~ Cv~,~Fd
- s~d~ll~
Hydric Soil Inddc at ors:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ H•-stic Eprpcdon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organc Streaking in Sandy Sols
Aquic Moisttrre Regime _ listed on local Hydric Sols list
Reducing Conditions _ listed on National Hydric Soils list
Gleyed or Low-Clxoma Colors _ Other lE~rplain in Remarks)
Remarks: ~' IQ
Sc ~ ( ~ f i 1'~oi, - 1n y~i L
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No !Circle)
ICircle)
Wetland Hydrology Prcscnt? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this SampFng point Within a Wctland? Yes No
i'
s+
~., Remarks:
HJl
8193
Approved by HQIJSACE 2192•
~.
~ ~~
r

,~ ~ ~ t
r
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project name 1]r'v+ s;cn .3 - a `~~~ Nearest road ~ C c,2 JD
County- ~i~Jer Name of Evaluator ~S.l Daie ~-a $'-~f
:~
Wetland location
-~ _ _ oa pond or lake
/on perennial stream
_ on intermittant stream
'~ _ within interstream divide
other
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
natural vegetation 8~~
. agriculture ~d
suburban/urban !D %
Soil Series ~crc~.'cn ~+ .lour/,1 to mu~-
/predomi.nantly organic-humus,
- muck, or peat
. _ predominantly mineral- nog-sandy
- _ predominantly sandy
Hvdrolic Factors
. steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
} wetland width >/= 50 feet
Dominant Vegetation
(1) ~ // zba~ ~~~ d;s~~u.~

Flooding and Wetness
~semiperminantly to perminaatly flooded or
innundated
_ seasonally flooded or innundated
intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
_ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
- _ Bottomland hazdwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
/Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
_ Wei flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Other
•'Ihe rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage - ~ * 4 = 22 p
Bank/Shoreline stabilization ~ * 4 = ~ Total score
Pollutant removal ~_ * $ _ ~p 7 ~
Wildlife habitat ~_ * 2 = $
Aquatic life value ~! * 4 = j [o
Recreation/L-ducation ~' * 1 = ~•
add 1 point iCin scrtsitivc watcrshcd and > 10"/" nonpoint disturbance within I/Z mile up~Krcam