20060364 Ver 1_Categorical Exclusion_20061115

NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project~lo. BIZSTP-0210(4)
State Pro o. 8.1271001
~~: I. D. No. B-4223
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
. April 2004
Document Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Cary, North Carolina 27611
.••'~~O~~N CARO~~~',~
:r 4~~EESS/p~,9~9
Date J. A. Bissett, Jr., PE SEAL
Branc anager 14842
i ~ •. F
'• q'1~ ~•!k~~ NEE~• ~~,
~i F °~...•.•~ ~ •
y~~pu~~~a~~•~
ate amela R Williams
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~~.. ~- ~
Elmo Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
~C~C~a~C~ p
APR _ ", 2006
A~NFt , WAl`~R 6~UA61TY
~1i,hIVC4S AfVp ~1'fiW~t'tEl~ [if1ANCt~

NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project~to. BRSTP-0210(4)
State Pro o. 8.1271001
T~~': I. D. No. B-4223
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
. Apri12004
Document Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Cary, North Carolina 27611
Date J. A. Bissett, Jr., PE
Branc anager
29 0
ate amela R Williams
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~.~. ~- ~/
Elmo Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
SEAL
14842
..
aPR -~ zoos
4~N~ ~ wATF'R 4UAI,ITY
wYeTlANpg ANQ 5TL1PeMWq~E~ b11ANCM

SO.tLS
Map. Uni[ Namc /
~ / •'
~ ~
~~
L~fPVi111
(Series and f'Aase): m1~0/JQ Q 6~ -t~- Drainage Class: V .
T~2( /~
!
~, )
Taxonom
(sub
rou
): ~:/~PG 1'1'1QC~iS000i^1 11 Field Observations
51,~ Confirm MappedType.: Yes No
y
g
p
Nrofile Description-
Depth Matrix Cola Morale Colors Motile Texture, Concretions,
ruches Horizon IMunseA Moist! ( MunseO Moist! Abundance/Contrast Stcucturr_ etc.

~ 7p7c.Cv
• ~ s~9rt9trJ
Flydric.Soa lirdicators: ...
_ Histosd ~ _ Concretions
Fiistie Fp'rpedon _ FGgh Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sois
._ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols
_ Aquic Moisture Regime . _ listed on Coral •Nydrie Sols list
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydrie Soils List
Gleyed or Low-CMoma Colors _ Other (Ea plain in Remarks)
~Remarr<s. ~ ~ tQ
~ot ~ ~t' l for- hY~iL
WETEAND DETERMINATION
~' HydrophYbc Vegetation Present? Yes No lCucle)
!Circle)
Wetland Hydrobgy Present? Yes No
~: Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Ls this SampFng Point Within a Wetland? . Yes No
~:
s.
~. i gemartas:
HJl
8/93
App~ovcd by HQtJSACE 2192
o ~~Q~~Q
~ .
App ~ ~ Zao6
U~D5 AND STCA~ ~
~~
t,
n

Y
1..
~ t v
DATA FiJRM
RQUTiNE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987'COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
Project/Site_ ~-
' _~' `"(aa'.3 .- - Date: SJ~ iYfe~
Applicant/Owner: ~'C (~ Q~ County: lr>~
)nvestigator ~ ~c= State_ 1V L
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No Community lD: s
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye o Transect ID: =S~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes VSO Plot ID: . ~d
111 needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION ~ ~ '
~ominar-t Plant Species
t
^
'
~
~
L~ Stratum lnd-cator
~
C Dominant Plant Species
Stratum lttdreator
t
-_r
t,u
p
~ f
ruw~ ~_ FA 9.
1. ~ u ftt[ ud i1 r 4 ray
~- ~ ~_ t p,
.
nn
/
3. ~'i r , : i r1 i Es __ i~,,~rir 1-) L t~ t 1 _
72.
5_ - 73. .
.
6. 74:
7. ~ 15.
8. ' '
--,- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI. FACW or .
FAC (excludng FAC-) 1(7U~0
Remarks: ~.lPI~ f PLL°C~ GL`0~ r' 1 V~~ /',

' HYDROLOGY '
_Recorded Data IDescn~e in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indcators;
~:
ti _Sueam. lake w Tide Gauge Primary Indicators;
~' _Aeriat Photographs Inundated
Other
~ ^Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Wat
M
k
'
Recorded Data Araitable
_ er
ar
s
• Drih lines
T
Sedrment Deposits '
^

Field ODservarions; _
Orainage Patterns in Wetlands
.
Secondary Indcators 12 0~ more required):
-Depth or Surface Water ...._
•
lip.) _Ox'd'2ed Root Channels in Vppci 72 Inches
_Water-Stained leaves
Depth to free Water in Pit: ' ~ Gn.) loc~1 Soil Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil- 7 ~ ~
(n.) _FAC•Neutrar Test
'-Other IEaplain in Remarksl
Remait,s: /~ 1D Y~~~G~Og~ I -l~ ~ife~.'~Q<',5

sops

Map. Urvt Name
~ i+~~ Mw,.i
O Drairoge Class: ~~. ' ' ~Lt.-i Yt•L•~
ISeries and Phases: ~ //
~
f Field Observ~ttons
ed 7yye: Yes No
6rsn Ma
C
~
~~uls~-
n L ,
pp
on
/~~t s~~'~
.
Taxonomy lSubgrovpi: ~r

Profile Dcscription-
Matrix Color
Depth Mottle Coors Morrie 7exturc, Concretions.
Abundance/Conliast 5ttucturr. etc.
~MvnseD Morst~
ruches Horizon IMvnseA Moist}
~ ~ s~d~ 1~
_ro~~ ~~a
Q.,a

'

HYdnc Soil Indcators:
. '
Histosol _ Concretions
H-9h Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sols
_ kTastic Epppedon _
Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols
_ Svlfidic Odor ~ Gsted on Local H7dric Sols List
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _
~attd'gn National Hydrie Soils list
Reducing Conditions
~Gleyed or low-Chroma Colors __._ Other jExplain in Remarks)
1!temarka:
WETLAND DETERMINA710N
'+ FlYdrophytic Vegetation Present? es No ICwcle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
• H)rdric Soils Present? es No
?.
``
ICiic)e)
Ls this SampFng Point Within a YVettar-d? es No
ti:' Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 2192 t
l..
HJL
8/93
`~ D
~~ ~ ~ t~'~htW,Afi~f!
~AAICM

DATA t=ORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COL Wetlands Delineation Manual]
Project/Site: _ r y r1 ~ 3 • • Date: ~ o? ~ p j .
ApplicantfOwner: /11(` (~ C+T County: ~ g~
Investigator: ~ .`~ L
State- /V ~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on th.e site? Y~e No Community 1D: ~Sltina~p ~, S f
Is the site si niiicantl disturbed IA ical Situation ? ~ Ye ~
g y tYP ) ~~~ Trensect ID: Nb' it
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID:
wE~~
Ili needed, explain.on reverse
VEGETATI.ON ~ ,
Dominant T'larrt Syeeies Stratum Indicator
t-~Xc~lrxT~t (1t:s~~Jc.~Hm ,T D~ ~-
.~clvssA lrfr.r~~ ~ oB~.
u c -~r1' . ?' ~f~C W
ru brk,n .7.._ ~
(
5. 6i. du
.~e.~j f a rt'C• ~a~i
N pp
T~U.L
t
7.
8.
Percent or Oominam Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC le:rcludrng FAC-) •
Dominant Plartit Species ,~ Stratwn Tndr~catpr
s.
-TO. -- =---_
t. -__
t z.
t3.
t4:
15.
16.
IUD ~o
Remarks: n
j ~lu'~` sa ~quyy~ S:~s:~.rxn ~~S j n ~ a.ea.r `E'lr•,e.'~- ~,-.~t,a. {y~v~
o9~pd. ./
t
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data IDescn-be in Rennrks): Wetland Nydroroyy lndcators;
_Sbeam. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_Ae»al Photographs _Inundated -
Oiher _fSaturated in Upper 12 Inches
/ Wat
M
^No Recorded Data Available cr
arks
t]rih Lines
Sediment Deposits

Field Observations: i%Drainage Pan erns in Wetlands
Secondary 1ndcators IZ or more required):
Depth of Surface Water:
(r
.) _Oxidred Root Channels in Upper t2 Inches
n
. _/Water-Stained leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (n.) Local Soil Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil: ~ l;n.) FAGNtunal Test
_Other lE~plain in Remarks)
Rem,rk3'

PENDER COUNTY BUS GARAGE -
99S PENDERLEAHWY
BU$(3AW, N.C. 28425
one
Fax 910-259-D 142
email- pcbuses~a intrstar.nat
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 berouted into New Hanover County 'or to
N.C. 53 West to accomplish this task.This would put approaimately 50 miles per day .
eatra on every bus and an additiona145-60 minute riding time. each morning and
afternoon for the students. At the present time, it host approzimately $I.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 houfs which have students that live beyond this
bridge. These students would also have to be taken home in the late aftergoons.
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.
1tes, this would create an "UNWORKABLE" situation for bus transportation for Pender
County Schools.
If you have other questions, please call 910-259-0141.
D ~~~~
. ~ ~p
"'sr~(u~rt~ And T~'~tw~er'~ ~~

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

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(c~pender-county.com dawsonj~pender-county.com Fax (910) 25g-1409.
August 8, 2001
Mr Davis Moore
State of North. Carolina ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ GI ~"~
Department of Transportation ~ G! O
Projact Development Branch ~ '
1548 Mail Service Center APR ~ ~ 20fJf~
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 ~taN~ - wa~l ~;K.c~u~~l rti
. VNETIAMOSANt) BTQ~AiNINATER dr~cH
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. 1 am sorry for the delay in getting this.
letter to you.: As you may know, NC Hwy210 is the only road that connects the
western .and centr~al.areas of Pender County~with the eastern areas. This route is
vital in emergency response. I understand the bridge in this location is
somewhat longer than other bridges in the county that are routinely replaced and
a replacement. bridge wquld~ require more resources but 1 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 distrigt in the area east of the bridge is covered by Rocky Paint Rire
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.frotn 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
mile$ away from this area. I think with the emergency vehicle response problem
this would create a temporary bridge would be the way to go.

PENDER COUNTY BUS 6ARA6E
995 PENDERLEA HWY
BURGAW. N.C. 28425
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
email- caseyt.pco~pender.schoollink.net
~~C E (~
DATE: November 24, 2002
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D. DEC 3 ~
Environmental Management Director
o DMSIO~t OF
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~o Fc H~HyygyS
1548 Mail Service Center y'yF~~EV~LOPN's
. ~ Raleigh, N.C. 27699-15 ~~ T't!. ANAL
. • l.~ •.
FROM: Thurman Casey
Transportation Director
RE: ~ Comments on B-422~~: Pender County, Division 3, Replace Bridge #21
At present, Pe>~der 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 Harmpstead 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 like to thank you for the opportunity to have input concerning, the impact that this
proposed project would have on the Pender County Schools Transportation Department
and the students -that ride, our buses.
cc: Dr. Marc Sosne
Superintendent
Pender County Schools

-'~
~e~t~er ~~urt~t~
+ COUNTY MANAGER'S OIaFICE
108 S. COWAN STREET
~r_ .,... POST ~FF1CE BOX 5
~Np~Q- BURGAW, NORTH CAROLINA 28425
TELEPHONE {910) 259-1200 FAX [phone]
December 11, 2042
Mr. Don Eggert D
Rural Transporta#ion Planner A f'~ ~ 7 2pp~-. .
Cape pear Council of Cmvernments ~ o~Nk - wRr~k
1480 Harbour Drir-e ~ ~ ~~srp~,yA~~n'
Wilmington, NC 28401 . ~ .
Dear Mr. Eggert:
As per your suggestiou,.I ~uon forwarding comme~rrts on the plann~cd replacement of Bridge. Number
2l (Highway 210) over the Northeast Cape Fear River in Fender County to you for submission with other
comments fromthe-reg""ion.- 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 Est item is that Pendcr County wants to advise the Departmern of ?ransportation that Fender
County has received permission from the. Council of State to bore under the Northeast Cape Fear River to
~cate a water transmiission lure just south of the current bridge location. Several discussions have been
veld with Fender County Department of Transportation employees as to the planned location of-the new
bridge, but no one was able to advise about a prefer~ned placement. The installation of the water
transmission main will take place in calendar 2003. It is Tender County`s request that the location of the
new bridge structure avoid placement where the water line will be located.
The second item for consideration is the potential disruption of traffic during the construction
period.. Highway 210 is the preferred route for many visitors to Fender County beaches and eastern
Fender County from Interstate 40." ~f prolonged detours become necessary due to the bridge being located
where the current one exists, Fender County requests that alternate routes be heavily idcrrtificd on
Zntcrstate 40 and Highway 17 along with notices at state welcome centers in eastern North Carol'u~.a
concerning a detour to arrive in eastern Fender County. If the bridge is to bs 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 comment on the project. Fender County looks
farwaxd to the completion of this needed transportation improvexxlent.
Sincerely,
Andy edrick
Assistant County Manager
TOTAL P.03

~ S ~ '/
1-~ANAGEIZ'S RECOIWIlVIENDATION
~~~~o~~~~ ~~
. ~ rrrrrrAYs
. ~ RE60LUTIUN: NQW T~ERE~'ORE $E IT RESOLVED by the Pcndcr County
Boazd of Commissioners that
N.C. Dot consider placing a new bridge beside tht existing oae, or place a
temporary bridgt across the Northeast Cape Fear River while the. existing one is being
replaced.
i
.~
~. i
AMENDNI~NTS ~ •_..
MO'V'ED ~ i y ~n ba.~~i SECONDED ~ i U t c~. m5
AFl'ROVEU Y DEN]RA (UNANIhLOUS 1 ~
~,~----~.-...-: Y~~~~41~~- S~ic~aud-r rWiHiams,_,-Hvll~nd' --~v1~~dow'S~RivcnbtarlC"~` _ -- ~" ••~ --
'I
Dwight Strickland, Chairman
ATTEST
~v~( ~1 ~ Date
i
I

INTRODUCER BY: Andy Headrick. Intecam Counh' Mager Date: 5!_ SIU3 T'TEM N0:
Resolution in Supper of ltequestinng N.C. DOT to Build
a Temporary Bridge aver the Northeast Cape Fear River. on N.C.
Hwy 210, or Place the New $ridgo beside the Existing Oqe ~.
SUBJECT AREA: ~o uni velop„n~ent
ACiTON REQUESTEb:
To ~gnest N.C. DOT to build a temporary bridge over the Northeast Cape Tear
River on Hwy 210, or place the new bridge beside the existing tine.
HISTQRY/BACKGROtJ1vDs
N• C• ~T ~ PreP~s ~ repl8ce the bridge over the Northeast Cape Fear River
on N.C. Hwy 210 at Iane's Ferry, Pender County Schaala is nqueating N.C. DOT to
coasider placing a temporary bridge across the river while they sire buildin,; a new one, or
placing s sew bridge beside the existing one.
EVALUATIQN:
If the existing bridge was taken up and replaced, not Drily would it be costly far
the Schools' vehicles having to detour, it would also put hardship on the students by
having to increase their riding tune.
~ ~~~U~~
. D
fiiF,f+lf~ '/1c~41 a::kY ;;dkd/~k.l { Y

4~ .
Tya .~~,CEt V,~Ca
* ~hl~'~x ~I~Lint~
• CO[JN1`'Y MANA(~El~'S OFFICE
i * soy s. wALxER sTR~~r MAY ~ ~ 2co•;
-.-- PDST OFFICE BQX S m-~
A~~~ BUAGAW, NORTH CARQLIIJA 28425 '~~~ p~~
TELEPHONE [phone] FA?C (9I o) 259-1402 '!~„- ttlt~iNM~ ,,~
May 8, 2003
Mr. tmgory J. Thorpe, Ph.D...
Environmental Management Director .
Pro3ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27b99-1548
_.
RE: Revolution in S,apport of Reque,~ting N.~ n(1T to wild a Temporary Bridge overthe
Northeast Cape Fear River ort N.G. Hwy 21 t1, or J'lace the New Bridge beside the
Ex~sdng One
Dear Mr. Thorpe: • '
Attactred is a copy of the resolution unanimously approved by the Fender County Board
of Commissioners on I1~tay 5, 2003, with respect to the above-referenced subjecK.
Flease do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
Raspcctfully~
~ 0"
Gleutia Pridgen
Deputy Clcrk to the $oard
/GAP
Attachment

cc: Thurman Casey

~e• ~
~. «...
Q~~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State 1istoric Preservation Office
David L.. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Govenior
l.isbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey 1. Crow,-Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 22, 2002
~~~
~~~
Division of Historical Resources
d 1 Director
~~~~
~.

1~(= ~ ~ ~r~tti~ trllal.i r~
MEMORANDU1vI ~.~~ iv+a firt~w~ttt:n ,,~
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch '
Division of Highways MAR 2 ~ r0u2
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ~~
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 21 ~~ 210 over~Cape Fear River, B-4223,
/~
Pender Countp,, ER 02-8581
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 Fury, 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 of 296
CFR Part '$00. '
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 Cents, Raleigh 27699617
Restoration S I S N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
Survey 6c Planning • S 15 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Rakigh 27699-4618
Tdephone/FaY
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone].715-4801

., er.,....~n~ `. ~O~
•
.North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ~o 0
i~~
State Historic Preservation Oftice ~Pay~~~ r+~ct~v'A ~ APP
David L. S. Brook, Administrator ~~,,VE/r. ~ ngbA~~ 0Q/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 20, 2002
MEMORAIVDIJM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
~. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
Division of Aii
David J. Olson,
. -~ .
FROM: David Brook ~~- ' i~t.1.~~,..~~?...
~~
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or architectural
~ortance widen the~general area of this.project:
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. .
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 maybe 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 dare made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance .with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning.the above comment, 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 Telephoue/Faz
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center,-Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) X33-4763.733-8653
RestoriHon 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •'115-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

North Carolipa Department of Cuitura~ ~tesources
State ~Tistorie Preservation Orrice
David L. $, Brook, Adtninietrator
Micba~el F. Eas}ay, Governor
Iaeberb C. Evans, Secrttary
Jeffiay J. Cav'v, Deputy Sleretary
06E6oe ofArchives and History
Division of Bietorical EeBoanxa
Segt~embez 10,2003 ~ D ~~~R~f2
. Ml?1VIORANI)UM _ '• ~ ~! ..~ ~.
APR - ~ ~~~~ ..
T+O: ~ Muy Pope Farr, Historic Atthitocture Supervisor ae"R WAr~R
Project Development >zad Environmental Aaxlylis Brslnch ~~°~~ src'A I~ .
N~174T Division of Higli~vilye •
FROM: David Brook ~,~~..-
SUBJP~CT: Historic/Atcliitectwt>s1 Resources Survey Report; Bridge No. 21 NC 210 over
Northeast Cape'Feat River, ~-4223, Pesider County, ER02-$581
Thu-k you fox your letter of Jule 31, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Vanessa E. Pattxck, NCDC+T.
The following property is determined not eligible fax listing in the National R~ateat of Historic Places:
Davis-Trask House, NC 210 (Larne's Ferry RoAd)
Davis-Trask House, NC 210 (Lawe's Ferry Road), is not eligible fox the National R,eg~strs of Historic
Places because it is no longer retains its outbuildings and c~unnot cottvey its historq as a farm or nursexy.
The house is not associated with persons significant from our past Further, the house is riot architecttiraIly
distinguished in Toxin, construction, or design
The above com:mt:7nts are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic riresexaxtion Act and the
Advisory Council ova T4istoxic Preservation's Regulations for Cazupliarice with Seca~on.10G codi&ed at 36
CFR Pant 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerxiiug the shave comment,
contort Renee Gledh:Ill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all futuxe
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced t~xaclUng number.
cc Greg Thorpe, NCriOT
www.hpo.derststte.ac.us
LontSce ~ MailiaR Addte~ ~ TelepbosdFu
ADMINTSYB{A7'ION 507 N. Blount Sl.. Raleigh NC ~6t7 Mait Servile Caner, Raleigh NC 27699.46(7 (919) 733-.1763 •733-3653
RF.SI'OM'l~ION SIS N. t3lount S~. RaleitA NC 4611 Mail Service Center, Rakiph NC 27699-46IT {419) 733.6s47 • T1S-4101
3IIRVEY Ik t•I.ANNl1VG S l5 N. Blount St., Rolei~ NC 46 i 7 ~1a7 Service Centu Raleigh NC 27699.46[7 (919} 733~b5.15 •715-480{ ,

edge 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. S2, SR 1131, Turkey Creek, B-4327
RED LIGHT. Turkey Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a mokatonum on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 1S.
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. Ari 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 .
. hELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for anon-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 reco` mmended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCV~RC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
cc: USFWS, Raleigh

sndge 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 recommendations apply.
24. Onslow Courtly -Bridge No. 24, US 17, New River, B-4214
YELLOW LIGHT. The New River is designated as a Primary Nursery Area on the
downstream side of the existing US 17 bridge. Due to the potential for adult and larval
stages of anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely follow the "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage'.'. This includes a moratorium on.
work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to September 30. Other standazd
recommendations apply.
25. Onslow County -Bridge No. 1'9, 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 Coun
_ty -Bridge No..65,_ SR i 304; UT to Neuse River, B-4219
YELLOW LIGHT. There rs the potential for impacts to high quality coastal wetlands at
this location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts to these
r resources. Other standard comments apply:
' 27. Pamlico County=Bridge No. 4, SR 1344, South Prong Bay River, B-4221
.YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential- for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands: Other standard comments
apply.
28. Pender County --Bridge No. 21, NC 210, NE Cape Fear River '~F
RED LIGHT. There are records of the federally listed Shortnose sturgeon. in the NE
Cape Feaz in the project. area.. Due to the.potential for ariadromous 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 muiimize 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

LllujV 1~LV111V V 171 GL~' LL, LVVL
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: -
c
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. Lf 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 deduce potential adverse effects: Other standard 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 Jurie~
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; 8-4272 ,~~
~: YELLOW L' IGHT. 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 standard comments apply.
37. Vance County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1107, Ruin Creek, B-4298 -
:RED,LIGHT. There are records of state and.federally.listedmuswls 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
standard recommendations apply.
pC~~[~~~1~p
APR ` 7 ?.QQ~
VYBTLANDS ANU StORMWATER BRANCH

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 site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Standard recommendations
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.tp these wetlands. Standazd recommendations.
apply.
16. ~ Haiifax 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
GREIN LIGHT. Standard comments- apply.
20. Jones County -Bridge No.. 7, SR 1129, Big Chinquapin Branch, B-4169
YELLOW LIGHT. Big Chinquapin Brancli supports a good fishery for sunfish;
therefore, we recommend a moratorium on work within~urisdictional 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 minmize impacts to these wetlands. Other standazd
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 p ~~ .
. ~~~~
pq~
A,E.
~rr,,~yp~~ firms^~'~rtr
H
:~y.
;~ti,_ ,~
.-~
~.

----~_ -..'"`••~' ~ _ May 22, 2002
6. Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to the Cape Fear
Shiner, NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting
to discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Standard
recommendations apply.
7. Craven County -Bridge No. 10, SR 1111, Brices Creek, B-4086
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 1 S to
June 1S. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is also the potential for
impacts to fiigh quality wetlands at this' site. NCDOT should avoid or minimise impacts
to these wetiands. Other standard recommendations apply:
8. Cumberland County -Bridge No. 8S, I-9S Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDO~'
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 1S. Other standard recommendations apply.
9. Durham County -Bridge No. S, 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
aPP1Y• -
11. Franklin County -Bridge IVo. 1 S, 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 Aiiadromous Fish Passage". This
includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15~to.June 15.
..There. aze 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.
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 1 S.
There are records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicuiity. 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.

- 4 ~~~Qy ~:., :...,.,...
Bridge Memo .
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 wildlife passage.
' 3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid charnel realignment. Widening the stye des ~calmudecreasesded.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of struc typ Y
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.. .
Inmost cases, we prefer thereplacement of the existing structure at the same location .-
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible; a tempor2ry detour•should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the li ed f eII~ le~annlgd S~ ~e shou d bellremo ed
stream banks.. If the structure vv~ll be on. a new gntn
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 a be utilized as mitigation for the subjet project or
area to wetlands. If successful, the site m y
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
L Beaufort County -Bridge No. 77, NC 99, Pantego Creek, B-3611
YELLQW LIGHT. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. There is potential. for
' ` wetland impacts at this location due #o 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 I5.
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, 8-4024
GREEN LIGHT. No concerns indicated by biologists. Standard conditions should be
appropriate.
4. Bertie~County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026 '
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.
5. Brunswick County -Bridge No. 72, Ni anadromous fish at this loc tion, NCDOT
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential fo
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 coastal wetlands at this
location. NCDOT should employ all. measures necessary to avoid impacts to these
resources. D ~~~~~
~~
,4Ff~ ~ ~ ~?ftl~fi
YYE r"~ip~ 517~,~ ~ .Y
~~r~

;;ridge Memo
3 May 22, 2002
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be •
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long teen erosion control.
13; :All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a'dry work area.
.Sandbags; rock beans, cofferdams, or other diversion structtves 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 temporary fill (causeways),-and .
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations; equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
.hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced corcrete 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 (similar to Lyonsfield design). These'should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This maybe accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream, and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the ~ .
.base flow barrel(s). Silted barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions..Suff cient 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.

.~
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 1845, 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 subjectproject. Our
comments aze 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:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The honzontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and vvrldlife 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 1.0'x10.'. If'possible, when using temporary
structures: the area~should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area vtnth chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
. root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and riirLmizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) azea 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.
D ~~~U~~
u~-~p~ WdiT~k C.)iJALfT!
'WE7'LANl35 ANO S?~?!'~A,1~R BRANCH

. ~ North Carolina Wildlif e 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 ina r _
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 22, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements:
Beaufort County -Bridge No. 77, NC 99, Pantego Creek, B-3611
Beaufort County -Bridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024..
. , Berge County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026
Brunswick County -Bridge No.~ 72, NC 179, Jiruiys Branch, B-4G31
Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065 ~ .
Craven County -Bridge No. 10, SR 111 1, Brices Creek, B-4086
Cumberland County -Bridge No. 85, I-95 Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
Durham County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1616, Mountain Creek, B-4110
Edgecombe County -Bridge No. 19, SR 1135, Cokey Swamp, B-4111
Franklin County -Bridge No. 15, SR 1.106, Little River, B-4113
Granville County -Bridge No. 84~, SR 1141; Tar River, B-4124
Greene County -Bridge No. 46; SR 1091, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4125
GreeneLL.enoir Cos. -Bridge No. 49, SR 1434, Wheat Swamp Creek, B-4126
'Greene County -Bridge No. 43, SR 1438, Rainbow Creek, B-412
Halifax County =Bridge No. 11, SR 1001, Jacket Swamp; B-4133
Harnett County -Bridge No. 35, NC 42, Norfolk and Southern Raihvay, B-4.137
Hertford County -Bridge No. 67, SR 1118, Ahoskie Creek, .B-4150
Hyde County -Bridge No. 108, SR 1340, Old State Canal, B-4154
Jones County -Bridge No, 7, SR.1129, Big Chinquapin.Branch, B-4169
Lee County -Bridge No..4, SR 1423, Gum Fork, B-4171
..Martin County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1417,. Conoho .Creek, B-4187
Nash County -Bridge No. 56, SR 1544, Taz River, B-4211
Onslow County -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: l 18, SR 1538, Grindle Creek; B-4235
Randolph County -Bridge No. 34, SR 1304, Second Creek, B-4242
Mailing Address: Division of Inlan.i f~ishrries • 1721 vlail Service C;rnter • Kalcitih. IvC 2 7699-1 72 1
Telephone: (9 I ~)) 733-3633 rec. 2S I • Pax: (`119; 715-7h-43

_____ _-__> ---...7 ~.
has significantly impacted the AFC's. Restoration and enhancement
mitigation potential is as great as the potential to adversely effect
the AFC's.
5. B-4086 in Craven County - GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AFC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. Parking area as in the northwest
corner should be maintained.
6. B-9150 in Hertford County - YELLOW LIGHT PROJECT - AFC'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-9219 in Onslow County - YELLOW LIGHT PROJECT - AFC'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 - AFC's in the
project area include PTla.and PTS. A moderate potential for mitigation
may be possible with the lengthening of the bridge. .
10. B-.4219. .in Pamlico. County - RED LIGHT PROJECT -.AFC'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--wa-ter--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 - AFC'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. B,,,~223~,in Pender County - YELLOW LIGHT PROJECT - AFC'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 - AFC's in the
project area include PTW and PTS. Access adjacent to the bridge should
be maintained.
19.•B-4319 in Washington County- GREEN LIGHT PROJECT - AFC'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
o ~ ~f~~G p
F ~ r~ _. ~ ~ t`~~
i
' e. ~.. •, t. 1~; ~t~} of ~, "~i:\.
WicitilPiC1"~ Fti'it~ yT~tiiNIWA~'~th ii1tlWGrt
oft 5/30/02 11:33 AM

~~ ~ ~~ Subject: Bridge Replacement Projects C1CY 2005 ~ l`~ /X ~ ~'
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:05:27 -0400
From: Bill Arrington <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DCM
To: "William T. Goodwin" <[e-mail]>
CC: Cathy Brittingham <[e-mail]>
Mr. Goodwin,
I have visited each of the 14 bridge replacement sites included in your
March 1, 2002 letter, .located in the 20 Coastal counties under the
jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal Management.
General comments regarding bridge replacement projects would include:
1. Existing access to coastal waters-and land adjacent to coastal
waters should be preserved. .This would include trails, driveways,. roads,
boat ramps; clear channels,~vertical clearance under bridges, parking
spaces, etc. ~ .
,. 2. The design of storm water diversion should add treatment prior to
discharging. No storm water should be discharged to the waters and
wetlands in coastal areas. Deck drains discharging to waters or wetlands
should~be eliminated from bridge. replacements. Storm water collected
from bridges and approaches should be disposed of by infiltration as far
from the waters and wetlands as possible. The planning and design of
these replacements is crucial to protecting-the surrounding water
quality. Bridges within one half mile of SA waters or ORW waters will
.need special attention dedicated to storm water collection, treatment
and disposal.
3. Without specific proposals including accurate details of the
.proposed bridge replacement structures and associated impacts,' comments
included herein are general in nature and give no assurance of the
ability to permit any bridge replacement proposal in these locations.
Specific comments below are based on the assumption that the bridge
.replacements would be of the same general width, length and on~the
current alignment-with. no on site detour. Bridge replacements that vary
from this would usually cause greater environmental impacts and require
additional coordination with the resource agencies.
4. Any structure required to be built in wetlands or over the water
to facilitate the construction of the bridge replacement or a detour
around construction should be a temporary bridge.
Specific comments. on the above referenced projects would include:
1. B-3611 in Beaufort County - RED LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
project area include CW, CS, PTW, and PTS. The potential for
significant environmental impacts exists. Any project in this area will
require a high level of coordination with all resource agencies. The
existing bridge and causeway impacted the AEC's significantly and the
potential for mitigation involving restoration and enhancement credits
is great. ( including the abandoned roadbed to the west of the existing
road)
2. B-4.024 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
9.B-4031 in Brunswick County -RED LIGHT PROJECT - AEC's in the
of 2 5/30/02 11:33 AM

Fdr 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 Cops, including mitigation plans, are required. For
..projects that fall. under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 1~3 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 $MPs. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed
in order to allow it to fie 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
witfi~ the Riparian Buffer Rules for that basih. "
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.
o ~~~
a~,s M r~`
~~j1't~ ~ F ~itE~ dt

' JLdlU UI :"lUt tt i lrclf v<it Ict
,y~a~,~ Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
~ •
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 3, 2002
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
NC Division of Water Quality, 4 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 l0~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-t786 FAX # [phone]

l
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 Cazolina 27699-1638
Mr. David Cox
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1141 ~I-85 Service Road
Creedrrioor, North Carolina 27522
F~ Mir. Howard Hall ~ . . ~ . ,
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726.
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27636-3726 .
Mr. A11en 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 ~~~ ~- '7 2a~~
Athens, GA 30605
ti?~'.~'Jh~ Yl~ft'' f,2~3 '"t~ld4~,t~1 ~•
;rvtst.~Wrb ANG 5'tG1~MWAtL•a ~~M
5

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 , Cneen or Yellow as explained in your letters.. Projects designated as Red
by our office are specified above. The remaining projects will be considered "yeilflw"
projects. We believe that the "green" designation is misleading and should not be used.
. Should you have any questions please call Mr. David L. Tirnpy at the V~Tilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
. NCDOT Team Leader ger
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
4

U ~~~(~
1:,~ D
detow at each of the proposed project sites. Based on these inspections, p'~~e~tial~'oi?C~a6
sediment consolidation in wetlands exists at several of the proposed ropM ~~i~Ae'~~r
it is recommended that geotechnical evaluations be conducted at eac pro ~~MW~~tt~
estimate the magnitude of sediment consolidation that can occur due to anon-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
by the NC Wildlife Resowces Commission. in addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detows, 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 detow in wetlands, the entire
detow azea, including any previous detour from past construction activities, should be
removed in its entirety. .
e. The report should. provide an estimate of the lineaz 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 also not alter the stream hydraulics and create flooding of adjacent properties or ,
result in unstable stream banks. Iri 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. ~.
3

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 inahe project planning report. Our experience has shown
that replacing bridges with culverts often results Yn sufficient adverse impacts to consider
the work as having more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly,
the following items need to be addressed in the project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected by
the proposed project.
--
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour.is the recommended action, justification should be provided that
demonstrates. that alternatives with lower wetland impacts are not practicable. On-site
detours, unless constructed on a spanning structure or on.a previous detour that was used
+ in a past construction activity, can cause permanent wetland. impacts due to sediment
consolidation resulting from the on-site detour itself and associated heavy equipment.
Substantial sediment consolidation in wetland systems may in turn cause fragmentation of
the wetland and impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of the wetland. Thus, on-
site detours constructed in wetlands can result in more than minimal wetland impacts.
These types of wetland impacts will be considered as permanent wetland impacts. Please
note that an onsite detour constructed on a spanning structure can potentially avoid .
permanent wetland impacts'and should be considered whenever an on-site detour is the
recommended action. For projects where a spanning structure is not feasible, the
NCDOT should investigate the existence of previous onsite .detours at the site that were
used in previous construction activities. These areas should be utilized for onsite detours
whenever possible to minimize wetland impacts.
For proposed projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of
wetlands, an approved wetland restoration and monitoring plan will be required prior to
issuance of a DA nationwide or Regional general pernut. 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

May 9, 2002
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200101169, 200101170, 200101171, 200101172, 200101174,
200101175, and 200200726.
. IVIr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager . ~ ~ ~~~ n
.Project Development & Environmental Analysis (,t ~ ~ ~ ~
1548 Mail Service Center q pR
Raleigh;.N.C.27699-1548 ~ ~ ~ ~~~6
. D~Nk _ W
Sri
Deaz Mr. Gilmore:
,Reference your letters February. l8, 2002, Mazch 1, 2002, March 18, 2002, and
Apri124, 200 regarding our scoping comments on the following proposed bridge
replacement projects: .
L TIP Project No. ~-4268, Bridge No: 150 on SR 1006 over Little Coharie 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 CapeFeaz River,
Pender Couaty, Action ID 200 1 0 1 1 72.
~5. TIP Project No. B-42.14, Bridge No. 24 on US 17 over New_ River, Onslow
County, Action ID 200101174. ~.
`r6. TIP Project No. B- 4215, Bridge Na 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,

Action ID: 200101172
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Notification of Jug
Property
Owner:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., ManagerY
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service~Center .
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548
County: Pender
•isdictional Determination
Authorized Agent:
. Jeff Harbour, PWS
. Environmental Services, INC
524 New Hope Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761.0
Size and Location of Property (waterho~ly, 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:
0
.~
0
0
'There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be .verified by our staff before .the. Corps will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your properly. .. .
Octobet• 10 2001 the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional line as det ~ed by ~~~N f~ e~ .
On _,
and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project: A select number of wetland sites insp.
proposed project and all were found to .accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The Corps believes that .
ses.and impact assessment.
this jurisdictional delineation can be relied on for planning purpo
:The wetlands on your lot have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction ha a h~ u pn for~atpenod
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this deternunahon may b po
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification which are subject to the permit requirements of
There are no wetlands present on the above descnibed property J
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). U ~~ not to exceed five years from the datebof this.
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a p . .
notification.
a The project is located in one. of the 20 Coastal Counties.
M ent to determine their requirements.
You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal .
anagem
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 Wx stin hi(h rTound3 If you
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to ease contact~Mr. Dave
have any questions regarding he Corps of Engineers regulatory program, p
Timpy at 910-251-4634. ~ ~ n ~
.Project Manager Signature
Date January 2, 2002 ~ Expiration Date JanuaN 2 ~ 2007
SURVEY PLAT OR .FIELD SKETCH. OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE. WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM. ::

8
cc:
Ted Bisterfeld, U. S: Environmental 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 ~ .
~.~~~D
D ~ .
4 ~,p~ _ "1 ~~Q~a
,~,tiANp51'~ S°fQA~~

7
B-4234, Bridge No. 98 on SR 1407 over Conetoe Creek, Pitt County - As noted in the NRTR,
surveys should be conducted for the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The
area surveyed should extend from 100 meters. (328 feet) upstream to 300 meters (984
feet) downstream.
B-4235, Bridge No. 118 on SR 1538 over Grindel Creek, Pitt County -Survey for the Taz 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 shallowponds
with sandy substrate and Carolina bays. This species is associated with wetland habitats
.. such as bottomland and hardwoods in the interior areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds
and other depressions in the more coastal sites. The plants generally grow in shaded azeas
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 prof ect. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact
Howazd Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27.
Sincerely,
_ l ~ ~~~
/~'~-'
.~o ~ Dr. Garland B. Pardue
-~ Ecological Services Super-visor -
Attachment
Literature cited
O'Shea, T. J. and M. E. Ludlow. 1992. Florida manatee. pp. 190-200. In S.R. Humphrey (ed.).
Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume I. Mammals. University of Florida Press.
Gainesville. 392 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996.. Communication to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. USFWS, Raleigh Field Office. Raleigh, NC. 4 pp.

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. 10$ on SR 1340 over Old State Canal, Hyde County - The NRTR~ notes that
habitat for the sensitive j ointvetch is present in the project area, 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 year 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 tnibutary 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 azea.
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
followprocedures 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 aze `tinresolved." 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
particulaz construction site. The species moves through North Cazolina 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 intoproject plans.
D ~~
~n~
~dP _ „ ~~`
R
~' ~ ~'' r ~ ~ ~ + , yA r~ ~ ~'
Q~NCH

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 mazsh 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 "marginal habitat exists foi rough=leaved loosestrife [Lysimachia
asperulaefolia] is the form of shallow organic soils adjacent to a forest communit}~' in
the project area. While the NRTR states that no plants were seen,~the Service requires
greater details of survey methodology before we can concur with the determination that
_ __ the_project will have no effect onrough-leaved loosestrife.
B-4024, Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County -The NRTR states (p.
3) that the average depth of Pantego Creek is 4.5 feet, but concludes (p. 14) that the
necessary water depth fdr•the manatee is not present. The Service disagrees and
recommends that proj ect plans should incorporates measures given in "Precautions for
General Construction in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North
Carolina" that the Service.provided the NCDOT in 1996. Suitable habitat for sensitive
jointvetch exists in the project area (p. ~17), but the NRTR concludes that the project
would have "no effect" on the species based, in part, on the fact that no plant were "found
in the project azea." The Service cannot concur with this determination...The Servicewill
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-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 may be used by manatees.. The NRTR states that the
biological conclusions for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Federally
endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) are `unresolved." Wood storks may
undertake post-breeding season dispersals from June through early autumn in search of
food in swamps, marshes, and mudflats. The NCDOT should seek to determine whether
the project 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 yeaz, the Service would
recommend that this project be scheduled outside this particular period.

4
construction if vegetation disturbing activities, e.g., regulaz mowing or timber harvesting, occur
at the project site.
The NCDOT should carefully consider potential impacts.to the West lndian.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 lazge 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 -4.6 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 (iJSFWS 1996). The
`' biological conclusion of the NCDOT on impacts to manatees cannot be based on negative visual
surveys of the project azea. These mobile animals may not inhabif a given azea 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
C C~ ~~(~ p
~P~ ~ ~ ;~ ?ao~
C3~NF! - w.r~ni QUALITY
WC'TtANp$ ANt~ ~T'C'~NWAI'~R ARANCN

~' $.
i r
3
activities, should be entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with
appropriate, endemic vegetation, including trees if necessary,
3. I.f unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset; .
4. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratorium periods associated with migration, spawning, and.sensitive pre-adult.
life stages. The general`~moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 -June. 15;
5. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and, .
6. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species for which the Service
remains concerned, but further biological research and field study aze 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 willb liev~es such det rnunahons are~~ly
plants based on surveys in the recent past. The Sernce
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 requir NCDOT for
particular time of yeaz for accurate identifications ~~ conduced, the person hours of .
plants should include the time of year that a surv y
surveying, and the approximate size of the area surveyed. Surveys should be done within two or
three years of actual construction for those species inhabiting stable and/or climax communities.
Plant species that utilize disturbed communities, e.g., Michaux sumac (Rhos michauxii~ and
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), should be done within two years of actual

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. Br_4223~,.Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 over the Northeast Cape Feaz 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; PitkCounty; ~ '
25. B-4248, Bridge No. 170 on SR 1101 over Shoe Heel Creek (Gaddy Mi11 Road), Robeson
..County; .
~~ 26. B-4272, Bridge No. 191 on SR 1845 over Great Coharie Creek, Sampson Count}; 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 reconnmend the following conservation measures to avoid or min;mi~e
adverse- environmental unpacts 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 biodiversityor ecological value important to the watershed and region
should be avoided. Wherever appropriate, construction insensitive 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 opea 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 azea, including any previous detour from past construction
yy~1'4~Nq~lH'W ~ihRMWA7CEt ~NgNCH

r~ .•1
" ~.
United States Department of the- Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
June 12, 2002
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project. Development and Environmental Analysis .
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Planning
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 '
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 Year (CFY) 2005. Your letters requested the
Service to review these reports and determine the level of concerns we might have for trust
resources under our jurisdiction. This report provides scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife, Coordination Act~(~WCA) (15 U.S.C. 661-667d) and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C..1531-1543).
This report also serves~as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use
in their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
The bridges scheduled for replacement are:
1. B-3611, Bridge No. 77 on~NC 99 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County;
2. B-4024, Bridge No. 136 on SR 1626 over Pantego Creek [Canal?], Beaufort County
3. B-4026, Bridge 45 on SR 1110 over Choowatic Creek, Bettie County;
4. B-4028, Bridges Nos. 12 and 18 over the Cape Fear River, Bladen County;
5. B-4031, Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch, Brunswick County;
6. B-4077, Bridge No. 25 on NC 130 over Waccamaw River outflow, Columbus County '
7. B-4082, Bridge 280 on SR 1843 over Dan's Creek, Columbus County;
8. B-4086, Bridge No. 10 on SR 1111 over Brices Creek, Craven County;
9. B-4090 -Bridge No. 125 on NC 24 over Cross Creek, Cumberland County;
10. B-4125, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1091 over Wheat Swamp Creek, Greene County;
11. B-4126, Bridge No. 49 on SR 1434 over Wheat Swamp Creek, Greene and Lenoir Counties;
12. B-4127, Bridge No. 43 on SR~1438 over Rainbow Creek, Green Couni};
13. B-4150, Bridge No. 67 on SR 1118 over Ahoskie Creek, Herford County;
14. B-4154, Bridge No. 108 on SR 1340 over Old State Canal, Hyde County;
15. B-4169, Bridge No. 7 on SR 1129 (Free Bridge Road) over Big Chinquapin Branch Jones .
County; .

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,
,(~
. ~'~" ~ / .
1 '~ .
r Garland B. a~due, Ph.D.
.Ecological Services Supervisor
• ~ Enclosure ~ ~ _ -
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
Chris Militscher, U$EPA, Raleigh, NC
. ,
. , ~ ~ ~ C~~~~~~ p
~PC~ - 7 ~t~os
. pCN~t - WATCR t~1JALITY .
r~rt~wgS Aro aTCw~+wArr•:s e

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, httn•//endan~ered.f«~s.~,ov. 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 fo
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. ~A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact
area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including•wetlands, that 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.

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 wetland$ 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 insensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and
~migratary 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 aiong 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 stone 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
concern. 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 p eo~~~~ .
D
,.,~
Ak'f~ - ~ 2QU6
c~Nk - wAr~k GuAl~irt
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH . .. .

Section Ill -Red Lit;ht Projects (RLPs)
Red Light Projects arc those that include extraordinary resources or concerns that will require close
coordination to .complete successfully. These projects involve high quality wetlands, extremely
valuable or rare endangered species habitats, or other limited or unusual resources.
The Bridbe 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. manabed~under atathority of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
• Management Act(P.L. 104-297) and other statutory and regulatory provisions. ifthese 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 livinb 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 -
Bridbe No. 77 B ~~ 361:3; . Beaufort County
Bridbe No: 72 B - 4031 Brunswick County
Bridge No. l.9 . , B - 42l S Onslow County
Bridbe No. 24. B - 4214 ~ Onslow County
Bridge No. 65 = B - 4219 ~ Aamlieo County
Bridbe. No: 4~ B -.4221. Pamlico County
Finally, the shortnose sturgeon, a Federally~.protected species under the purview of the NMFS is
found in the ~ Cape Fear and Roanglce. Rivers: ~ ~ These comments do not satisfy Federal agency
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered•Species~Aet of 1973, as~amended.
If any activity. "may effect" listed. species~and~ habitats under NMFS purview, consultation should be
initiated with, otrr ~Pr~otected .Resources'~iv~sion at 9721 Executive Center DriveNorth, St.
Petersburg, Florida~33702:~
We appreciate the opportunity. for early participation in the review of these bridge replacement
projects.. If I sari be of further assistance, please contact rrie at the letterhead address or at 252-728-
5090. ..
D~~ D
D ~~~
~ "~ t~Q~i
. A~'~ ~~
Sincerely,
~)
Ron Sechler
Fishery Biologist .

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ralcigh Field OErice
Post Officc Box 33726.
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
November 14, 2002
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548~Mai1 Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
4 ~~, CEO
N~V ~ ~ 7t~n~
i
,;
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 Officer ~.
• 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);
• 8-4215, 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:

,•~,~
Bridge Number Project Number Location
Bridge No. l 3~ B - 4025 - Beaufort County .
Bridge No. 108 B -4154 Hyde County
BridgeNo. 11.8 B - 4235 Piti County
Bridge No. 191. B - 4272 Sampson County
Section 11-Yellow Light Projects (YLPs)
The bridge~~replacement projects~li sted 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
anadromotis fishery resources and are, therefore, c>~ssified.as YLPs.
Bridge Number Project Number Location
<
. t:.
.Bridge No. 45 ... B - 4026 ~ ~ ~Bertie County`
Bridge No. 29 B -4314 Washington County
Bridgt: No..l 0 B - 4086 ~ Craven County
Bridge No. 46 ~ B - 4 I25 Greene County
Bridge No. 49 B - 4 I2G ~ Greene and Lenoir
.Counties
Bridge No. 43 ~. B - 4127 Green County
Bridge No. 67 B - 4150 ~ ~ •Hertford County '
Bridge No: 7 ~ B - 4169 Jones County
Bridge No. S B - 4187 ~...~,: _.,~,~rtin County
Bridle Nb. 69 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ .B'-4227 ~ ~ ... • • Perquimaris County - ~ -.. ~. .
Bridge No: ~ 98 : • ~ ~ ~B - 4234. _ . ~ ~ ~ Pith County ~ ~ .... ~ _~
Spawning- and nursery habitat~foi~anadromous fishes-may:be~adversaly~impacted bythese projects- ~ ~ .
.unless measures to.avoid and minimize impacts ~to waters $nd wetlands .are-included: in •the: project- ~ ~ .
plans. Accordingly, the NMFS niay recommend against Department:ofthe~:Art~y authorization of- ~ .
these projects under Nationwide~:P.ermit 23,unless the following recaommehdations are: incorporated: • ..
1. Following impact avoidarice~-~and minimization,~~~navoidablewetland:-losses ~ shall be ~offset~~ -~ '` ~ = - ~-
through implementation ofa compensatory mitigation plati=that has~beeti approved by. the Corps ~. - ..
of Engineers and in consultation with .the NMFS:.~ ~ ~~-
2. All construction related activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that . - ~ ~ .
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to those systems and-their. associated flora and fauna. :.. ~ ~~ ' ~~..
3. In order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may utilize the project areas as spawning
or nursery habitat, work in the waters of the creek shall.be restricted to~the period October l and
March 1 of an}~ year unless prior approval is granted by -the .Corps of Engineers following
consultation ~~~ith the NMFS.~

• urvrrEO B-rATES DEPARTMEM" OF COMMERCE
. ~ r National Oceanic end Atmospheric Administration
•% ~' NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SEfiVICE
f
''+,n a ~
~ abitat Conservation Division
101 Pivers-Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 2851 G-9722
June 7, 2002
William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, :North Carolina 27699-1548•
Dear Mr: Goodwin: ~ ~ ~ ~,
The National Marine: Fisheries Service (NMFS) .has reviewed the Natural Systems Technical
Reports (NSTR)'-•Gr•oup~2, for 22 bridge~replacement projects identified in your March l; 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 ~ •. ~ -
- Permanent and.temporary~wetlant3~fosses •• •~ ~ - • •~~ ~
- Offsite versus .onsite detours ~ • ~ o ~ ~ ~ u 5'F (.' "'
- Time` of year restrictions nn instream work • ~"~ ..:.n;•~:; :a. _~'~ ~_~ ~= ~ ~ • = ~ •~ ~- : ~ .4 P R ~ _ 7 L! ' I
- 7•reatment of wetland ~restoratitin•a'teas ~-~ • ' ~ -=~ •-~ • •~ -===-~ ~~~ • - ~ ~ °~ • ~~ ' • •
~•;i-,.;_ 1•:,~ •.•-..:: '..-.:~,;...:_ -_ .. • - ;..{tENR-WATEFS:.c~;~::
- Existing bridge demolition arifl rerimovai'~ ~ ~ ~~ .
-n~rraNns'wo sro~+wArrra t1l~r,~cG,r~.
- Lengthening eitisting°bridges as ~ v+ietyand restoration measure ~ - •.~ • • --
_. ..
The NMFS agrees that these issues should be fiiliy gddr`essea'wath~regard {o impacts and mitigation. ~ ~ ~ ~~-
We also agree with the Corps' determination"that identifying projects"involvirig~these aciivi~ies 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 Irojects.
Section I~- Yellow Light Projects (YLPs)~ - ~•--~" ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~•- - ~ -
The bridge replacement projects listed below are located in areas`that do nonsupport NMFS trust
fisliery resources: Otherwise; they have normal environmental concerns and, therefore, are identif ed
as YLPs. ..
. ~ ~'~~
Printed on Recyrlyd Paper ~
• ~ °'~r•..,e~

3, [n order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may utilize the Project areas as
spawniD,g 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 Ingineers following consultation with NOAH Fisheries.
If tltiese projects are processed under Nationwide 23, they will be cazefully reviewed for
incorporation of the recommcndationsllsted above, and we may elect to provide additional
comments and recommendationsthatare intended to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to
living marine resources. Owr recommendations, if any, will be sent to the Wilmington District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and be forwanled to you.
Finally, the sliortnose st~gcon, a federally protected species under the purview of NOAA ~ .
Fisheries is found in the Cape pear River. 'These comments do not satisfy federal agency
consultation responsibilitics under Section 7 of the F,ndangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. ` If any s~ctivity ~5may effect" listed species and habitats under N4AA Fisheries
. purview, consultation should be initiated with our Protected Resources Division at 9721
Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
--We a 'a#~e the-+a rty for sariY_Partrcipanon_h~ t~ new of these bridge replacement
- PPt'~ RP°~'~ ~ -----
projccts. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field
Office at 252-728-5090 or at ron.scchler(a nose gov.
Sincerely, .
~~
~!t Andreas Mager, Jr
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

B'r•ldgc Nurnbcr Projtxt Number- County
Irlo. 416 8 - 4103 Davidson County
No. 28 8 = 4x3S Rowell Gpunty
Na.34 8.-42x2 Stokes•County
p U - 7he~e. pr0~d:ft ha~~e the potential to •t~DCt tislurY resa+~~r's and thar ~uociated habnat •
.. ~ ~ for which NpAA Fisheries has stewardship ~spoaslb~ility: ~ •
Bridge Number • Project Npmbe~ ~ ' Coanty ~ ~, ~/7~~
• ~ ~ ~ Lit l~ ~ ~ ~,'! I ~'~
No, i 2 $ =1382 Sampson County r ~ f
• No: 26 T3 -1382 Sampson Gqunty .p ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ GI n ha _
.. ~~Na - w~r~R uu~rurr
No. 72 ~ B -403 $tgnswick County '~V~t't~Urd6 ANti ~tpt~wa~tc~ ~
Nn. 24 8 - 4214 Onslow Cauply
No. 2l 8 ~ 4323 Pander County
• Budget 12: Z6. Z7 s,nd 24 are locatod is the Cape Ft~r ta-d New R1vCr banns and in areas which . .
provide hatdur for.. troadromou: ~~Y p-duding American stud and ~~ t~^~S•
Bridgaa 72 and Z, are locst~d ie areas wtl- brarldsti to saline watel'!t that' also wpport estuarine
dtpgtdent f-stwy rsscr,rnes such as, Atlaneiccroak~ar. xnd blua~a~lb Te addtion. tbes~e projects ~•
may•atfcu F~tia! ~ Hnbitai- tot l edaally managed spades ~ as rsd drum and >frnnp
which~~ maned by the South Atiuntic fishery Ma~enuat Cvu~a7,"and sun~xr flotrndor which
is ,nant~d ey t~ Mid-Act Fshetyr Msnyen~t Ca,t~. ~Lcca~nBly. wa rncomme;nd that
Linn tssential ~isTt Hebitu Atf~tnent be included is ady tm+ironmental d~opxtn~ fcx theme pn~jectx.
•
Spawning and nursery habiut fac anudromcxts and estuat'ine fishes atsy ba adversely in~cted b}•
these projects unless mnsurss to ava~ a~1d minimize impacts fo walcrs and watland3 are includod
in the projecx piern- 'Chercfiot+G, NQAA F"es~ies mar reoan+mend agaipat A~nn>ent of the Army
authorization of these projects under Nationw~dc Permit Z3 unless the following rtevmmendatiorilc .
' us incorporacod:•
• . '•~ Following impact a~noldanoe .artd mimanr~tion, uttavpidebl6 ~+etland losses shat! be ofi3et
through implementat~tt ofa a~oopa~aacvry mitigttioe plan that has ban rppFoved by the Carps
of Engineers and in oonudtaron with NAM F~sheaie:.
.2,. All auction sct'nritiea in watsrs told associated wetlands shill utter' c teclu~ique~s thu A~bi4t .
• ~ end minimize adverse impads to those systems sad their ass~ocisted flora•and fauna

a-
~'~ «,r
. ~c
DEC o 9 2~2 t
-~~r~rr-•rr~wrw~-~rr..-+-
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.,D,
ratvironmtntel Mant~gana~t hireetar
Ptojoct•t~vebpm~t rnd ~ . ~ .
Fttvironmaitttl Analysis 8ra»ch,.
NC Qeparimct-t pf Transpcrrtetion
1 S4E Mail Service Center . .
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1 S4~
Sttention- John ~iVadsworth
ih~r ih. Thacpe
UNtTEO STATER DEPARTMENT t~ CtiMMtERCE
tlleeia~ p~pnie and Atmaeplterlc Atfrnini~rotion
N+- MA~n1E F13HEf~E~ SEpVIGE
H C'Of15Cn~At10n Division
lOt Fivert islA~d (toad
geau~ott, North Cua9ina ?xt i 6-~17~'~
Datimber 6.2002
The NAtinnal Merino F~i+eriee Service (NOAA i:i:heries) has revit~wed your Uctobcr ZA. 3UU3. letter
roQuestin~; commc~rta on ~aght bridge replaces=tertt pnoJects it>clutiod in fhe _NOn11 Car~~iina
De~partmetu of Ttxrlsportation 3tt02-2008't'ran~ortation Improvcxtum Ptsn wr understand that.
the NCbOT is preparing the planning ar~d em~irotltYtettt~l studies nvoost~t--y to pr~x;e+~x ~lx~e pr~jccts
s: Cat~aritxl Exclusions utd~ ofiets the fohowinj wrnments for your considerari~n
The tm~ironmentd documat~ for these projects sboukl uddcess meaiut~cs dcsignod tp atpid and.
mininrize' lass of upon water and wetlands that support fishery resowc~ [~ additit»t ~~ a suppprt
6edings contaidod In the May 9, 2003.1etter from the Wiirningtc+n t3istrict. U.S: Arnn~ Corps;af
irngineas. which idetrtitted the fbtbwmY issues aAd t~ttetart>s as being rele~~am to tlu prapc~ced
budge replacement projects:
Replacing bridgts with ruh+orts .
- Pe[m:incnt ~a~d ~tamporary wetland krsscs
- 4ffsne vusua onsite deto:-rx
- one of year restrictions an instrrarq work
- Trratment bf wetland resttmition at+pis •
- Ir~cistit~ Mridy~ detrtolitloa ind removal .
- Lext~,themng e.~isting bridges ss ti wetland restoration measure
Group 1-The foilow'ing pcojechc will rove no impact oa resourus for wf~ich NQ X1:1 Fialte~ ies ltas
st~.-ar+dsttip rrsponsia'lity; therefore. v-,e have nn oornmencg:
N+NRtl w R~'Id Papa
~."' ,
'~ Y
~~..~

' .- ~ ~U.~. Department
of ~'ransportation
United States
Coast Guard
Commander
United States Coast Guard
Atlantic Area
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center .
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr: Thorpe:
431 Crawford Street ~ ^~~
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: (Aowb)
Phone: (757j39t3-6587
16590 ~~ ~ ~ V
03 DEC 02 Q~ FQ
DEC ~ ~ ?.DD2
..~
-~o ~rrtsituv of
f~ ,~. Hr.;t;~rAYS ,
~r~~ f ~C AHA~
Tris is in response to your 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 Creek~j'
Withrow Creek and Pinch Gut Creek all located throughout North Carolina.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guazd bridge.
permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are not used, susceptible to use in
their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to transport
interstate commerce. Such conditions for~some of these waterways were confirmed in a
telephone conversation on November 27,.2002. Due to this, the bridge projects on Beaver Dam,
Withrow, and Pinch Gut. Creeks and Black River Over Flow are exempt; and will not require -
Coast Guard Bridge Permits.
Black River, Jenny's Branch, and Stone Creek are subject to tidal influence and thus considered
legally navigable for Bridge Administration purposes. But these waterways also meet the criteria
for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
115.70. Advance approval waterways aze 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. ~ . .
e New River and
the uc m orma on as, rs a waterway affected by lunar tides? Is
there any commercial navigation? What types and sizes of boats operate on the waterway?
Bridge Permits may be 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

~. ~. ~~,iwr .r rrvr..~ yr VIIr.GV V.q{W Wqo\'VVgIV r VI WIIIV.VV.I ~irr iV1VTVVV'.
Homeland Security Fifth Coast Guard Distrtd Sfaff Symbol: q~n-b
!?ficna, (757138-6587
United States Fax. (757) ~ X34
C08st GUerd Emaill: tknowles~lantd5.usog.mil
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
P. O. Box 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Dear Ms. Williams:
16593
21 Jan 04
This is 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 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 Titie 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 regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Terrance Knowles, at the
phone number or address shown above. ~_ .
' ~ Sincerely; '
. ~~ • : '
WAVERLY REG~RY,
Chief, Bridge Admuustra on Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
~C~C~C~~~C p
• APR - 7 2006
C7ENrt ~ vstkr~,t ~.,..;aL;V
WEr1AN(}S ANC3 5rt`NMwr+.t ER Bf'tANCN

H
O
z
m
t7

a
0

m
-~
0
~' Q~41
~~ ....

~~~
..,
~~~
~~~:
..
~~~
~ ~ ~ ~.. ~.
~~ ~.~
11 Y '~
g ~t ""*
'~ .~ ~..
~ ~~~ ~~~~
~~
m
t?f
N
O
m
~~
~~ ~~~
~ ~~

g~ ~y~

N
A y
~~ W
(
WE /RI O
G

~ ~
~
~ p C#
" :L!
~

' t
"""' y
~~~

tl Y
c ~__~_~_._
m "
D ~,
"

~~ ~
~ ~.ay O
DO ^'
D o
0
~~ rn

5
"
,~
x
i6
R'!
a
x
n
A
r
m
m
1
t

Commander 431 Crawford Street
U.S. Depattm@nt of United States Coast t3uanJ Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Homeland Security : Filch Coast Guard Distrid Staff. Symbol: Oan-b
Phon~ (7571398-6587
Unit@d Stattas Emai : tknowles~antd5.usog.mil
Coast Guard
16593
02 Feb 04 .
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
P. O. Box 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Dear Ms. Williams: .
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~ Pander 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 questigns regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Terrance Knowles; at the ~ .
phone number or address shown above.
Sincerely, ~ ~
~G~ J~-~-
. W.AVERLY G Y, JR
Chief, Bridge Administratio Secti
. By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guazd District

~ Z~
~~ '~ IOUs
e' ~ pUr-F-°
-~ ~ OC N
r_ ~ ~ o O 7
$ O
o~ ~ ~~~' ~w~f
Slft~ bOd ~ x ~~W pp p
~ ~ 1NIOd 39NIH oe Z
QO ~ m aC
~O ~- ~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ d (Ep O
~ ~ N ~
O O ~ p
00 Al Z M
O Z
Q
~'`~ N
~ N ~ N N0 ~
M
O '- ~.. O to
~. N ~O . C7' N ~O ,~~~ ~
o
ui ~ ~ E ~ 6
~ ~ ~ N~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~~
aoNNa.O o ~ ~
O O
M
`.
r,,
0
4
7
i~
i~
I-,
Q
V V O
N 1/f N
O p O
O ~ `O
~ M W
,~
,~
N
J
c~
z
W
C')
0
u~
4~i
OGi
~'~

u
n
u Z
O~
r
~ ~
~ F-
°a ~~
~~

o ° o g
o
N N N ~° r
Uv
OC ~
.p ~ J J
} _
~ ~- ZO
} V
O
Z h ~ oc
~ pU ~ ~ ~ 'O
u

T.I.P. No. 8-4223, Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTI'-021.0(4), State Project No. 5.1271001 Fender County,
NC 210, Bridge No. 2I over North East Capc Fear lover
FIGURE 4

.M1of
AWu~~
Hay shelter
Game Lend

Bridge/No. 21

E I N
- -
'~ ~
tv ~
~ ~zt F' ~ ,.
'~ `y
Mi \`
NiN
`\`
R Near e9dt, `.
u
~.h
' p~. '.
1'
-, .
~~~~aac~ p
Mr f1 ~ / ~1IoU
U~Nh(~ WATMFt QUALITY
w~rtMi~s ANp src~tw~t~ aaAr~f
FIGURE 1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
PENDER COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.21 ON NC 210
OVER THE
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RNER
8-4223

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 Regulaz 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. .
~JIII. 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

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 aze 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 Standazds. 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 azea. . ,
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There aze no receptors
located in the immediate project azea. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be 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 (LIST) site was located on the north side of NC 210 and approximately 360 feet (109
meters) west of the bridge. The facility No. is 0-019787 located 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 rigRRht~~of-
~9~~~~i1
. D
~r'R ` 7 2UU6
Page 26 ~e'rvR - WATER QUALITY
w~ rl.gWpg ANp STO~f WATER BRMICH

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 imp]emented 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 area....it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum
is included in the appendix. .
VII. Environmental Effects
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
Page 25

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 spaztiniphaga Spartiniphaga carferae SR N
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var.
georgana 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
Cazolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassilt caroliniana E N
Pineland plantain ~ Plantago sparsiflora E N
Thorne's beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei E N
Cazolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra E N
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna SR-L N
Cazolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra NL N
Cazolina least trillium Trillium pusillum vaz.
pusillum E N
Chapman's three-awn Aristida simpliciflora SR-T N
Coastal goldenrod ~ Solidago villosicarpa SR-L N
Grassleaf arrowhead Sagittaria graminea
var. weatherbiana SR-T Y
E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, SR -Significantly Rare, -T-Throughout, -L-
Limited, NL-Not Listed by NCNHP
NHP files show southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) asoccurring 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.-
D ~~~~~
a~R - ~ coos
v~ni~ ~v~r~~ vuA~irv
Page 24 ~lAhlDSArypST(~yyA~B~CH

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 loams. Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and cypress growing'together, bordering asavanna-like area, has been
the best indicator of Cooley's meadowrue sites (FWS 1994b),
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No~ habitat consisting of wet savannas or savanna-like areas kept open by.fire or
disturbance occurs in the project study area. NHP does not document any occurrences of
this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the project study area as of December 20, 2001.
No impacts to this species will result from this project.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The "Federal species of concern" (FSC) designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species .listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand
et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for FSC listed for Pender County,
(Table 7). Sources reviewed included the FWS on-line list last updated Februazy 25, 2003
(reviewed on-line November 5, 2003), and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program on-line
list last updated January 2003.
Page 23

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
Q~c~~Qd~~

floxNr~ byRr~FC UUA4ITY
wtr-awns Arai src~wAr~ sruwcy

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 (S 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 Cazolina 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 Cazolilna 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
azea as of December 20, 2001. As a safety measure, Precautions for Construction in
Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina will be
followed.
seabeach amaranth -The seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic coast
beaches. The stems are fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves. It is typically
found on barrier island beaches, where its preferred habitat consists of overwash flats and lower
foredunes (FWS 1996).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for seabeach amaranth occurs within the project study area. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study
area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species will result from the proposed
project.
Golden sedge -Golden sedge is a perennial member of the sedge family and is known only
from North Carolina. The stem may reach 3 feet (0.9 m) in height and the green, grasslike leaves
are up to 10 inches (0.25 m) long. This species grows in sandy soils overlying coquina limestone
deposits, with unusually high soil pH (Glover 1994). Golden sedge prefers the ecotone between
pine savannah and adjacent wet hardwood or hazdwood/conifer forest. Most plants occur in
Page 21

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 etI'ect
No habitat for piping plover occurs in the project study area. No impacts to this species
_will result from. this project. . _ __ __
Red-cockaded woodpecker -This small woodpecker (7 to 8.5 inches) (0.2m) long has a black
head, prominent white cheek patch, and black and white barred back. Males often have red
markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et
al. 1980)... .
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly,
longleaf (Pinus palustris), slash (P. elliotia~, and pond (P. serotina) pines. Nest cavities are
constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 60 years that have been
infected with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees typically occur in clusters, which are referred
to as colonies. Pine flatwoods or pine savannas Ghat 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. Hardwoodlpine 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
pinelmixed hardwood stands over 30 years of age (Henry 1989). Pines must comprise at least 60
percent of the canopy iri 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 '~ scent to the
~'p~
~ ~~4
Page 20 .APR _~ 7 70p6
o~~~ . i'~A)'~k
'"~' t ""~ ~ w r r c , , y ~ ~ ~ ~ ,

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 ~I,ikely 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 determinatiion
of its presence or use of the project. study area 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, IVIr: Fritz Rhode of NC Division of Marine
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 aze no other crocodilians native
to North Carolina. American alligators can be found in a wide variety of freshwater to estuarine
habitats including swamp forests, bottomland hardwood forests, marshes, large streams, canals,
ponds and lakes (Palmer and Braswell 1995). This habitat exists within the project study area,
and the potential for alligators within the project study area does exist. No individuals or direct
evidence of occurrence was observed during the field investigation conducted by ESI biologists.
Construction activities may temporarily displace any American alligators in the. vicinity;
however, no long-term impact to, the American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not applicable
No biological conclusion is required for the American alligator since it is listed as
T(S/A).
Loggerhead sea turtle -The loggerhead sea turtle is a marine turtle characterized by a large
head with blunt jaws. The carapace and flippers are areddish-brown color and the plastron is
yellow. Adults grow to an average weight of about 200 pounds (441kgs). The loggerhead sea
turtle may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays,
lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large 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

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'rnitigated by replartting~
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 Februazy.25, 2003).
Table 6. Federally Protected Species Listed for Pender County, North Carolina.
Common Name Scientific Name Status ~ Biolo ical Conclusion
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E Not Likely to
Adversel Affect
American alli ator Alli ator mississi iensis T(S/A N/A
Lo erhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T No effect
Pi in lover Charadrius melodus T No effect
Red-cockaded wood ecker Picoides borealis E ~ No effect
Manatee Trichechus manatus E ~ No effect
Seabeach amaranth - ~Amaranthus umilus T No effect
Golden~sed e Carex lutes E No effect
Rou h-leaved loosestrife L simachia as erulae olia E No effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americans E No effect
Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum Goole i E No effect
T(S/A) =Threatened due to similar appearance
E= Endangered
T=Threatened
~ ~~~ ~~<
D
,QPi± ... 7 70~~ 4
k~iVDS,~r~ ~Tt+~hlW,~fEft~~hl
Page 18

Table 5. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters Within the Pro'ect Stud Area.
Total Wetland Impacts
Acre (Hectaze)
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 Genera140.1 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 necessazy for this project and if review of the temporary
structures are not included in the NEPA document.
Pender County is a coastal county. and is therefore under the additional jurisdiction of the CAMA
as regulated by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) and the NCDCM. ~ Activities that
impact certain coastal wetlands under~the jurisdiction of CAMA or Areas of Environmental
Concern (AEC) require CAMA approval through the NCDCM (NCDCM 2001). The NE ;Cape
Fear River within the project study area is considered an AEC because it is considered public
trust waters and it is in an area designated as "inland" and "joint" fishing waters by NCWRC and
NCMFC (NCDCM 2001). Replacement of Bridge No. 21 will require LAMA approval.
The United States Coast Guazd (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 Feaz 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

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_~ubject to.review under._Section 404 of he_Clean.Water_Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation,.andevidence 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 (RZUBH) 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 (PFO1) and does not take into account the presence
of bald cypress co-dominating at this site which results in thePFO6 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 yeazs 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.
D ~~~u ~~
D
AI'R ~- 7 Z~i06
DENR • WAi,~k Uu,q~.iTy
~LAfYQSANp S7~yWA1~ER BRANCH
Page 16

Table 3. Antici ated Im acts to Plant Communities
Terrestr ial Communities (Acres/Hectares)
B-4223 Mixed Pine/ Coastal Plain Cypress- Successional / Maintained/Disturbed
Alternatives Hardwood Levee Forest Gum Clear-Cut Land
Forest Swam
Alt. A 0.65 (0.263) 0.06 (0.024) 0.30 (0.012) 0.67 (0.271) 3.45 (1.400)
Alt. B 0.62 (0.251) 0.10 (0.040) 0.10 (0.040 1.00 (0.405) 3.21 (1.300)
Alt. B Temp. 0.06 (0.024) 0.00 (0.000) 0.06 (0.024) 0.09 (0.036) 0.02 (0.008)
Del.
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 bylimiting 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 area. Precautions For Construction In Areas Which May Be Used By
The West Indian Manatee In North Carolina (1996 USFWS) will be incorporated.
Resident aquatic species may be displaced during construction activities. Anticipated impacts are
expected to be minor and temporary and are presented' in Table 4.
Page 15

brevirostrum) have been documented in the Cape. Fear River and likely utilize the NE Cape Fear
River.
The NE Cape Fear River provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians and
aquatic reptiles. Although none were observed during the field investigation, the following
species are expected to occur in the project study area: green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), and cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted pursuant to DWQ methodologies. Kick-net
surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within along the edge of the NE Cape Fear
River produced a small amount aquatic maci-oinvertebrates. 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
Annelids ~ Oligochaeta
Decapoda P.alaemonidae
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-wayandpermitted 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
aze commonly found within fragmented landscapes. The bridge replacement will not alter
fragmentation .within the study area.
o C~C~~~1~ p
iJ~;.N~ ~ 'fi~ih'ri iRJAUTY
1METU'~Nf)31~{[) S7(~RMWP.'CER BRANCH
Page 14

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 Feaz 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 azea were conducted in the NE Cape Fear River to document the aquatic
community. The depth of the channel inhibited the use of the back-mounted electro-shocker.
Fish species documented in the NE Cape Fear River duffing 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 area include such species as blue-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

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 spazse 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. SuccessionaUClear-cut
Successional/clear-cut azeas cover approximately 2.8 acres (1.1 hectare) (18 percent) o~the
project study area. Successional areas ate those areas that have been. disturbed by man in the
past, usually by logging activities, and have becomere-established with successional or
disturbance-oriented vegetation. Clea;-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 rivex 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 21U. 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 yazds,
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 aze
unknown. A powerline right-of--way crosses the river south of NC 210. This .right-of--way
appears to receive regular maintenance by mowing and/or herbicide application.
2. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Mammals directly
observed or evidenced by tracks or scat include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and
raccoon (Procyon lotor). Other mammals expected to occur in and around the project study area
include such species as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). p (~ ~ ~ n ~ n~
I~ (.~ \~ D
aP~ -- ~ zaps
Page 12
p~MFti = W,~7[~ G7t1AG,fT7
'~"1"N1N1~ hNt1 ~Tt~~MWA1'~ft 6RANCH

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

5. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. Generallmpacts
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
resourceslorganisms. 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
D ~~t~ ~~
- aP~ r ~ zoos
Page 10 ~~~~~ -
wErlgNl~,gNpst~ ~19RANCH

related to bridge construction will be minimal. This alternative will not create any obstructions to
anadromous fish passage in the Northeast Cape Fear River.
According to the NMFS, waters of the Northeast Cape Fear River are considered primary
nursery coastal waters from the mouth of the river upstream to the bridge at US 117 near
Wilmington. The project vicinity is located several miles upstream from this .nursery designation.
A moratorium on in-stream construction activities is in effect from February 15 to June 15 to
protect anadromous fish species.
4. ~ Permitted Dischargers .
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined -point .of .
discharge are broadly referred to as "point "sources." Wastewater point source discharges
include municipal (city and county) and ~ industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
subdivisions and individual homes (DWQ 2000). Stormwater point source discharges include
stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater discharges associated with
certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are
issued under the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the EPA.. Within subbasin 030623
there is only one major NPDES discharger. There are numerous minor non-NPDES dischargers
in the subbasin (DENR 2001).: The three largest dischargers are listed in Table 1.
Table L 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 Co
rP- River in New 1.07
downstream
Hanover Ca

NC0007757
Thorn Apple Valley Juniper
Swamp
0.65 > 10 mi. (> 16 km)
downstream
NC0021113 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

Common Name

Scientific Name Life Stages
Known to
Occur
Sandbar shark' Carcharhinus lumbeus J, A
Ni ht shark' Carcharhinus si netus 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' lsurus aucus J, A
Gra sna er' ~ Lut'anus riseus ~ J
Stri ed bass2 Morone saxatalis 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 duoran-m E, L J, A
White shrim ' Penaeus setiferus ~, L, J, A
Bluefish' Pomatomus salfatrix 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 ocel/atus E, L, J, A
Kin mackerel' Scomberomorus cavalla J A
S apish mackerel' Scomberomorus maculatu 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
Apri12003.
D ~~ [?~nn(~'~n
r,~ .} 1,~ (~ 1.U
~~Nfd - v~rq l t
~rwrt~s,wnu~ s rt,y;~~~ ~ ~
~'WCH
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

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 I~abitat 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 p;oposed 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.
Anadromous and Federally Manaoed Fish Species Likely to Occur at
B~
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 epn2 Aci enser brevirostrum J A
Atlantic stur cone Aci enser o rh nchus E, L, J, A
Thrasher shark' Alo ias vul inus J, A
Blueback herrin 2 Alose aestivalis E, L, J, A
Hicko shade Alose 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 imams J, A
Dus shark' Carcharhinus obscures J, A
IC
Page 7

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 "ioin .
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 Fear River .has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of CSw from Rock dish
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 Fear 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-11 Waters
occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream or downstream of the project study area.
Upstream portions of the NE Cape Fear River above Rock Fish Creek are designated as HQW
(DEM 1993). This is more than 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream from the study area.
One method used by the DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates. In 1998, monitoring sites in 19 of the 24 subbasins in the Cape Feaz River
Basin were sampled to determine overall water quality. Benthic macroinvertebrates from the NE
Cape 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 struc o ~,2~~1~~} fi~~f~i
LCD - ~ I ~_I I#~.,~
APIA ~ "1 ~p1~6
Page 6
~,:.:~r. w~r~.~ QUAt,i7~
ENE ruwr~5 AND STpR~IWATER gRgNCn

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

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources. The Mooretown, NC U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute orthographic
quadrangle was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape
characteristics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping was also consulted to determine what. potential wetland types may be encountered in
the field. The Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina (USDA 1990), and recent aerial
photography furnished by the NCDOT were also used in the evaluation of the project study area.
The aerial photograph served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant
community patterns were identified from available mapping .sources and then.. field verified.
Planf 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. Vascular plant .names typically
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using .the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification
scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). .
Water resource information for the NE Cape Fear River was derived from the most recent
versions of .the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan {:Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) 2000}, Basinwide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ 1999), and DWQ
Internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS list (reviewed on-line April 27, 2004, last updated February 25, 2003) of
federal protected species with ranges extending into Pender County was reviewed prior to
initiation of the field investigation. In addition, North Carolina Natura] Heritage Program (NHP)
records documenting occurrences of federal or state-listed species were consulted before
commencing the field investigation. Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was
documented, and expected population distributions .were determined through observations of
available habitat and review of supportive documentation found in Martof et al. (1980), Webster
et al. (1985), Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et al. (1994), and Palmer and Braswell
(1995).
The project study area is approximately 2,500 feet (762 meters) in length and width varies from
50 feet (15.2 meters) at the termini to 370 feet (112.7 meters) at the NE Cape Fear River. The
project vicinity describes an area extending .0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) on all sides of the project
study area.
D ~~~ ~`
f~Pf~ '~~ l 1~(~~ w
Page 4 ~~St~~tt~dY
~Qti

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 `h 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/tTtilities 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 forright-of--way, $3,000,000 for construction and
$300,000 prior years.
Page 3

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,bicycl~ roue and is not
listed in the T.LP. 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-font- (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. njj
D ~ `=~' ~ L1 ~y~
D
Pa e 2 ~~ arvU b Yt~IwA,iF.R p~H
S

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
Department of Transportation (~1CDOT) 2004-201
(T.LP.) and in the Federal-Aid Bridge. Replacement
shown in Figure 1. No substantial .environmental
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion." '~
. 21 is included in the North Carolina
0 ~ Transportatjon Improvement Program
Program. The location of the bridge is
impacts are anticipated. The. project is
L .PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 21 has a sufficiency
rating of 16.5 out of a possible 100 for a new structure and is considered structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and
more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS.'
Bridge No. 21 is located in a rural section of southeastern Pender County. The project area is
near the southwestern edge of Holly ~ Shelter Game Land. The project vicinity is rural in nature
and surrounding land use includes a mixture of residential, agricultural, and silvicultural use. A
camp ground and boat ramp are located in the northwest quadrant.
The 2004 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 3,700 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 8,300 vpd by the design year 2030. The percentages of truck traffic is 6% dual
tired vehicles (DUALS) and 4% truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST). The posted speed limit is 55
miles per hour (mph) {90 kilometers per hour (km/h)}. NC 210 is classified as a Rural Major
Collector within the project area. NC 210 is designated as a hurricane evacuation route.
Bridge No. 21 was built in 1955 (Figure 4). It is a two-lane facility with 13 spans and is 590 feet
(180 meters) in length. The deck and railings of the superstructure are composed of reinforced
concrete on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments and
reinforced concrete caps on steel piles. The bridge deck is approximately 47 feet (14 meters)
from crown to streambed. The navigational vertical clearance is approximately 22 feet (6.71
meters). Bridge No. 21 has a posted weight limit, of 28 tons (25.4 metric tons) for single vehicle
(S~ 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

PROJECT COMMITM1aNTS
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. .
o ~~~~~~ ~
APR _ 7 2006
DENR - WATER L~UALfTY
WETLANDS AND STC~AWRTER BRANCH
Categorical Exclusion.
Apri12004
Green Sheet

c

~
0
N
~
Vi ~
f4 ~ ~ O O ~
¢ ~
z ~ O ~"" N Q`
~

a

° N
v
~x z0°
FM- yma
°'~ o o ~
Q _
u~SUEF x ~'"
g '~ ~~ w~
rn N
aCi ~
z
W
Q ~
~ c m m~
'~t E ~ ° °
° W O
~
~ ~ a "' ~
~
.
~ W U d ~
a A

U o
o .

•~ c
~ ~
~
~
U
C
fn ~ ~ _
~
°
~
p
N a>
~.. a
V
a N
~ ~ .
°
.
o

H U' 3
~ `
a N
~
'
~
m~~ ° ° ~
D
~
~ ~W
mV~ o,
°
° z
~ O ~'
N
>
;~
p
O ~ J~
~ ''L
C
W ° ~
g W ~ ° °~ ~~`'
~
~ ~ 2~'
N
E=;~~ ca O G
Fm LL. > O - O
.+
m C ~
W ~ N ~
O
~
O
~

tL?
N > O O
a .

.
o
.-- ..
P ~
~

~ n
v ~
~ .
Q
~,
~ ~
~
m
~
m
N rn
O
N
~ ~ r N 11
rn a ~
~ ~

O
f-
w
~~
O t ~
J ~
~
R ~
~ ~ N
~
v
C7
M ~"
W

tL ~_
Q ~
~ ~
rn z O a ~
Z

~~®~~~ JL 11 ®~~~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES, ADDRESSES
2511 S. CnnEerbur~ Road
1 Cason Trask WilmingEon, NC 28403
2511 S. CanEerbur~ Road
2 River Rock Farms, LLC WilmingEon, NC 28403
1802 FawncresE CE.
• 3 E.19~:Ilcn James Vienna, VA 22182.
Hall Famih ProperEies of 718 MarkeE SEreeE '
~ Wilmin;Eon, LLC WilmingEon, NC 28401
5 ~ Randall M. $osEic 10604. NC HW~ 210
Roak~ PoinE, NC 28457
6635 TuEEIe Road
6 Wes1e~ Williams Springfield, VA 22152
P.O. Boz 93
7 ~HuberE Harrell •
BurEaw, NC 28625
• 10567 NC H..~ 210
$ . Lam Moore Rooky PoinE, NC 28457
9 Lisa Mae HaEcb New York, NY .10026
P.O. Boz 276
10 $aErina L. Robinson Rocky PoinE, NC 28457

CM 9t; DWQ %.
pevelopment Type FEE (143001601 435100093._1625 6253 •_ 24300,1602 435100095 2341
I. Private, noncommercial ,
development that does not involve 5250 100% (5250) 0% (50)
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:

II. Public or commercal development ^/
that does not involve the filling or S40U 100° (5400) OYa ($O)
.excavation of any wetands or open.
water areas:
III. for development•that involves the •
filling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
an:as, determine if A, B, C, or D
below applies:
III(A). For Private, non-commercial
.development, If General water Quality 5250 100% (5250) 0% (50)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied: ,
III(B): For public or commercial
development, if General water Duality 5400 100% (S400) 0% (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attaghed) •
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water Duality
Certification No. 3301'(see attached)
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional review and 5400 60% (5240) 40% (5160)
written DWD concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to water
quality or aquatic life:
III(D). If General Water Duality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) 5400 60% (5240) 40% (5160)
can not be applied:
IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more 5475 60% (S285) 40% (5190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:
r

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Bridge No. 21, on NC 210 over the Northeast Cape
Fear River in Pender County
Photo Index - 2000: 238 grid: 6H & 6I 1995: 230 grid: 18E & 18F
State Plane Coordinates: x 2349419 y: 173585 GPS: Rover File #X110915A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. IIWESTIGATTVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit -11/9/05
. , ~ _ ~ .Was Agent Present - Nb
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received as•Complete 3/10/2006
Office -Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan -Pender County
Land Classification from LUP -Rural & Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved:, CS and PTA
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended User Public
~)
~)
(G)
Wastewater Treatment: Existing.-N/A
Planned - N/A
Type of Structures: Existing - NC 210 and 590»foot long by 24-foot wide bridge
Planned - NG 210 and 920-foot long by 33-foot wide bridge
Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A Source: N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:

[~Al
(A) 404 Type Wetlands 0.52 acres shoulder 0.35 acres temporary
widening and rip rap Disturbance for hand
clearing
(B) Public Trust Area - ~ 0.014 acres- (bridge bents) is m10,OgOsq, ft.
I
t
0.008 acres temporary (work t a
Open Water brid a and tem .bulkhead Shading 3780 sq. ft.
(C)-Other -High Ground 0.95 acres Approximately 4.5 acres
(causeway (In roadway)
removal)
(D) Total CAMA AEC Disturbed: Approximately 0.57 acres
(E) Total area disturbed by project: Approximately 6.4 acres
(F) Primary Nursery Area: No
(G) Water Classification: C-Sw upstream and B-Sw downstream of bridge
(H) Open for Shellfishing: No
8. PROJECT .SUMMARY: The N.C. Department of Transportation is proposing to replace the
existing 5~0-foot long bridge over the Northeast Cape FearRiverwith x920-foot box girder concrete
bridge spanning the Northeast Cape Fear River and the adjacent wetlands. Approximately 550 feet of
causeway would be excavated from the existing roadbed with 450 feet of that area restored to its
previous wetland hydrology.
~[~C~C~D~~D
~iPR `'~ 29t)~
{JENFi -WATER ~UAL9TY
TtMrD3 M1Q STCV?MWATER BRANCIi

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-4223, Bridge No. 21 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County
PAGE 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The site of this proposal is Bridge No. 21 on NC210, approximately 3 miles east of the intersection
with NC 117, at the crossing of the Northeast Cape Fear River, in Pender County. The general
purpose of the project is to replace the deteriorated 590-foot long by 24-foot wide bridge with a 920-
foot long by 33-foot wide concrete box girder bridge Spanning the Northeast Cape Feaz River and
the adjacent wetlands, to allow safer driving conditions for the traveling public and restore a more
natural hydrology to the Wetlands adjacent to bridge No. 21.
Bridge No. 21 crosses the Northeast Cape Fear River where the river is approximately 420 feet wide.
The bridge crossing the Northeast Cape Fear River is flanked with 404 type wetlands m the southeast
and northeast quadrants and wetlands along the river in the northwest and southwest quadrants.
There is a picnic azea/camp site in southwest quadrant and a small store and boat ramp in the
northwest quadrant. Vertical cleaaance between the water and bridge bottom is approximately 24
feet. The 404 type wetland area is classified as a Cypress-Gum swamp. The road shoulder is
vegetated with grasses, Poison Ivey, Greenbrier, Red Cedaz, Sweet Gum, Black Willow:and Myrtle.
Soils on this site are Dorovan Muck and Norville Muck as classified by the NC Soil Conservation
Service. Approximate elevations on the site range between 1 feet and 10 feet above Normal High
Water (NHW). No evidence of SAV beds was noted. The North Cazolina Division o~ Water Quality
classifies waters of the Northeast Cape Fear River as C-Sw upstream and B-Sw dawnstreain of
bridge. The Northeast Cape Fear River is not Primazy Nursery Area, as designated by the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, at this site. Shellfish were not observed in the Northeast
Cape Fear River and the azea is closed to the harvesting of shellfish. The project area is within
CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern and is designated as Conservation by the Pender County
Land Use Plan.
The proposal is to replace the existing 590-foot long by 24-foot wide bridge with a 920-foot long by
33-foot wide box girder concrete bridge to the immediate south side of the existing bridge. The
proposed bridge would have a vertical clearance approximately the same as the existing bridge
(approximately 24 feet). Constructing this project would include removing 450 feet of the previously
filled causeway (that is approximately 60 feet wide) and grading it to correspond with the
surrounding wetlands. The bridge approach roadway would be approximately 6 inches higher than
the existing roadway. The bridge is being widened from 24 feet to 33 feet to more closely correspond
to the 12 foot paved travel lanes and 6 foot grassed shoulders of NC210. NC DOT Best
Management Practices would be used for bridge demolition and Design Standards for Sensitive
Watersheds would be used for Erosion control. NC DOT has committed to no in-water work from
February 15 through June 15 of each yeaz, due to anadromous fish moratoriums.

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-4223, Bridge No. 21 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County
PAGE 3
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
As proposed, the construction of the bridge approaches with 3:1 slopes would require the filling of
approximately O.S2 acres of 404 type wetlands and approximately S.S acres of impacts to high
ground. The additional width of the bridge would cause approximately 3')80 square feet of additional
shading impacts to Public Trust Waters AEC. Removal of approximately SSO lineal feet of
previously filled causeway (SO feet on each side will later be used to armor the end bents under the
new bridge) would result in the disturbance of approximately 0.95 acres of high ground. Disturbance
of 0.014 acres of surface water is expected during the inskallation of the bridge bents.
NC DOT has ~ reduced the wetland excavation and fill. impacts associated with this proposal by
lengthening the bridge from S 90 to 920 feet. NCDOT agreed to use hand clearing rather than Type lII
mechanical clearing in wetland azeas adjacent to the river. Tire bridge will span. the waters of the
Northeast. Cape Fear River, be constructed by top down methods, and be lengthened to reduce
impacts to the wetlands adjacent to the bridge. Lengthening the bridge also creates a wetland buffer
between the bridge approaches and the waters of the Northeast Cape >i ear River, allowing some
treatment of .the storm water run off associated with the bridge and xoadway. NC DOT has
committed to dropping no materials from the bridge demolition in the water. Due to the presence of
anadromous fish in the Northeast Cape Fear River; NC DOT has committed to an in-water work
moratorium from February 1 S to June 1 S. The NC DOT ~lias proposed to use Design Standards for ,
Sensitive Watersheds BMP's to minimize the impacts of erosion.
The propo"sed removal of SSO feet of existing causeway (minus the area rip rapped to protect the end
bents) should restore approximately 0.95 acres of fill causeway to its natural hydrology. NC DOT is
asking for riverine restoration mitigation credit for this azea. Due to the relatively small areas
involved and the direct connection to the waters of the Northeast Cape Fear River, NC DOT has
asked to use verification of elevations in the restoration azea rather than performing hydrologic
monitoring. NC DOT would be permanently impacting approximately O.S2 acres of wetlands in this.
proposal and is proposing to offset these impacts with the 0.95 acres of restoration, leaving 0.43.
acres of riverine mitigation credit for future projects.
The collective disturbance azea for the project is approximately 6.4 acres.
Bill Arrington
Apri13, 2006
Morehead City
D ~~~
+~y`7 ~~~
~~ ~ ~ kkFj ~ D
c~N~ ' ?©C6
"~''~~~~ ~~ UU,yCi7y
~~

`~' • ~_ F o
~ ~ ~
~, ~'...
~! Ww~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'TIVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 2, 2006
N. C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
2877 Highway 70
Beaufort, NC 28516
ATTENTION: Mr. Bill Arrington .
DOT Project Coordinator
Dear Mr. Arrington:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
,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 iVo, B-4223; WBS No. 33567.1.1.
.:~.. Wiy . ~'
Please find enclosed the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, permit drawings, onsite
mitigation plan, design plan sheets, MP 1 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 `"~p~tream_. ~of the existing bridge and B;ySw
stream,:of the existing bridge. Construction of the proposed project will result in
permanent X11 Qf ~ 52«aer~ o.f ,~urisciictiaial~ vireflanc~s and ~I-.35 'acre of , hatid :clearing:
wr:.. ,..
Impacts to the Northeast Cape Fear Itt~Tri~pase~ ~fw~Q~l~+~'~~o~ pe~rranc~t~"1Ia}
from the construction of bridge bents and IJ©0~ acre of temporary'fill forethc construction
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSIrE: W W W .ricdOt.OrQ
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27699

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:
w~~ 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 aze in the project area)
i There will be rio in water-construction between February 1 and Jtine'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 Cazolina
MITIGATION
Removal of the old causeway. will result in the ~estoratiori 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 azea 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 component~`nf the bride wll.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. w'll occur from the
relocation of the tele hone line. No other utilities will re uire reloca ~-~'-_°~~ ~~'; ~f;~a ~"
ll
APR -~ ^ Lug.
DENR r_
WE11 ~~,- a~~
A-sr:r ih ~??~Ir ~,~~, ~ hrINCH

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
rnississippiensis) 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 a No E No Effect
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Yes E No Effect
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed No E No Effect
CMaradrius melodus Pi in lover No ' T No Effect
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded wood ecker No . E No Effect
:Alli ator mississi iensis American alli ator NA T S/A NA
Caratta carretta Lo erhead sea turtle No ~ T No Effect
Aci eraser brevirostrum shortnose star eon Yes E MA-NLAA
Thalictrum Goole i Coole 's meadowrue No E No Effect
Amaranthus umilus Seabeach amaranth No T No Effect
L simachia as erulae olia Rou leaved loosestrife No E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered.
`"T" denotes Threatened.
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened- Similar Appearance.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
CAMA: NCDOT requests that the proposed work be authorized under a Coastal Area
Management Act Major Development Permit.
Section 401 and 404: In a sepazate application, we are 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. ~~

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,
~d-~~
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. Ehno Vance, PDEA
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Prog. and TIl'
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE-Wilmington
n [~~~~~~
APR - '~ 1006
®ENR - yy~r TC-~~~ ;,,„roLiTY
WETIANDS AND o1l=r ~WPTEkBRANCN

Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
Rocky Point
1. APPLICANT
c. Street address or secondary road number
NC 210
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:
Name
Address
City State
Zip Day Phone
Fax
c. Project name (if any) B-4223
NOTE: Pernut will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Pender
d.. Is proposed work -within city limits ` or planning
jurisdiction? ~ Yes X No
e. Name of body of water neazest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) Northeast Cape Fear River
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a.home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Bridle Construction - Revlace eaostinE
bridge to the south. Construction of work
bridge, excavation and filling activities
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New
c. Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Public
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 existing
structure (16.5/100 sufficiency rating). Typical
roadway construction methods and techniques.
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-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
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. ~ bescribe existing drinking water supply source.
NA~
e. Vegetation on tract Species typically found in cypress-
oum swamps and coastal plain levee forests
f. Man-made features now on tract
Existing Bridge and approaches
5. 'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
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
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? x Yes No
(Attach 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)
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
~~~~~~
,~Pf~ - ~;1CJd~ ~.~
t7~Nr~ - fJk 1 ter{ 4i.~q(,i 1 Y
~W+nw,~, btc~yyy~T~R ptl

Form DCM-MP-1
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR) numbers,
landmarks, and the like.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
•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
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.
~~
This is the 1 .day of /~a,~i ,.x9
Print Name ~t~ p b • ~~..s ~L
Signature ~--~
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 DCM-MP-S
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
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 Cane Fear River
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL N1LW 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 i
(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
h. Width of proposed bridge
920 feet
33 feet
6~P~ ' 7 2006
p~NR , WA,7~~f QUALITY
1AI~TWVR9 ANf) S'tt~hlWl>titM pt~lbr#
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
I. 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 openine 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.
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-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)
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
j. 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 in cubic
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 bf 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 37S 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.
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-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 f Il'. ~ '
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 azea to be filled SS .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. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Fill and excavation required
for nrooosed 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
BeilSouth lines will be moved as part of this project.
c. 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, backhoe 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
N CDO T .
Applicant or Project Name
~~
signs
3~I~oG
Date
Revised 03/95

Y
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. project -begins..approximately. 1.10.0 feet west. of Bridge..No.. 21: and...... ........ ....:....
continues to approximately 1500 feet to the east of the bridge. NCDOT will restore
approximately 0.95 acre of riverine wetland ,by removing existing causeway fill in the
northeast and southeast quadrants of the project.
Proposed impacts due to the replacement of Bridge No. 2,1 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
1vlooretown 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
(Tazodium 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 (Pines tkeda), red maple,
sweet bay, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
The proposed wetland mitigation will consist of restoring approximately 0.95 acre of
riverine swamp wetland. Restoration will involve removing causeway fill and transition
area to match the adjacent swamp wetland elevation. The restored area will be planted
with species commonly found in riverine swamp communities.
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for-TIP B-4223, dated April 2004, provides further
details concerning existing and proposed roadway conditions.

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION:
WETLAND MITIGATION GRADING
~~~~~ ~ a,ri~~~
,~,~~ft - wnl'~k itUtiu r~r
"~r?~nroa~ awwcH
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 w~tland,mitigation,area,is constructed_appropriately,, , ~ '
VEGETATION PLANTING
The restoration site will be planted following the completion of the site grading. The
following riverine swamp tree species will be planted: bald cypress and swamp
blackgum.
The hardwood tree species utilized shall be 18"-30" in size and shall be bare root
seedlings that are at least one growing season in age. Planting density shall be 680
seedlings per acre, which equates to a plant spacing of 8-feet on-center.
MONITORING:
Upon successful completion ~ of construction, the following monitoring .strategy is
--~ -proposed •for--the mitigation site. Any remediation necessary during the--monitoring-- `-
period will be coordinated with the appropriate agencies.
IiYDROLOGIC 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.

a:
~_
~.
GO
...
as o rz°
^O ~ ^^
(U ~ .~~.
~ _o
E ~
_ N
2 ~v
m
`, ~ v
~. m
` 2 uj
in a !~
d ~C cri d
m
~ m ~
a 'a
~~ m i~E
.. m
a~°~'s€ .
v~~m~'$,
ci~ ~ ~£
o ~,
~~~.~~
~~
m0C~3~m.
~avY u~~ $
~a~~~~°
Ura viQ o
^ ^ ^
.~
z°°.
~ ~ ^^
v
ti ~ 3
z
1
v
v
d
v
a ~
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ °-~ =
d
n3
.~
m ~ , .~
m
a -
E~ d ~ m
o..moE
U'~L Tm
_N U C O Y N
O
Q N N~ O ='
C7 Z` m U U
L ~~rG D_
~ 41 l0 m V
Q t
N C 7 ~.
.=~$m m a y g
~) U m '~ ~'
EcE~m~ ~
~~ C U U U m
m N w
mwa3~Y v
av Tiv L a
m
E E c~~ o v
c°~01a°¢o a
m
O
w
a
`m
~ ~
E L]
gg '~ Q
l~ ¢ U
^ ^ ^
'~ _
~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~~_
U
a
a
. o
.~
0
~ o
oho
Q O N
a~z
~~~
~~~
w~~
~~...
. xh3
rI
tI)
~~
0
~. O
6 Q'
> ~
O II
O
5 p
O
g
~ ~ ~
.' ~
m
Ir

A
N
O
a
a
E
m
U
O

N
a2
~~
.~
Z M
N a

~ m
}
~ ^.
w
a
~ ~

E o ~
u7
$ ~ p
u'S ¢ U ~ .D
i
^^ ^ ~ r~
c O
!T'
3
.~ ..C
F- H~ ~O
~ $' '
c O
= ~
c" ~''~" C] ~ O
ri v ~
r~
m
m
0
~r

U oNo
N
1~7 qqU N
q ~ ~
?; w
Q O 'U
u.i °_°

mU
~ m
$ E
E o
~ '"-
Z m
G1 y
C~ C
n
`~
E
Q
U
.~
0
0
O
N
tp
01
Q
T
cC~
LPL
rn
~h

~~
. UtNN - WATER taUAI~IT~
WGTWdp!! AN6 ST{k+A1FR BRANCH
,~
\~'`•
(NOT TO SULK
i~I~INd°~°~
N~,~]~S
G~alne
~~
I
`~
1 ~I `lam ~®
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PENDER COUNTY
PROJECT:33567.1.1 (B-223)
BRIDGE N0.21 OVER .
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR- RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON NC 210
SHEET j OF ~.~ ~ / 22 / OS ~
NGR?H CARGLII~~A

~€ ~ U
w
~ ~ ~_
W ~ N
O
. ~ ~ • . OI
~~ ~~- ~ I
°~~~~-
. ,.. . ~ I
i
N
J
1
N B83
.. ~ V ooob
Z
. I W
t~
®~.
~I
Z~ I
c7 O
W ~
ma
v
O
~-
.~
0

W
~ N
~
CV
~. ~ a U
~ T W z
~ a
~ ~ z ~ o W z
~ ~ .~ ~, ®
~
~ U ~ C 0. x tti
V p O
z Q E.; ~1
;Z O z w ~ ~ a
0. C ~ W f`J
~ a ~
a a F A.
O W
~
z w
.. ~ ~

C~
~_
Cf~

shoos wos,os ~~
lygrq~lw\P~rwlf\n~221 0.
if
+~
~ m
n
~~ ~sm
,~ r
+ ~ ofln
~~~
~ - gon
°.~
m
0
- o
w ~s"
ti ~~ v
+ n
~ n
o ~~0
~m
8 J_ c ~mr
'a gm~
b•"q,
~ s
mo
N 0~1
T ~1 8 ~j O
1
y1
Y ~ y ~
4 ~
8 2.
r
~ ~nm
r C o o'tin
$ X'mr=
a
%mn
o•o 0
c o -~
~ _ .
mo
~ ~ ap+,
.^ Y ~nj
w
~~~

:~: ~.~ ,
~~~:

C...1 c--
~
;~~
~
~". '
~
'
/Stop
m
A
A
O
A
RlVISIONS
g I IQ
I ~~
I
1 I I
1
~ ~ ~.~
a ~ I ., .
o ~ ~
$ I ~ I
I
• I I
I ~ I
I I
I ~ I
I
• ~ I I
I
I I~
I ,
II
II
.. ~ II •
II
II
II
II
II
g II
S II
1I ~~ .
~~I I .
. ~ ~ '1 I
II
II
II
Il a
II
II 1
II
II I
II
II
~~ i~ I ~
In- ~ I I i
~ ft I 1 •
I
o ti * ~ • ~ i • I~ .. c cR~O
3 ~ ! ~I ~ s3
v
20100 ~.. ~ °o
• w ~ f
.~ L ~ _~ ={
6
a
0
3 ° ~ b~ ~
~ ~~~~ ~ P
.~ ~ ~~ .
p ~ ~ 4 m
~~~ 'w
- U
7~¢
~4~
~ V
~ '.r•~e~~: .k 1
~ ~
~'
~ ~
,~ ~~
f II
1
II
1
I
1
I
I Z II
11
II f
tV ^ I I
to I I I
- ~ II
II
II
I
e
a ~
~/I I~ I
GG ~I I
~ C
'~ >. 'I
~ 1
~~ I
^~ $ I
I
I
I'
1 1
(
'~- STA. 2q+

1'1
s
g O
D
~. .
' ~
.
F' o z
Eo
z_

T p3
Z D

sort n
~ y f7
= v~i
N

•

~ s
<n m
x~
mm
m

T .. .. i
~.
.~
\
~`

C~'1 m
~-o
~
O
~m
~~'r1•
~ ~ ~ \i~.f
~ D
C
`'p 2T~T~
m 7a ~ a ~
~~~~~
,~• ` ~
~ ~

1 [JT-I
~.
~TOOO ~ •
~P:C
~a= r
•
• ` a y a
c
~ A~f7. ~~
I r
>m
_~ Z
_Nn
O
'~ r I
•

m~ O
s \ uZ -~
I
1~
~ ~- m
i N
,

O ~ ~ y
\
~%
.n
$~ o
~
~`
C
~
/ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g ~z Z ~ W ~
1
\~ ax
~~ o
~~
'~
m, ~ a
-~ ~
c3 ~ ~ y
~ ~ €
~ ~
~ ~
Z
r o

~ ~ ~, -, \p
y::.~ `~
1 C
~ ;~
a , .4
:.. ,

O Z ~
z ~ ~~~.
l(/-~~.. ..
N~~ ~~
S
~ i %~\~\.-
N i t
„1 ,
„
w H
F4 3 ~`
X W }I
o
~ ~ a
~ 1,
`,. ~-..
W
~
~
J~ ,
J ..

/~~

ZN~~
z
~ QZZ
W~
W= ~ ~~
J: z Z
~a
`
ooo~~
~ ~ ..
"
:.
CC• }~(Ji.e
Gd P7eii ~
WW~W Z
G~
~ W ~ZaI ys ~
s
_)
~''' oZW.~O
m \ ~_
~`
~,_
W
~_
W U1
3
N
u ~ ~..
~ ~ ~.
.
~~
a z
fo /
z
0 3
,~-I

~„- ~^t ~.r..,7
r
~~
N /
i
~..,.
V

~_,,`
i
:;1
/ ,~•• r
~._.
_._._ __~
i'~~
i~\
t'
`._.__ --
;~,

r \
.
.
~\
..
`
OS+bZ -l-
~ ~7uc~ b1S

0
A'
W
W
s~,o
~'~ ~
w ~
O 1
/-~ I
1
\;.,
~...~ • ~
. w .__..
.. .. .. ..
ty
i ~ ~ ~~ ~
,`.1 ~ ~ ~ o' ~, ~
~ r_.~~•
/ .~~:
I ~ ~,~ / i ,
W
~< ~~ ~ ~tJ
it ~
..
C~ ~".: ;
W ~
+ ~ ~R
.. j
' J
Q
y ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ti'>
Q Yi.~,.7
F ~ ~ 1 ~ `~~
0 (n ti`s) .~z1``, `/
I 0. ~ '~-. '~ _.
L ~,
"~',
' ` •_• ~'l
('< ~ ~~,
~ `~
\\\ ~~ 1
\ `,~
~~- I
~,
~ ~ ootsi
I `~
r
I
I
I
I ~
I I
.t ' I I
I
I I
I I
I
\ Q ~ I
I
~la ~
° I~ ~
~~~ LL
~~ w

~
QO$ 0
v ~
~, rQ
~

~
Jf-,x
a~« ~
~8
~ ~ c Fr
p~~ ~~
~ R 5t

~ +~
~
~~
m
~~. }
~ LL 4
4a _ ~
O m
= V yy~
f" Y i
~ V YO
V vWi $ ` ~
~am~ c ~
Qua
w3; "
o~= a
a 8
V ~
W
N ~~
~ ~
~C~.o
~~N LL 4
N
' O m
= C
..~
vv ~_ r 2
O O O
mND ~
Jm~ c 8
Q F o m'
J
~~
T~
~
Q
~ n
F
Q
U

N ~ ~ r
~
4
T
SNOKN3il

~" '~ z ~ ~'
,l
R'E ~' I r~ ~- \ it
G 41 ~ ~ 0.'S ~ W .`~
~- O ~ ~ dl
T t J
3~t. y.N l'~ ~/ ~/
/ 1, ~'•
•a~ /...... ....- ..~ • ~
x \ i -311. _ -N 'N
~ yi,
~ ~ ~ '_;?
_ /
~~ ^~.. _
.•
_...._.........__.... -_... 8
~'

05+8£ 'd1S -~- w
9 133HS Ol HOldW ~ o
,,ti
v ~
~ w Q W
~ k N
~ ~ ~~G ~ W

W ~
~~ ~ W ~

~
~ r
° ~ ur
33
4 ~ v
~ .
I

~ ~

~ 0 ~
~
1 1
*
O
~
I ~

~ >`
W

~
s
~~

1
I
~ ~
~
<~
• .
\ I I ~ N~
W aa~
,~~ =0S
~,#

` _~.~~

_ _
~ ,
Q~H
W 3~
~ ~g
~~\...-•-

Y¢
1r
j O~
'~ I j
~;
~

\.~t. L 5~~
'Hi
AY .t0 .5~ 5 --
\ - .. I 'H -11 t~+5~
,~ _.,` ._
~~ J~
~~
ttft
QN~ QtV tVhh
Hp ~~~~
~~o I •
0
SOU .J~C~~
~~
oho ++~~ I•
• `p~~ ~fPVNMl~7
Z
a3~ra ar3! 3drJ.15r3 N1lKJx ~f- QOVi~ 9. HB3-Y

aY3J id17 lSr3 Nlbtla
O~' Y •
0/~~
JH ~.
r, ~.
1 ~ r ~ ~~
_ -~ 6
r= ~~ _~ ~
-f"~-" - ~ ~ ~ Y .t5 .51.92 N
._ -, ( "' ~
> , ; ~ ~
~ ~ 1 '~
~ a
~l O~W
1
<Z ~/,~/~
v ~ ~._.. ~J ~! I
I '1 CL
JW
1-
J Z~ O <LQ
~p JF Z a3
z uQ au E
tlQ 3 =~ ~v
~~ ~ ofd
WW ~1i3 WQ lnLL
p 3 ~ a O J ~ p
WZ Z~ Wu Z!A
O WN p WZ
p p ..,
/'• / ~
~,* f `~ ~)
1 ~ ~.. ~m~
~. ~ ~ J 1 ~ I~ ~~
\ 1 ~ ~I1 g
,-
~'
(~ ~`-x~o
L ~ d~
y~.
~y+bz bls =i-
b 133HS O1 H~1 V'W
~, .
}
Q
Q W
WW O
F-3m
~~ ~
X08
~~~
55Ifi
~~
~~
~ ~/
1 ~
W
O t
i \
" ~ \\,\
LL /
X.~._~ __- /~
\ _ W14 JI•Z
ZX
~~
N~
N
t^
cS
0
3

~(
f ~ \ \ `
~~;..
i,' ~;;
.%'//f; J
~ j.-, L, ~
,~
~ /'
i~
'~~
4 4 4
~N i1
~ n ..
D~(O
i

U i
I ~
o~
o
~
-•-~i~ ~ $

WK~
o~- ~
a
J I~
`

e

LW! \! N\ 1
Ar LNK4 9002/!L/!
l ~ SNOKIA971 - - .. --~

REVISIONS
i/2t/t00S E~3p50 AY
r r 1 rIM
MATCH TO SHEET 5 ~ ~ ='~ ~ `~•~'
-L- STA. 38+50 ~ ! .-1. • ~, ° j~ ~ ~,
F I ~ ~ r ~ ` fV _ ~'7'.¢ 1 f
VI- ` W \
I I ,~ ~ \~ ~J o ~ -~- Q F I i
r- r~ g ~ ~ w ('~(~(~ q m m
~ ~o Zo
m~ E~ k
G ~ q ~~t ~_I •-l ~ ~ I~' K- y, ~ .x-10 ~ i] In r-+- zn I
~ m '~~ A ~ .l ~ ~ I
a
-., J b
~ £o ~..J 1
} ~ ._...
Fc
g ` ~ `\ \ ',
.~ ~ ~
$ 1 ~~
~ o ~ x I I \. •~ ~~
yN O ~pK ~ 1 ~ I •\.~ s \„ 5(. I
7.~+i gni tiCCO I I ~ C 0°7.
~ ~ ~~~ ~~; 7 I t ~ mm~
(~5{ F
~Q; i ~~ 1 ya>: O / r
in n~in ~3 } i f '~
} T ( II ~.`-,~ ~ eon r'i ~~
a ~ I ~I ~ \ m r~ N .~ ~~~I
G ~ ~ I 1 II ~ IE IE. .. 1 /~ ~ (w~• E .,~
0 mQ I II ~ ~ ~ ~~.-~ ~^ ~ i l
qrqi ~1- ~ ~ N z Jr^' ~..
-i r ~ iO~ ~ T I I ~ .1 ~r•
o = L ° I ~ ~ ^ ,1 a
o I K' r • r. /. ~"'
~k I . -+ a ~ ~,s
~ ~ 1 ~ - O.
y 1 MtB • F ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ' ,l
1 /~~'
pr r
„4 1 ~~E~ .. ~ . ~ ~ tri
I ly ~~ ~ - z, r' c~
l I I ~~ R~~
~~
...,~ b o ~
o . ~ I I I ' , ~ ~ ~..
w , RR •. ~~, ~y.
V 174 fi ~' ~'li_`•1
s .~/n ~ ~ ~. "'1
~nr~ 1.~ I 1
c
t ~. ~.. 1 . -nom n
f-x x x `~~, ~' - ~I ~ vl t~ .
r A ~ ,;w..-r- ~ L
K {~ ~ ~ si` ~ ~-' ~ 111 ~ ti:...•-.``' ~ ~ ~s,'.
a~< ^' IJ
n R~ za J c~N O Q lil In • ?.
V ~ ,~p~ ~:+ ~I 14 a •
Q +I I ~ ~ ~.aa.
x I I In V- f
~ x ~ ~~
I S 30• ~T 50• E .. .. 5 S E I / ~y . w
i-__- ~~'~Yy ^ 1"
~' 111 Nr
_ ~~~;0 li
(,} ~~ I
1.063.68' "'tl ~ r. ~ 1 I • f -. /'J '~ »yw-r * m
~~'rw I ~ S~ ~ ~ ~~z `? ~y pm
- -_ 1 s ar. O ~~ .G ~ `-~ f or`-ay'1 ~~0 ~~'a e
N_
j~ ~ •~
I d a z ~ 1 `~
2 o z h 'ti.:,~
S I ~ ~~ • ~ a ,? a
n ~I ~j y ~ N
yJy'J C I ~ I •' _ O : In •• C ?• Y! W
.'F In a ?~ i-1 -1
,.., ~ 4
~ Q ~: ~ I. ~ ~ } o ~r 43
m I IMI ~ ,/ a F L~ ~~~X •~' ~ C ~ G

,.--~-,
~_
~ y
_p~
t~`~U\ a ~Yd
d
~
~
~ Y~~
~~ A

nr OS~SOa L002/62/-

~'I 1 '+ r'~ i i ~ ~ f
I ,
+ I ~ I..~f I r _+
i y
j'. ~ ~ " I . 1 i..
I~ ~ ~ ~ {
. ~ ,
~ 1{ ~...I~~ f
'~I; ~t~{ ~7.
~ r... ~

..... _.
i

. ....'
~. .........

.. ..
.. .. ...............I_ ..~....

'
I.. ..Y.
.. ....... ... ~ .... .... ..4.. .....

~
I,
............y.
1.. ~ ' '...; i ~....
! ....f ~ !
I ~
..
... .
....~:. ~. . ..... .... _.... .~ . ..
~........!.. _~..... .. . .. .. .....I...~.
.. .. .. r.. ..~.:. .j..

~ !
~
.. i., ..~ ~ i ... i
. I ,..
'.. ~ :..
i....

.? ...,.. _._ ._...
. ~ _

~.... .
.
~~I~141~a~~-~~Il~~~~
fl~L!~_;~t~_~_~_,
a ~ ~~I
l ,..
('~~ ~;Ii I!`

~~
-,(....L ....i.
r...! ....~:....... ~.
~ ~ ,
1`tll~ll`.
VIII!
~. I .~.
W
O fl...
~ ~~~~
,: ~:,

~~
~~
r~

U ~ I ~'
O

~ ~
~~
z
o W
~
"
A
~~ ~
mo w
,,

V ,
N
D
Q
~ W
Q '.
a Z
o~
~~ o
V cG
Z dui Z ~
NV Z
Z~ ~
W~
^~
mZ ~
Z ~
O ~
Q O
V ~
O
SI-£/-fi ~K'7 Jo 1r~'~ of 1~~'S
~~
0
fl g
,o
Iq
i
x ~$$$$ ~~ V
~l~ ~~ ~i
~~
- ~ .,
-~.
N "~.
x~ Z~ ~~
~ s t
~
~
~~ ,
o
~
r
r~
cn "^ Z.~
~~ ~\
v
o ~ ~ a
a
~

m ~
~ n
® a ~
{{~~
L:J / ® ~ Q
'`~~
~
N
II
II
1,.
Q
m
W
N
m
1`
W
W
of ~
W O
ZW
m Q
~_~
~~
V W
Z LO
~_
0
S
y
?G
W
~d
Zy
N
~~
O~
oG Z
~ ~
to
~V

~ o~
~~
~
~~ ai y
~~
~
~a ~~
ox e~
h~
~~
Q~
y
~~
~ A~

~
~ N
A
y
V ~

~ a
~~
.
~ ~

O
N
o ~ ~ ~
F ~' ~ v y~ o oL
Za t~~ Qy~
.. ~ F F oc p O
BW~~ ~~ ~~_~ _
~~ ~ ~; u ~ F
0 ~ ~ ~
~~A
Yy
z0 p
~~Y~
~ ~R`{
4 ~ v V ~ ~ Lid ~p IV
~ H N
o ~ 3 ,~ V o 0
w ° a a ~"
~~ ~~
ova x
w
<J W ~<<,1
G ~ S
o c o
II A II
M
C7 ~ N
x N. Z
~ 1 G
W
~1 O
OC
Q y d d
d. F-
0. ~ ~ ~
3 ~ "
~ ~ ~
~ ~ i
~ ~ ~
cWW~ ~
J J O

• 0
e g g.~e ~a~~~

a

x u u u n u n

y
o ~
0 o~» ~~
Uo°
W cr G
n ~i- ot
A ~
~ --
~ IF-
~ U
~~
~~ s s
y ~ _
V «
in ~ ~°n ~ ~ ~ o
~ ~uii~ V 0
~~ 1«I= ,~
SS= Olgi««~ O ~ IL
i~r i~PA'~ ~ h h 0 p
"'~~~r MIII N H ~ Yl
• \./
~ ~ O
~'Z~-S ~s .. 0?Id dl~l ~Z~T~?IZ11tU~
14 OPDd[0 900Uf0./10
~b/80/60 4 -~ ~ c ~.
~` ~~ `.~ ~,3""
~ ~~
~ .~~
~,~
pG ~,
~~ ~ .. , ..
®~~ ~. .
~:
..
• ice/
~O

~ •
.. ,.
..
,..
~c o faN N p =j7°. 2 °- o s c e p~ o v~ ~ v>, ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ •~v ~ ~ ~n o ~ ~ ~n •~v o n o n
w 3 ~• ~• ~ p ~ ~ 3 C O ; C j O S ~ N . ~ ~; •~t ~ O ~ ..p .p 'C ~ ~ ~ 'C ~ b O ~ ~ C -G+ O
$ ~ ~ ~ '
g~ ~ ~~~ o, O i s• o° < o o s~° c s~ 3 c o o~ o~ !~ o° b !i
a. ~ W o ~ ~ c
$ ~ 0 3 3 ~ c o o ~ ~ ~ ~ 4,
b ~
O ~<O c~ a~ ~ ~g 8 S
b C
~ s ~~~ ~
~ ~ .~ b
n ~ ~
C ~ ~'
. .. ~~
Iii .~ X~~ ~ j~ ~•
t II~II i
I
I
~~. . I I I I~ ! I I ~
a. T '~ y ~ '~ ~ n n n ~. ~ 3. n n ~ ~ ~' g ao ~ ~ o ~ ~ s ~ n 9 ' .~ ~ s n
C o N n~ ~ n T~ a a m a n ~' ~ .o a a P~° .~ Q a o a.
3 2 ~ ~ 70 ~ f7 O ~ ~ ~ ~ v, N C ~ 'p ~ -~ -~ N n O ~ 7e 3 ZO ze n n OA „3. ' O ~ ,A O
c y ° c~ c o~ o o h s s s s o° o. .~. n n' n' ;3 3~ O o ~ c
~ p c ~ o ~ n N N ~ ~ o o c 0 3 °- ~, p~. ~°... ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
a ~ ~ ° ~ 3 ~ o Z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ "C
S~ Q n n ? ~~ ~~ 1
~ a ~ ° ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~
~ i i ~ i i
I4 O ~ ~ r n !T !e~ ~ ~ ~ ~n m ~ i D e ~ 3~ ~O ~
4 ( ~
~~ r r II~~ ~•(~ I I ~r•
v O v Q g ~ ~~ O 4 4 O Q Z~.
., 1~ s s s S s ~~
cS ~ cS ~ ~ O Q ~ ~ 0 S ..
T 47 ~ 41 ~ ° ~ ~„ ~, p _
° ~ ° ~ ~' O ~ ° ° °
.o
p~ c$ c a '` ~ o
n n o n c
v s a~ s s
N (/1 C
C C it
-¢ -•E ~~ .
I 1 I
I I I I I I
~ a ~.~ ®~eom¢~
I
~~!I~I
~R~~~~~o~o~~c
~aa~;~~~~~m~~
+ ~ A o ~ C
~, ~a'~ ~ y
.o O ° ~+ ~ ~ ° •p o
o ~ _ ~ o_ s
~ ~ n. o. ° °
o =
N s
m
I I
•
I ®m ®~ ¢. } o- ~.
I I
I
I
o a g ° o ~ m
3 ~ o. 3• ~ ~ °- ~ o o
o ~. A
NN_v,;g~ ; ~~ y
~ ~ g.. o ° ~ ~ m o
O ~ ~ C ~
D
S ~ n C ~ m
o ~' = o k
s ~ c n `.,
a a c ~
O ° ~'
~ n.
~ m
n.
0
.®Io II ..~.~.
I I I I `~

d ..~ -~ ..~ `~ `~ ~C ~G ~ m ~ ~ 6 N o
~ C ~
~ f 7. a
. a
~ <
O 7 O. ~ C.
~ O o
Q o :.
7~ O•
y ~ ~. ~ C
7C'
~ ~

~ ~ O

° O
_
° ~
s s
O. G1 7 ~ ~ s
s
a

-

~ O
+
d O O ~

~ . m
_
O d. _ 7 O R1 a N O O O O N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n r
7 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N C ~ O ~ n ~ ~ ~ '77 ~ = S
~ ~ ~ O
~ ~ ~ ' 7 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ A' Q
1r
~ ~
x s d ~ ~
~ C O p
~ ~ O ~ ~ ° ~ ° ° ~ ° p ~ ~ s o
_
°
.~ C O
O ~ to
C Y1 C
~ to
C
~ C
° _
°
~ H " :~
en C
~• en
..S
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
1
I
I

T
1
~
~ i
I
7 I i
I
I

I I (
~ I I. ~
.° R o ~ o o D
o , •- ~ ... ..~ i~
C d S p ° O S
d. ~ (~7 ~ O
C O
C
c .r
C ~ r
~ '~ s
o ~
N
C
nn
i I
1
i
i ~ ® Q
iE
I. I,
.I
n
O
z
t
m
Z
-~
O
z
D
r
5
z
rn
rn
N
r
t/~
~~
f~
~~
®®
~-d
®~
~ r~~~
~1
1
$~~a '~
f=
..~s ~
~~ ~ =~C
~'~

Y
~?
~11N
C
t~
i~
C
O
m'a
0
J
~`
ti
W
'_
~~

.~ . o
ash =M~
~ ~~~~
z~~$ ~$~ ~~N~
O v, ~ ~ ,~ ~i p p
cS N °°~p ~ Q ^Q~
ya H J~ ~~a`V~
wp x
~FWZ~ a.t~ q'~ ~_ - N lifW3tlNN
z~ ~ ~ M p~p W
P r Q a
°~~ . z ~ ~a
~~~ ~2~G
~" pa~~
' p ^1
a~~ ~~"~
N - IA 0.~2Np
~~ W
2 a ~ ~~ ' ~
~ ~ o
.~ ~ a
Q~Q M
a ~ `V~~ R ~ tp V1 ~1~
<~~~ ~~ ~ ~~q~
~~~N ~ wqz~ 2 ~~~~
Oa~p ~N ~W2p
W ~ a ~ cy
~4 W n ~ 41
~ o~~~ r~
p~ d~~in N
~~~ ~~ p ~
a.~ ~wx p
e
°~ ~ 4
~~ w~ ' ~ W •
~~ rya ~ , o
zoo~~
~ ~
FUa~
~bti ~ ~~
w
'Y 2
~~~ - ~~~~
Np
~W2W
J ~
'~
W
F
AroRTH EAST CAPE FEAR RNER ~ f- EBB i FL000 --'l
v~~
eV~!
F
W
~~~
:.

a ~ e
. ~~~0 •
~~~
a /
•
a
~0.~
~
'
~'
~ • ~ ~ •
. ~~

e~~
1
ry~

. ' . ~~ a
8~
~~
4
a
~0 ~ ~
Fo
v ~ ~'~~
~Q ~~
2Z. \ ~ry
` a.
~

x
~W~~
a ~~
~n~jN!'2
~~ 2 p
~a W
lW
a
~~ __
~~~~
2
a ~ P h
~~~~
p M
~W32W
1! ]?
W
~~Wqv
M ~
~~`~~
~M$~Rrr~~
~WZ'iNN
N p
~~~ZW
~W
~'
~o
2N
m S~z
R W ~ o
~a~~
"'T
H
0
C9 ~ V
~i ~ ~
.~
~ ~~ a
a
~ `~ ~~ o
~~~~~
~~~ ~~
~ ~~ w
~, o
°a ~ o
~ ~ a~ q $
U hl
`° a ~~ a~ S
~ ~~~~~~
a ~~~~~~°~~~
~~~~~~a~~~~o
~ H ~~~ ~~ a~pqq ~ F
~' ~ ~. V ~ @'. ti Fy
,~A ~ E~~~ o ~ ~ h o
~o ~~'~ ~~ o ~ ~
h~ O
' ~~~~°~A
~a ~~ ~~ ~~w a ~~ H
~ ~ O i ~ W ~ ~
• N
n fggLL W • ~ ri mLL.j~-.
• ~ j ~Z.• • • ~ J ` ~
N m r
N W • N ~ •
r W r ~j
~ W W ~ rWYi ~ • ~ W P W •
• W N pQ N ~ • W Y 4
N ~ Q ~ ~ ~ N •
nf ¢ W Q
NN•J+ . ~N Q~ .
~ m Z J R • .~ Z J G
r r r r r r r r r
J J J J mmJ J J J J
fnr(O If)lf7mm W
r
y~ ~ NW ~ W nO1h^N
4LL ~ r ~ In q InN F-
p ~ ~ r
~ pJ mm pp p~ ¢J
2 ~ G1WO~Nl7m W Pnli 4
Cr ~ .ysp+~Nn nm lnD Q~~I~'I P'!nm
Ir// ~.In .~••~•.NN NfW'1 r f IN~
J S
~ noon WnP/•If~y N
~ N ~DN NNP/DNlO.N
a
>.
J ~
W ~ m m m
~ t NPm p`~Q`~ (m~f7
~ ~~ mY)PN OD 0.'f
F r~ (Np P~p~ P p00~ N •n~~ N n M n
Q W ~ Y ' ~ ~ Ifl ~ f~1 ~ ~ h
O ff~~
JO ~ N N N N N N N N N N N
O ,
~ ~p~`~~f~~~~~p
¢p ~ ~ f Nt'1m N~..~P~ ~ i~mpp
Z.~ N N~ N N~ N N~ N
(9 ton W P Jm ^_.Nr11 .lJJ7. .,f-/lN
N m~~~ m~ m m m m
W~ ~ m
O D
./ g
m ~ Pl /0n0Pm.. N. .N-.-. .f. .n.

O e pp~~
a E
q~jj~9 {d, ~
~1 ~j N ~ pVjp
N E.~
`
~~ .
~N ~ ~WxW
~~ ~
~~
Gel
•~1 ~ '°~8 W ~
~
~ "^'l w
~ N
53•d ~ ~ '~,
~
~ ~ oi'
~
~~-
;~~ ~ ~
~ g~
y
0.
na~~
~ ~
' j
~
n~~ro
~^~
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b
~~~~~gab~~~
N ~~ ~~~~rnW~~
0.~~~~$~ ~Y• b~
WW~~i ~~~~~~
o ~~ ~~
3~.'
~~ ~ ~
~ .
zis
~0'YIOCO'a'n'R2-~\IA~A.nCusU0e0l\
w infirm saozrooi~

-iN ~i ~N
ap ~~ TO D+
+Z ++ +Z ~Jri
NT VN gT mm
OA N~ ~
g; g g g; a
O~ OO Og O
~Z ~~ ~~ Z ~n
t0 tt ~Z O~
tn.. aN m0 O
00 ++ w0 nZ
to `+ O > Z
g~ g$ gZ ZO
~ O
I ~ ;
2
m
~' ..
~' <
~' is
m

. z
--i
L ~
m

G1
. O-
'~
~

w
C y
C

y
p
m O D
~
m
~ ~
~
~ c
S ^J O ~
' m
N
~

~ }~O
~
I a~

~ y
y
~
m
~ O N ~
~N ~ 7v
N i
i
O
-i
x
m

I
I O
N ~E-
N ~"
:"
T
1 ~ ..
^
I ~ r
o
I .o
N m ~~
'~
N
~ C -~ N ~ N ~ N ~ W N j
m m y O -imD~ D'o -1mD'o D~ mD'v D~ D~
x D s - xm-~a -1s xm-is -1s m-ix -1~0 -1~0
A 9 O p v
Z ~ B ~ ~
H .1
- D D
: zTD•
V D"
o TD D TD D D
H -~ x o .
p z•
s z• rz• z• rz• z• z•
z

O ... Q
~p p
y a
oD<
~
DD
• aD
.=CrD<
DD a
OA<
DD
DD
a D m m n
m<D <
o m<D
• <~ m<D <v <~
=vmm m~ ~-+vm~o m~ vms m•v m•v
m D y• y z
D• DO D• Do Do
D ~ D ~,..
Z o
X -. fX r+
ZGlC 47X AX
m m D m m ZQG
mv O
m• vZf~v
~
mv G
m• mi m• .
m•
m m ~ j y vr
mDm-I 9A r
-1Dx-~ 9N r
DS-~ xt+~ x~
v 2 y y T-CDS D- x<Dx D~ <Dx D= D
~
Gs -I. m m -1 m ~ -1 y m -1 -1 o m -~ -a -i n
w xoomD my 7omD m smD mD m ;
0 0 0 °'ov o~ ~'o~ ow "'ov o~ oD D
2Tx ~ '71~ Z~1x 'T~ 2'71x •f1S ~IV1
•
o a 9 o D
~ r o D ~C o D D
+ 9
ix
C
m
~ y
m y
m -1
r
-~ -~ a~
a Syr
-~ n~D
m r -I~r
-~ -
r
a, ~ o~ D rn
D ra o~c~ ra a-~ -•~n~ w oar
3
-+
r • m n
yro o
rz m n
airo ro o n
ro n
ro -i
r m
cnmz me wmz. mo
Z maoz
' mz me
p0 A
1• s
- fA 70
m pJ CS
-1• 9 f/f
~ X (A C
)
n• a to t7
a 71 O
z ~
z m m m
m s
D~~ ~ 1
D'9 vm +f•v
i
r ~~ ~
zmm m zmm m-'~
m vmm mm mrn (p
x a D m s ~o
i m ~o ~
~q1D yy
m Ny2 4J~"~ t
+mc me vim 2
Om C +~Om G..~ ~CT fJ~ OC m
N

v v o O 2 0 m O Z v m v m v D C
m• C y
y v m
O n r
~•
w :" m
D y m
o zo m m
o ~ o
xmm ~m-r .a ~mc c n
9 i9T m =xy D
9 c
0 i f
n
9~~ •v -ten n ~m nm x
-< m o .o o _ x- y
s
m x
s a m
o m v o-a o-i
mm ro c~my y m< T•t
D.vm to sum m vv '0 1
N ~
- m m
i
mSV O D= i ~ ~
s• av -a• ~~ { y otn m
o
v
.~o ~~~ ~ -gym rm y
o- om ~" o <
~, in m
i ~ m mm
D - n- ~
m a
0 0
0° -
m
~~ 1

C.~

° R O
~N N
N

°°.
p o
m p
-a ~ O
0
-•I

=
N O.
y
N
.~

rn
~!
r
N
ao
T
O
w
N
T
~ w
~ ~ ~ '
v ~
rn ~"
D 0°
r, ~ N ~ N
'A
~ --- p-~
70 ~
v '%
~ o
rn c .rte
N
v
_a
tCn I~
T
Z y
_:
o SO
C =
^Z
Z V•
• ~_ _
O.
v
m
o O
z -n
z
0
rn
v
z

.,, ~ a ~
O_ ~^
i
IN ~
s~ ~ a~
~m ~ x8
a d
~; 9 ~~
aL:
~~`;
T~~ ~~~
T
• ..
•~
0
Q
.s
.
~

~ ~ H
M
•t O
N
~ ~ Z
W -O
Wf"Z, N Z
~

~ 0~ N
r
V
~
~, o~
~ W
?
V

c..
N
I
~ ~ ~ ii
~ ~~
. O
~ O
.
~
~
c~
:~
,~
o ~ ,~
r
N ~°
~ ~
H

. W
Z
.. J
CD
0 j N
G .p ~ '
00 N
~ N
~
N O , ~

N
D QW,

GC
y ~
N

U oG
p
~o N
i O
_
I~-

O
`~,° ~ ~L ~ V
~ q
OG ~ +
1
oC
j U ~ C
C ~
; N
,. Q
I ~ V
I ~ ~
3
oC
t' aN. p~ V
W
b 3 N ~ O Z
C D7 J
r-
- O~ N
' ~ W . ~

~ Q
C7 W
o r
r~ ~
.o C7
~~
~° 7
~~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
~ --~ ~y~
O ~
~
~~
-, t ~ ~
~

z ..'
S
z $
O F `V
Z FrF
Z Q N
0 0
W ~ C
N p
r
O
W
4
~,
~
V! ~
N ~

N ~
W ~
W ~
W ~
W

a~
b
a8

~ W
~
(~ ~ ti ~ ~ m b
Q
~ a ~l a o 3 a ~
.o
Q
7

^ O
. ,
F-

• O ~O
CD
N
N .d ~~
O
Z M

88 O O.
~ W Z
ZF ~ ~ W c ~ ?

z t t
'~'~ ~
~ O ~ J
Z

N
OO O `~
~T ___ - - --
~
W
W

H W ~ci ~ti
+ +
~
~,.
o Q
~ J
a

~~
~~
r
O ~
~ ~ N CN,. C~
~~.. ~~ ~
• ~
f ~
O
o r
M
.~
• Q
7
Og
m '~
r
Z+
C7 ~
~~

V! + O
"O SW
0 ~
Z a
~
t a
-C
OJ Nm
1~
F
W Z ~ W
;~ O+
s0 $$
~ N~
~
N + +
~ ~~
`"

~~
~~

/
7 ~ ..
• • ~ IK.NNtV'

m
O
° F- ~~>
~~~
gQD
~, -+
~ R =
0
Z y1pT
4
Ys+_~
~ ~
4 ~
4 €~m
mo. ~~a
3 st-
a ~m~
a s
e ''
? ^ x
mo
M M
N -
~O
i
V
• m
r
~w
m
..~-1
r m a yyy°yyy~~~~~~ D_
~Dr
~ mn
b... g'
~ s,~ _
ao
{J ~ ~T
.~
T ~1
H y r
0
z
m
m
i
/5t(~
s~
a~
~~
1)
$l p
~ ~L I
I
~ ~ ~~'
I r
f ' ~
~~~ {
I
I ~ I. N
~ o
~. I ~ °
m
I
• ( ~ ~ ~ z
I I
',
I ' I
o ~ I ~
I I.
I
' I ~ ~ .
II
II
II
r1
-I
fl
11
II
~ II
II
If a
1 j'
.. ~ II
II ~ ~
I~ r ~
1 ~
11 ~ ~__
i +
a
f1 ~
I W a
I o+
1 ~ f I .. ~
.. I ~ ~
~ ..
1 ^'
~ ~ I i~
I ~ «
I I~
I
I ~~
~ ~ 1 ~~
1
I
~~ 1 ~ ~ .
~~ ~ ~ ~ '
I
nr I
i ~
~C
GR~p
~?
II J I ~ .
1 II I ~ ; - ~.
2~,'pp m - i l I '* ' ~' ~
' w Q II I ( +
• 1 o
• r I N
~ I o
._____ ° ~ ~ a ~ ~ I ~ . ,
g ~~~ __ 1~ I ~ I I ~S -~ ~ S
I I N 1 `"
Q sL ~ ~~, I m
o p o~ ~ I ~ ~ r I .. ..
~ ~ 4 I ~~r ~I 1 T •.
a ~ +TI ~ ~ t
_._____._._____ d -"=
-------------- '----gsoa. ` t~ s
..... .. .. -- I .. L5:L
N ~.;~ ~.
~~ ~ ~~ w
~ ~ it - ~ ~ ,.
~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ rte, c.~
~: I a~
.- ~ h tia, ~
• b`
MACH p I ,r 1 ~.~ ~ ~ d
'~- STA. 24+Sp

~, zz 9 133HS Ol HOlVW ~ a
~ a' ~ ~ i~~ w ( i ~ ~ 3 c ~ ~ ~
W
I.
~~ 8 ~
`~ Y a ~»t ~ '~ * a
.~ W ~
~ g! ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~'~ ~
~ ' ; ~
~ ~ '~~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ $
Wi/ ~ ; ~~
W
i; Ns
•3 ~~ ~ ~ \~
L. Y~e~ ~I ~ N~~
.... ~ 5~ ~
y ~ ~ ~ ~ 5
•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r
.,
~
i ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~4~
r!~ ~N`~a~~ ~ J ~o '

~f ~~+
~,~Iv,~y Q~
~O
y, ~}.
~ ~J~L
Y1
PP
7
o~al~"~~ N '~ ~ iii U N U g n e~ si m ...-

~IQO~F~~Vwi>
~
-~ j
~~ 00
Z.T
. ~, r cot~.~
~
~ D ~ j o
~W RAN m~ vo< n^~~ ~~
~
cc~~ i~~~~QQ..
~
~~~ ~
~~~~~ :o'~' ~ P~`ae°v~~ I 1
N~
p
N
ccOO p
~~MP~
F
~iraaarWU ~aneur ~ ~~ $
4QOJF~~tA~ 4QD~11-~
N3nN M'3! 3aYJ ~SY3 H1NLn ~ -fc- OCGI~ 1 BB3-~ ~ u
£e
O
~N o~g~
JN
3
~~
O'c"S
~i~
J~
J~
<_
W`
z
ac7
xz
~w
2 U
W
O

.'
~<
n r s ~~ I
r1 '1 J ~~ s g ~~
• .[S 9 9Z N
~ ~
~ ~ ~ :. ~~
-)I '~ g ~
^~ ~ ~_ •~ ~
N •. GI
v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /• gi '
3 ~ ~ ~ /. ' ~
~ ~ ~ ~• I
v

~~
~ J

d
~ii ~
~
•
~~ ~
-•e ~
t7t J

~! ~
~--•~
~~
fir.
rri:,
r~,>
__ t_:
t
;,,,.,.~--..y

~~~ I~ 1 1 i r
~~~ ~
~~i~~ / ~ ~ ' I ~ ~~
~ N ~ ~ co
H ~ ~ ~ I
d ~ Z
~ WvW ~~$~ I b i~~~
~Iy ~~ I I
~N -~ i
I ~
:.~ " .
~_
/~ wosa
b

~ ~~ gu
I ~ ~4
' Q[~j
I
I
I,
~1 bW
~ I
I
~ I
a N3NN M'3d 3aYJ 1SY3 N1MCW
I ~ ~~
5~~
I I •. ~~
`_
I I
i I
S . .C 3 •-'~
-~/
~~

~~
~8
~o~
~~~
s~~

~~
O ~f
~S
'9'ON 'H~riV Q1 L~9MASYd AIl1UA 1N~VWa3~ .S[ C~OCV
SO~LL9 NOISIA~ AYM d0 ~HJp

W
~~..~ ~
~~ z
Q ~8
O~~
~~
1 +**
LL LL LL
I in '_^. i.f
11 II
om
x n
~
v
I
>~
O
~
~' z'' ---•~ a S
¢
Q
g
(~
J O
~.~ G

E4
nd srh-~ SOOT/R/9

6/42/~OOb
~ ~ ~~
~'

C ~ ~ ~ ;
~ ~ ~~~
!~
c ~ ~

~' ~ ~
€

S

Y
~ m
A
~-ym
r
o ~ ~
D
~
S k
r=
o ~
~
° $s'n
~
'
~ ~
~
o~ o
~~ ~ ~s,
r ~
-~ •~y

a
!

~ ~ `~
m
~_
~yf~-1
i o ~ end
t x~~
gg~
o'^
,~ .
a
~Q~
g~ .
. a.~
RKi1R Of WAY RlNSION 6Qig5
MrJED 1S' f~MANlM UIILIIY EASfJrI@I~ TO IARCEL NQ, 6. .
i ~ .. ,
MATCH TO SHE~T 5 •~ h
,L~ STA 3 + 0 ~ ~ ~
~ ! -= ~~ ~
`~ `- •
I I " ~ ~ `-
# ~ ~ ~ o a
~Z
I ~~ I ~ I (~ ~ ~ rm
It ~ Z=
w~~~L2 ~~. ~ j \ I~ Q ~ ~ ci o
~~. ~ ~ ~ is ~ ~, ~ ~ a/
o
4vfoo ~~ ~ I : ~~ ~ -` ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ --~ 1
~ /
....,. i ~ I' ~ a < ~
~~.~ ~ ~ ~

~
g~ •. ~
I
~ ~
s
FO .~
~'
C
`~ ~~
+
`

. iR ~ I
~ ~ .~
I
45~
r~ ~~ ,
~IIII~
.: ~ J,
~ ~~~ ~ •~
~~ .
'c~~~IrODb .. a
~x -~ a =--
x ~ ~~
Z
r ~ ~ -~ 'TKO
~~ ~ ~ ~ ° 4
m X ~ Q .•
~X • I.
~._•--~.-- ...... -"E •
s$ ^ + "~
~~
•• :. ~i~
~~
/\\
5 26.5J• S]• E • i ~ \\
'„~ .p,a
-.~_
N
N ta~Si'
r .. •~ ~~
^ 1'
O
ri g
i b itt Q
a-+ ~
~ ~~~
~ ~~
m ~ ~
~ ~ ..
i ~ ~ 1 '`
~ ~
I' /
r ~ ~\ /~
M ~~~ _.
h ~ .• ~ ~
~ ~~~
~ ~ b"•'-
~ ,~ ~~0 r
~ •
~ ;• ~
~ ~ ~ ~ N _
~ -`._'~
~ ~
~ $
ii-

~ ..

g
• ~
.• ~~
g €J~ ~ Nc
G,p~Q
~~~- j-
~r~
./!~ ~ ~~•
~ ~ ° •~
~~\~~\
,~ _ ~
1 ~ p
l
...
;% . •
_~_~--
•
a~'~
. zr'~ar
'~ a A '.: ~aNN
'~ ~cn~rs
,~ ~_ Ta
Z ~'
tJN U1
~ a
$Qg \~~,
Ti> O
y
(' T v/~~~
1 • 0. `\
ib . . ' ~~
fly]?~~`~~ T~
••
I~,~ `~~
~. ~ ~~i i/. ••~.
~_ •
~~ t •.
~ ~ ~ \ 1 •

2
.'
/ ~~
g
~\
a~ '•
~'
~~~ ~
..~~
Nr
\_. _
M
F5•
'~'
•• ~. _
:~a~~
~~t
• • ~~' ~t
=;r
~ ~7
a4
r
~ ~ = N~
o .. ~ .. ~~
~I ~ ilk • ''`'''~~~ ~~ ~

I ~°
MI
~I
~I

MI
_'~
~ _ ~

~ ~

3
~~
.

a x
~
~
~ -* 3
c
w~b gg
~
~
~~W
~Wb
~

~~

a
T i

r

~
~~
1 ~~
'r i ~
s
a
~
~W
~h
~
~.s~
<Q
~

~~ ~r~~

a
,
V
cd
~
3
~~

a; ~
'
r
0
~~
.~tb ~
~~
't

N ~ ~ ~ N
~-
~
~
~,~ ..
~
~
4°
~£`
$~
~r~ ;,..tea
?'=''
~
~ ~, I; ~'
a ,.~~
. .. ~ ,
M
O
ch
NI
~I
N
N
H
~ ~
ua-~corcina\(e,~\ e.pony\u
n~ r~wco SO02/LO/t0

~. ~ ..
aiorizaos os~e~zs w
n V too0•oY V r o1~~22J1~Tr0Y A f 40on
I: _
I O ~
J
v~
N < ~
rn
~j A
N

A 'p'
W

A

A

A
O~
A
V
A
~o
w
0

w
N
r
m ,
a~
1
i
r
~~~
m~~
~~'w
~~~~
y ~~ ro
'~ a~
~ ~ ~ t}~~~}t~~ww1•• i
~~v v ~
~~ro e
m~~ ~
m
I'
~~~ 3
:~; :r
=7C
:~
$-C
b
S~ d
~~
~
'~~ ~A ~ N
-~ = a
~z ~
e ~, €
x ~E
~a ~~
~~
y ~.

IL/ ~r - ~ /~ A ~
m ~ (U~ ~Y11L/1
~~~

~nnoa .ws iw
~u••uvnxwwm..a.~s~~

~-c ~~JU
v ~--
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

,nsooe ran w
wu.w.~nr..wmivp,.w~oo,

--
- _ .j .
~
r ~ ~ r
r
x t " r '
~
' Y T ~ ~
~
_ - _
- - - - - - -
;
~
L +~ , _ ~._~
~+-r'~ 1-~~ + -Jr+~T 7 ~} -rte ,.
'-'-' L is Y
t'V'' t
_
.f F
_
_
_
~ L
-

-;;.c~ a 1T~--I-+ -~- -
~~ 'r ~ ~ '; ' «J - - -
~~_ ~"~T~-}.-a-•r~- f~ r
. t
~e - ~~
~
t t~ te
. -t_~
-r--*-r'.*_i~~ ~.~
jj
-
j
j
-
'
'
1~
- _
1 _
~y
{'~
- _
r - R
- .~
-
"
'
h -
~
,
..11
..,,~~
~~
--
{
{
E riff-t} ' , 1 ` t r ~ ' .~'
t
{
-, am
L
~S~'T '• - 7-'
. f,
-~~-' n -' it ' + *-1- t'- - $ r ~ ~
~"1_t ~ tom. ~''.^"-'J ' T~+ . ~`.$
r - F _ _ - - -
t -' ~'
_ _~.-.~ y- ~ ~F '1 _ -t - 4 -I' t- '' F _ _ ' ~ _ - _ ~ - '
- ~-Arr h-
! -r r _ -I - r
~ !
~Ty,.y. " '1-
-1-~~F-r ~~ r a-1 -f -

r -
_
-
-`I'
~~ r + t1_~
JL
F { f + -rt r~-'T-r_-t. ~y
rTT~ ~ ~ 1 _T-
~1
~. .
~ ,
_
_ - -
r+.
i J Y~ ~t
1 i~ _ Fig _ -

~r ~ y- --`7- ~ I-1 -f -} ~ -
_ _1-~ F-I _ _ 1 . ~ _
~ _ T1 f ~ J
t ~
ice; -~
-+i-~ t1 1 ~~ iJ"7 ('1T"
~. ~t] -~~~ ~t.Ff~'~-:
~ '~Yi-rr~, t r-i ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~
~~t' ~
i _
j
7 t. _ ~~ - -+
_
y
_ -
-
1 _

~ tt-

T t

~ ~r

~T ~

~
T~r'i + ~
~ r - - f r _ L
- rr, .
;. -r- ,
i.~rt-y``~ 1 ;
I-r } ~ -
-
t i' - t 1 ~ T
1 t r_ ~+ _

~ y t
+,.. ~,-f -~ 1 t t-~t~ t ."_!-'~
r _N- r ] 1 _ _ _ _ Y' ' T - i'7- t

i r- ~'+ t - ' iii - X77
+`
1
' -
--i r---r_
-
rr'
' -
=' t
-r
i ~
~ rl ~
i
~
-
- ~
i
~ -i
~ ~

r t _ _ '- T ~c __ _ _
, ~- r,-,... .r.~.r ~ _
~f _ ~~~~t-. ,- ~t F T _ .i~.- -~ - _ - _r -

r;
r ~-
~-~r-r ~#
- -'~ -
~' ~
- ~ -

- -
i _ _ _ -

f _ ~ .'. ~
1,-
.
7
-$ -~.T
~-
~+ T _
F
'~ i
~~'
~
T _
r -r r r _

~

~. •• -;~. 'yam..
.7 T
t + ~ -
', i"1
- r-P-~ ;
_ t
_ -
-F
~.' r ~ ''f' '1- _~ 'E
r~ r - T-• - ~ _
_ J

~ ,-;- h
~, f HitTi-y-- 1''F ~
~~ ~

~ -
--
+

1:
~
-

{.
-~~ - i.fi
"µ`T`1 'y_~ ~ - _ - - ~ ~ ' T -t~ h~
tom' `- -t - -*_' - -
+
- +I
L~7 - - { r }

~
r, ~~.r _i . 1~. h N-+-
T-;- _ ~ -
r- - t-
T

r -
i, .~. _} .r

r-•_ .r-f
u`_~ ;
~~f , -
+
1J~~~ -
-r r - - _
- -~+ `
-+
~-~ - r
rt
~ _
-
- - ~-
Z/Q ~
~
~ -
ySjyt T'
. ~ •ST.
r , - -~ ~ ,
S: 'e.~ ~

N/1006 \LM NI
.-MaT

,n~oa wa w
wvi..amnx..wm~..r.~

~ ~u-u~

unw-afssuv~»xw~ny
m am woa.~-

.nnoa ~,.a .r

c:?~
'~;:'
`~
~A~

PROJECT COMMITMh;NTS
NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4)
State Project No. 8.1271001
T.I:P. I. D. No. B-4223
In addition to the standazd Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 On1y;Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,.
Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division Engineer
A moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 1 to June 30 for
Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented.
Precautions For Construction. In Areas Which May Be Used By The .West Indian
Manatee In North Carolina (1996 USFWS) will be followed. ..
Categorical Exclusion
Apri12004
Green Sheet

NC 210
Pender County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 210
Over Northeast Cape Fear River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0210(4)
State Project No. 8.1271001
T.LP. I. D. No. B-4223
INTRODUCTION: The. replacement of Bridge No: ~ 21 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (~1CDOT) 2004-2010.~~Transportation Improvement Program-
(T.LP.) 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 desigri year 2030. The percentages of truck traffic is 6% dual
tired vehicles (DUALS) and 4% truck=tractor semi trailer (TTST). The posted speed limit is 55
miles per hour (mph) {90 kilometers per hour (km/h)}. NC 210 is classified as a Rural Major
Collector within the project area. NC 210 is designated as a hurricane evacuation route.
Bridge No. 21 was built in 1955 (Figure 4). It is a two-lane facility with 13 spans and is 590 feet
(180 meters) in length. The deck and railings of the superstructure are composed of reinforced
concrete on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments and
reinforced concrete caps on steel piles. The bridge deck is approximately 47 feet. (14 meters)
from crown to streambed. The navigational vertical clearance is approximately 22 feet (6.71
meters).. Bridge No. 21 has a posted weight limit.. of 28 tons (25.4- metric tons) for single vehicle
(S~ 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 Fender County is not part of a state~designated bicycle route~~nd is not
listed in the T.LP.. as requiring incidental bicycle accommodations.
IIL 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 determirued by a detailed hydrologic. study during the final design
phase. The bridge grade ~ for the proposed structure will maintain the existing navigational
clearance. .
The- approach roadway will be two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter) .shoulders
including 2 feet (0.6 meter) paved (Figure 3).
B. .Build Alternatives
The two build .alternatives studied for this project are described below. .
Alternative A (Preferred) involves. replacing the bridge on new alignment just ~ south
(downstream) of the existing bridge. During construction, traffic will be maintained-on the
existing bridge (Figure 2A).
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge in place. During construction, traffic will be
maintained on an on-site detour south (downstream) of the existing bridge, Figure 2B.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 210.
Page 2

. ~
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance ,Unit indicates that
"rehabilitation" of this bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A, replacing the bridge on new alignment south of the existing bridge, was selected
as the preferred alternative for the following reasons:
• Minimizes environmental impacts.
• Avoids. impacts to the former gas station and boat ramp. ~ .
• More economical than Alternative B.
• Less constnuction time than. Alternative B.
The NCDOT'Division 3 concurs with Alternative A as the preferred altemative.
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 or 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/Cltilities 109,675 ?0,000
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 forright-of--way, $3,000,000 for construction and
$300,000 prior years.
Page 3

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources. The Mooretown, NC U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute orthographic
quadrangle was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape
characteristics. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping was also consulted to determine what, potential wetland types may be encountered in
the field. The Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina (USDA 1990), and recent aerial
photography furnished by the NCDOT were also used in the evaluation of the project study area.
The aerial photograph served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant
community patterns were identified from available mapping. sources and then. field verified.
Plant community descriptions are based on ~a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1,990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names typically
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three, parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification
scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). ~ .
Water resource information for the NE Cape Fear River was derived from the most recent
versions of the Cape Fear River Basinwide .Water Quality Plan {Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) 2000}, Basinwide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River Basin. (DWQ 1999), sand DWQ
Internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS list (reviewed on-line Agri127, 2004, last updated February 25, 2003) of
federal protected species with ranges extending into Pender County was reviewed prior to
initiation of the field investigation. In addition, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
records documenting occurrences' of federal or state-listed species were consulted before
commencing the field investigation. Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was
documented, and expected population distributions were determined through observations of
available habitat and review of supportive documentation found in Martof et al. (1980), Webster
et al. (1985), Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et al. (1994), and Palmer and Braswell
(1995).
The project study area is approximately 2,500 feet (762 meters) in length and width varies from
50 feet (15.2 meters) at the termini to 370 feet (112.7 meters) at the NE Cape Fear River. The
project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) on all sides of the project .
study area.
Page 4

B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the outer coastal plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. The topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level.
Natural elevations in the project study area range from 5 feet (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. ~nporfant products from this area include soybeans, corn,
cotton, and timber.
The project study -area crosses four soil mapping units. .These soils include .Dorovan muck
(Typic Medisaprists), Murville muck (Typic Haplaquods), Invershiel-Pender complex (Albaquic
Hapludalfs), and Alpiri 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
azea east of the existing bridge. Nonhydric soils that may contain hydric inclusions mapped as
occurring withinthe project study azea, 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 neazly 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
aze sapric material (muck). -
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030623 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ
2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030007 (USGS 1974). The NE Cape Fear River is
the only water resource that will be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. The
NE Cape Fear River originates near Mt. Olive in southern Wayne and Duplin Counties. Its
drainage area is approximately 1,750 square miles (4530 kilometers2.) The NE Cape Fear River
from Rock Fish Creek to NC 210 has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIl~ 18-74-(29.5) by
Page 5

the DWQ (DWQ 2001). From NC 210 to Prince George Creek, which is downstream, it has
been assigned SIN 15-74-(47.5) (DWQ 2001).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The NE Cape Fear River is considered "inland waters" above the NC 210 bridge and "~~t.
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 Corrimission (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 Fear River has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of CSw from Rock dish
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 Fear 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-IT Waters
occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream or downstream of the project study azea.
Upstream portions of the NE Cape Fear River above Rock Fish Creek 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 (NC]B)), 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 fhat 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 p;oposed 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-~
enarirnrnn~~s and Federally Managed Fish Species Likely to Occur at
1223 - Brid a No. 21 on NC 210 over Northeast Ca a Fear River, Pender Count , t'

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' AIo ias vu1 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 rosfrata 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 imams J, A
Dusk shark' Carcharhinus obscurus J, A
IC
Page 7

Common Name

Scientific Name Life Stages
Known to
Occur
Sandbar shark' Carcharhinus lumbeus J, A
Ni ht shark' Carcharhinus si natus J, A
Black sea bass' Centro ristis striata L, J, A
Ga rou er 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' tut'ar-us riseus J
Stri ed bass2 Morone saxatalis E, L, J A •
:Summer flounder' Paralichth s dentatus - • L, J, A
.Southern flounderz Paralichth s lethosti ma E, L, J, A
Brown shrim ' Penaeus aztecus E, L, J, A
Pink shrim ' Penaeus duorarum E, L, J, A
White shrim ' Penaeus setiferus ~, L, J, A
Bluefish' Pomatomus saltatrix E L, J, A
Cobia' Rach centron canadum ~ E, L, J, A
Atlantic sha nose shark' Rhizo rionodon terraenovae J, A
Red drum' Sciaeno s ocellatus E, L, J, A
Kin mackerel' Scomberomorus cavalla - J A
S apish mackerel' Scomberomorus maculatu J, A
• Scallo ed hammerhead shark' S Fi '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
Apri12003. -
Alternative A Impacts (Preferred). Since the new bridge for this alternative is approximately
the same width and length as the existing structure, no net change in EFH for the species shown
in the above table is anticipated. Given the size of the Northeast Cape Fear River, it is expected
that any EFH impacts related to bridge construction will be minimal and temporary. This
alternative will not .create any obstructions to anadromous fish passage in the Northeast Cape
Fear River.
Alternative B Impacts. The new bridge will be in the same location as the existing structure,
therefore, no net change in EFH for the species listed in the table above is anticipated. Since the
on-site detour bridge will be temporary, it is expected that any impacts to EFH will be
temporary. Given the size of the Northeast Cape Fear River, it is expected that any EFH impacts
Page 8

related to bridge construction will be minimal. This alternative will not create any obstructions to
anadromous fish passage in the Northeast Cape Fear River.
According to the NMFS, waters of the Northeast Cape Fear River are considered primary
nursery coastal waters from the mouth of the river upstream to the bridge at US 117 near
Wilmington. The project vicinity is located several miles upstream from this .nursery designation.
A moratorium on in-stream construction activities is in effect from February 15 to June 15 to
protect anadromous fish species.
4. ~ Permitted Dischargers
Discharges That enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are .broadly refereed to as "point "sources." Wastewater point source dischazges
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 ~dischazges include
stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater .discharges associated with
certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina must apply for and obtain
a National Pollutant Dischazge 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 theee lazgest dischargers are listed in Table 1. .
Table L 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.Co
rP~ River in New 1.07
downstream
Hanover Ca

NC0007757
Thorn Apple Valley Juniper
Swamp
0.65 > 10 mi. (> 16 km}
downstream
NC0021113 Burgaw WWTP Osgood Canal 0.5 9 miles (14 km)
upstream
Non-point source dischargers observed in the project study area consist of normal roadway
runoff and likely runoff from the fish camp/boat ramp facility. This facility contains limited
impervious surface.
Page 9

5. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. Generallmpacts
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 tb the removal of stream-side vegetation.or increased shade due to tfie
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
of roadway or bridge surface azea increases. However, due to the limited amount of overall.
change anticipated in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporazy 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 aze presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters.
Bridge No. 21 has 13 spans totaling approximately 590 feet (179.8 meters) in length. The deck
and railings of the superstructure are composed of reinforced concrete on steel I-beams. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments and reinforced concrete caps on steel
piles. The rails will be removed without dropping them into waters of the United States. There
is potential for components of the deck and substructure to be dropped into waters of the United
States.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States will be avoided unless
there is no other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, aworst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the United
States. The maximum potential temporary fill associated with demolition procedures is
estimated to be 330 cubic yards (252 cubic meters). Due to potential sedimentation concerns
resulting from demolition of the bridge, turbidity curtains will be used where practicable, to
Page 10

contain and minimize sedimentation in the water. The resident engineer will coordinate with
appropriate agencies prior to demolition and removal.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section, work
done in the water for this project would fall under Case 2, which states that no work shall be
performed in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration,
spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. This conclusion is based upon the
classification of the waters within the project area and vicinity, and agency comments received
during scoping.
D. ' Biotic Resources
.. 1. Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape=level variations in topography, soils,~hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Logging, farming, selective cutting, and natural' succession after fires, farming,
hurricanes, and other disturbances have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. -When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from-the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local
variations within the project study area.
a. ~ .Mixed PinelHardwood Forest
Mixed pine/hardwood forest covers approximately 0.7 acre (0.3 hectare) (4 percent) of .the
project study area. This .plant community type is located on the east side of the NE Cape Fear
River. Tree species consist of loblolly pine (Pines taeda), red maple (Acer 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 (Woadwardia areolata). A small portion of this.
mixed. pine/hardwood community is jurisdictional wetland.. A portion of the pine/hardwood .
forest has been timbered and has revegetated as a successional area.
b. Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater subtype) -
Coastal plain levee forest covers approximately 0.2 acre (0.1 hectare) (1 percent) of the project
study area. These plant communities are associated with natural levee deposits along channels of
large blackwater streams (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Tree species within the coastal plain
levee forest associated with NE Cape Fear River include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), American elm (Ulmus americana), sweetgum, and red maple.
Midstory and shrub species consist of red maple, sweetbay, and sweetgum. Groundcover
consists primarily of scattered giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and netted chain-fern. The
edges of the river. channel support patches of cattail and alligator weed (Alternanthera
philoxeroides). This plant community is typically associated with either cypress-gum swamps or
bottomland hardwood forest and is distinguished. from these other communities by its higher,
drier location on a levee.
Page I1

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. SuccessionaUClear-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 activitiest 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 cleaz-cut area is located on the west side of the river and on the.
north side of NC 21 U. 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 yazds,
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.
Z. 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
f loridanus), 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 withih the project study azea include mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), blue jay
(Cyanocitta crist~ta), 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 orr natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not result in
substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement
corridors are not expected to be substantially impacted by the proposed project.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area includes the NE Cape Fear River and
portions of the adjacent floodplain forest where occasional flooding is evident. The littoral
fringe. along the shoreline is also an important component of the aquatic habitat located within
the project study azea.
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, and visual observation of stream banks and channel
within the project study area were conducted in the NE Cape Fear River to document the aquatic
community. The depth of the channel inhibited the use of the back-mounted electro-shocker.
Fish species documented in the NE Cape Fear River during the field investigation include:
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki),-flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis),
blue catfish (Ictalurus 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 Fear River provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians and
aquatic reptiles. Although none were observed during the field investigation, the following
species are expected to occur in the project study area: green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), banded water snake (Nerodia fascists), and cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Benthic macroinvertebratessmpling was conducted pursuant to DWQ methodologies. Kick-net
surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within along the edge of the NE Cape Feaz
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
Annelids Oligochaeta
Decapoda Ealaemonidae
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 azea 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
displacernent~of known terrestrial animal populations: Wildlife movement corridors will not be
substantially impacted by the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the project study area
are commonly found within fragmented landscapes. The bridge replacement will not alter
fragmentation within the study area.
Page 14

Table 3. Antici ated Im acts to Plant Communities
Terrestr ial Communities (Acres/Hectares)
B-4223 Mixed Pine/ Coastal Plain Cypress- Successional / Maintained/Disturbed
Alternatives Hazdwood 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. 0.06 (0.024) 0.00 (0.000) 0.06 (0.024) 0.09 (0.036) 0.02 (0.008)
Det.
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 Fear
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 thesub-structure
below the water. Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimizedby 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 area. Precautions For Construction In Areas Which May Be Used By
The West Indian Manatee In North Carolina (1996 USFWS) will be incorporated.
Resident aquatic species maybe displaced during construction activities. Anticipated impacts are
expected to be minor and temporary and are presented' in Table 4.
Page 15

Table 4. Antici ated Im acts to A uatic Communities.
Antici ated Im acts to A vatic 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 Yssues
Wetlands are considered "waters of the United States'' and- are subject to jurisdictional -
consider.~tion~_W_etl~ands_~ubject to.review under._S.ection 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 hTE 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 (PFO1) 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 (PEMl) 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
1,~ricriSrtinnal 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)J 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 aze necessary for thisproject and if review of the temporary
structures are not included in the NEPA document.
Pender County is a coastal county~and is therefore under the additional jurisdiction of the CAMA
as regulated by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) and the NCDCM. ~ Activities .that
impact certain coastal wetlands under the jurisdiction of CAMA or Areas of Environmental
Concern (AEC) require CAMA approval through the NCDCM (NCDCM 2001). The NE :Cape
Fear River within the project study area is considered an AEC because it is considered public
trust waters and it is in an area designated as "inland" and "joint" fishing waters by NCWRC and
NCMFC (NCDCM 2001). Replacement of Bridge No. 21 will require CAMA approval.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is also responsible for authorizing bridges pursuant to
Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General Bridge Act of 1946.. -The
purpose of these Acts to preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent interference with
interstate and foreign commerce. Bridge construction or replacement over navigable waters may
require USCG authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-115. According to a letter received from
the USCG dated February 2, 2004, the Northeast Cape Feaz River meets criteria for advanced
approval waterways. An individual permit will not be required.
Anticipated impacts to wetlands and open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of--way
width and will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project. Impacts to
open water areas of the NE Cape Fear River will be minimized through the use of channel-
spanning. structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized,
including erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains will be used if practicable to
minimize the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
A state storm water permit will be required.
Page 17

3. Mitigation
Due to the extent of wetlands and surface waters within the project study area, complete
avoidance of jurisdictional impacts may not be possible.
Minimization of jurisdictional. impacts can be achieved by utilizing as much of the existing
bridge corridor as possible. This will result in a minimal amount of new impact depending on
the final design of the new bridge. BMPs will be used as an effort to minimize impacts,
including avoiding placing staging areas within wetlands. Limiting in-channel structures will
also serve to~minimize direct impacts to the river channel. .
Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities will tie 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 Alli ator mississi iensis T(S/A) N/A
Lo e_ rhead 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 a Carex lutea E No effect
Rou h-leaved loosestrife L simachia as erulae olia E No effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E No effect
Coole 's meadowrue Thalictrum Goole i E No effect
T(S/A) =Threatened due to similar appearance
E= Endangered
T=Threatened
Page 18

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

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
The study area does not contain suitable habitat-for loggerhead sea turtles. No impact to
this species is expected as a result of this project.
Piping plover -Piping plovers are small shore birds measuring only 6 to 8 inches (0.2 m) in
length. These birds occur along beaches above the high tide line, sand flats, barrier islands,
sloping foredunes, behind primary dunes, and washover areas (Dyer et al. 198.7). .
Critical Habitat for the piping plover is being proposed by FWS for coastal portions~of Pender
County; the project study area is r-ot located within 5.0 miles (8.0 km) of'the proposed Critical '
Habitat. ~ ~ .
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for piping glover 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
mazkings (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. Nett 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 Ghat 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. Hazdwood/pine stands (c50% 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
pinelmixed 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.inhabitbnth salt and fresh
. water of a~sufficient depth (5 to 20 feet) (1.5 to 6.1 meters). They may be encountered in canals,
• rivers, estuarine habitats; saltwater bays, and in nearshore waters. Mariatees 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 isunlikely that manatees would be impacted by the proposed project due to
their. scarcity in North Cazol~na and highly migratory nature. However, it can not be
concluded that manatees will not occur in the project study area. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study
area as of December 20, 2001. As a safety measure, Precautions for Construction in
Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Carolina will be
followed.
seabeach amaranth -The seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic coast
beaches. The stems are fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves. It is typically
found on barrier island beaches, where its preferred habitat consists of overwash flats and lower
foredunes (FWS 1996).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
~No habitat for seabeach amaranth occurs within the project study area. NHP does not
document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study
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 hazdwood/conifer forest. Most plants occur in
Page 21

partially shaded savannah/swamp where occasional to frequent fires favor a herbaceous ground
layer (LeBlond 1996).
Populations of golden sedge are known from the NE Cape Fear watershed in Pender County.
The species appears to be a very rare, narrowly restricted endemic to an area within a 2-mile (3.2
km) radius of the Onslow/Pender County line in southeastern North Carolina (LeBlond 1996).
Localities where golden sedge have been found are ecologically highly unusual. The
combination of open conditions underlain by calcareous substrate is very raze on the Atlantic
coastal plain. ~ .
Golden sedge has recently been listed as E by the FWS (FWS 2002). This species was
previously listed as PE (proposed for Endangered). ' ~ .
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat that would support golden sedge was observed in the project study area. NHP
does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the project
study area as of December'20, 2001. No impacts to this species will result from this
.project.
Rough-leaved loosestrife -The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that flowers
from late May to June with seeds forming by August and capsules dehiscing in October. This
species can grow up to 2 feet (0.6 m) tall has yellow flowers that typically bloom in late May
through June. Rough-leaved loosestrife typically occurs along the ecotone betvw'een 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 crcumneutral soil in moist wet savannas and
savanna-like areas kept open by fire or other disturbance.. In North Carolina, Cooley's
meadowrue has been documented as growing in the fohowing soil series: Foreston, Grifton,
Muckalee, Torhunta, and Woodington. Each of these series are sandy loams. Tulip. poplar ,
(Lirrodendron 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 lasE updated February 25, 2003
(reviewed on-line November 5, 2003), and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program on-line
list last updated January 2003.
Page 23

Table 7. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Pender County, North Carolina.
Common Scientific State Potential
Name Name Status Habitat.
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivals SC Y
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SR N
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii T N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SC Y
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius SC Y

Carolina gopher frog
Rana capito capito .
T .
N
.. Buchholz's dart moth .
Acrotis buchholzi SR N
,4tlantic 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 var.
georgiana E N
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii T N
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii NL Y
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipuld 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
Cazolina goldenrod Solidago pulchra E N
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna SR-L N
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra NL N
Carolina least trillium Trillium pusillum var.
pusillum E N
Chapman's three-awn Aristida simpliciflora SR-T N
Coastal goldenrod ~ ~ Solidago villosicarpa SR-L N
Grassleaf arrowhead Sagittaria graminea
var. weatherbiana SR-T Y
E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, SR -Significantly 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 within 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 .7uly 3'1, 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 area....it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum
is included in-the appendix. .
VII. Environmental Effects . .
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations_
Page 25

The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated: Right of way acquisition will be
limited.. No .relocations of residents or businesses are expected with implementation of the
proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services ~is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There 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" projecf, 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 aze 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 Cazolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports aze required.
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project. One (1) underground
storage tank (CYST) site was located on the north side of NC 210 and approximately 360 feet (109
meters) west of the bridge. The facility No. is 0-019787 located 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

~"~= ~~ - - - - u
wain.
' ~.
-...
~ w,w ~
.aho. • s I
1
X11 .s O:•°'
w,rs• ,•r •
g%F~ P E N ~
w.,.n+ ~ c
4, •
Aedr -a•t p
'.
Il) t
X11 F, r ._ ~
5.~ ~S
~''~
\'
~\
.,
Nair ~•`
l1
~l./i '.
Holy SF~elter
Game Land
Bridge/No, 21
+s
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
PENDER COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.21 ON NC 210
OVER THE
NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RNER
B-4223
FIGURE- 1

W
J H
Q W
0.
~ ~~
~N
~ E
~ r
r,
O ~ ~ ~
Slfl~ bOd
~ ~ 1NIOd 30NIH
.o
~- 'a
~ .

~ -.
~
..
.
1
E ~ N E
°~
~ d-Nd
~ ~ ~
00 N Z M
-
O
~ ~ E_ N ^ N
N
r.
~ ~
= N
~
O ~ 0
CT o~G 0 ~ --
~ ~ 0 a~ ~
N
r- ~
Irj _~
Z
~N-
~
~- }.
• W F- ~

ao N N o. ~ C ~ . .
r,, G

~ ~ O
o ° ~ 3
M O)
`. ~
~
J

7 ~ O
~.
i~ ~
,~
~~ z
~ W
M
O
._:
~ F
~ O
O
N
O
~
~ ~~ C

`'
Z
O
~Q
~~
- ~O.
o~ ~
~~ .
~_~
d.
W
H
V
4~
OG
F-
V ~
H y N
O
O
O
~ M
M ~ ~
Z
II p II O
a° g °a ~°`

c 'n
O ~ H a
~

N O
N
~
~ r
Uv
~
aC }. Z

Z U
O
h ~ oc
X 0 D ' N ~O
W
J

`T.I.p. No. 8-4223, Federal-A.id Project No. BRSTP-0210(4), State Projc;c;t No. 8.1271(xJl Fender Gnunty,
NC 210, fridge No. 21 over North fast Cape Fear ~2iver
FIGURE 4

W
tL~
..,
LL

APPENDIX

Commander 431 Crawford Straet
U.S. Department of United States Coast Guard. Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Homeland Security Fifth Coast Guard DisMd Staff Symbol: Oan-b
Phon~e7:5(7757 398-6587
United States Email: tkno3w~ies atJantd5.usog.mii
Coast Guard
16593
02 Feb 04
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
P. O. Box 33127 '
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Dear Ms. Williams:
This letter supersedes~our previous letter of January 21, 2004, ~in response to your request ~oi~ ~ ~.~
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 Feaz 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 sl}own above.
Sincerely, ~ , ~ .
r
. WA~IERLY G Y, JR
.Chief, Bridge Administratio Secti .
. By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guazd District

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:
tpY VM7tV0 WgJtVYi1.V
Fifth Coast Guard District.
.. V. q...VYY..~ r~jiV. VT'VVV~
Staff Symbol. oYn-b
phonq' (7'57) 398-6587
Fax: ('~57) ~$8-6$34
Email: tknowles~lantd5.uscg.mil
16593
21 Jan 04
This is in response .to your request for Coast Guard review of a project to replace the bridge
(#21) over the Northeast Cape Fear River in. Pander 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 dutlined 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 requred.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, L
. ~~~ ' ~ '
WAVERLY REG~RY,
Chief, Bridge Admuustra on Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District

~U.~. D@p8rtn"te'flt Commander 431 Crawford Street ~^~~~~.
. of fifanSPOrtBtlOr1 United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Atla_ ntic Area Staff Symt~oi: (Aowb} .
Urllted $tat@S Phone: [phone]
Coast Guard
16590 ~ ~ ~, V
. 03 DEC 02 ~ fiQ
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D. DEC ~ b ?~
North Carolina Department of Transportation ~, .,~
1548 Mail Service Center .. ~ y~~ yr
f d L'IV4S7oN QF ' 2'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 ~ ~ ~v~~~T N~;;towArs ~~ ~4~~..
. ~ ~~f1"gL ANAL-yg~y
Dear Mr: Thorpe:
. ~ Tris is in response to your letter dated October 24, 2002 requesting the Coast Guazd 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 Cat-olina.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guazd bridge
permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are not used, susceptible to use in
their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to transport
interstate commerce. Such conditions for some of these waterways were confirmed in a
telephone conversation on November 27, 2002. Due to this, the bridge projects on Beaver Dam,
Withrow, and Pinch Gut, Creeks and Black River Over Flow are exempt, and will not require
Coast Guard Bridge Permits..
. Black River, Jenny's Branch, and Stone Creek are subject to tidal influence and thus considered
legally-navigable for Bridge Administration purposes. But these waterways also meet the criteria
for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
115.70. Advance approval waterways are those that aze navigable in law, >~ut 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. ~ . ~ . .
e New River and
the uc m orma on as, is a waterway a ected 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

r
~~ «~~
f?'-?("~
~ i cs i
DEG ~ 9 2~G~ ~.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. d, .
ratvironmcntei Management pirector
l~«*~ue~-«tt ~
Ftlvitvnma+tel A~IySis fit,.
NG' pcpattmc~rt of Transportation
l S4>3 Mail Suvice Genres
Raleigh. North Carolina 27699. ] Sd8
UNITED tiTATE9 OEPAATMENT OF COMMERCE
p~pnie and. AtmoepFtAt'1c Atbriniotr~tlpt-
Al+l MNi'bNE FgHEPoE~ SEtINICE
H Co»ser~:Ation Divic~en
t0l pivp's island stood
Beaufort, North Caroiina ?SS I6-~)7~'~
Daernber 6.2003
~teMiwt- John Wadsworth
(ksr Ih. Thorpe
T!u National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA ~isberies~ bas re++iewed your Cktobcr 24.3~K13. letter
reQuestins; comn~cRts: oe eight .br+dge rtplaeeirtettt proj!#s ittCludai in for North C.er~~lina
C~eoarumetu of Ttansparttuion 2ta02-2008'i'ran~octation Irupr'ovtmem Plt-R Wr un~ierstut~d ~Itac,
the NCbOT s preparing the phoning and enviroametttal studies nQOVSSary to pltix;e~s fhe~e projects
u Cuegarical Eacdusions and• offers the following comments for ~~ considcn~tian
'ffto cn~~iroomerutt doeumeocs far rbesa projects ~twukl udct~css mptstmes dcsign~ to a.pid ttRt3
mittitnize loss of opirt water anr3 wtsiands t1>:t support fishery resourt~ [n additiant. •• o support
6edings cont~inod in the May 9, Zf1A?. letter from- the Witaningtc+n District, U.S:.trnn~ Coppx of
~ngitteers. which identified the }~Ilpwitt}~ issues xud ConClxns es 6ei~ r+ele~,~ant tp he tna~~
bridge replacement proja:ts: .
Rcplacie~ bridges with WWc~rts
- Penr~ne+st xnd temporary wetland lasses
- UllsKe versus aRsite detours
- 7"t~ne pf year restt~idions an i~strram work .
- T.r~tmont al'wetlat-d t+estotlition stti`~s .
- E~tiSting bridt,*e dernolitioa ttld ranaval
• - Len~~thening existing bridges as ~t wdland rrstor~tion measure
Group l • The forlow~ng projects will have no impact ott resources for wfiich NQ!1:1 FialKsr iec 11as
st~atdsttip respdRSit~'lity. therefort, v-e have Ro eorrtmcnts: •.
fir"'
.t' '
Y ~
'! Y

Btidgt Number
No. 416
No. 2$
No. 54
Pt o~js~ct Number.
8 - 4103
g: azss
B. - 4282
C4npty
Davidson Cflunty
Rowan Goonty
~tokes.Coutay
~t+oup 11- 7hcse' prc~jeCts l-ati~e the potentis! to atlbct fishery resaur~cr's an4 that associated habnat
' ~ which NOAA Fisheries bas stewardship ~ity: .
Bride Number Project Npmbet ~ ~County
Nn, 1 Z $ -1382 Sampson County' .
• Na• 26 8 -1382 Sampson G?utny .
No. 72 B -403 Brunswick County
No. 24 8 - 4214 Onsiow County '
No. 2 t 8 ~ 4223 Fender Courty
litsdsts !2.26. Z7 and 24 are locuod in tha Capp Feat ~d Near RIvCr bins and in Gress which
pnovlde habltax' Cot aoidromotts y indud+ng Arneric~n slued and river 'hertie~. ~ .
Bridges 72 and Z~ are located in st+ea: w~ brackish to stline watene t1-at' also support ostuarint
dtpglrknt fidwy rasa,r~oes such as'spo~t. `/ltlantic croalc~r, and blue a4b in addtion, these projects:
tttay.affCCt Es~oti~ ~ Hf-bitat for feduahy mxns$~ spaaa such as rod drum and chimp
wbichare ri~#ged by the South Atlantic Fishay Ma~eoneat Couna7: sod wnrrnr floundor which
is rowged by;tl+e Mid-Adattic Fislray Msn~an~c Counefl.. ~Lccor~nBly, we recotnt~d that
iw lrsaaniti Fish H~br$Itt A::essment be inducted in sqy CtNit+Onmentai dogttilerit fcx their prcijexts.
,,
._
• Spawning and nurxry habitat far atud~romous and estuarine fisfies nt~y be idv~ersely impacted b}•
these projects unless measurts to avoid and minimise impacts to waters trod w•etf~id3 ace iacludod
in the project plans. Therefore, NOAH Ftsbdtes msy reowr~d ~gainsc A~ana~nt cif the Army
wtlwritstion otthese projaxs under NatianKndc PerrniE Z3 unless the fot<owMg reearnmendatioiu
' ars incorporated:, . ~ .. .
• ••~ Following impact avoidance .utd mirnmiLtioq uttiav0idablG v+~etlard losses ahaU be ofd
thrtugh implementatrwl ofa a~o~pa~aacvry mitigation plan that hss bept apprOveid by the Corps
of Engineers and in oonsu~ltstion with NAM Fishextes"
.2, All ec~ltliGiion actniities in waters u~d sssoaa<ad wetlands shall ut~'zc teehniqula that avoid
• and niinimae adv:xse impacts to tlase system and their essoaated flow.and fauna

3 • [n order to protect anadrom4us fishery resources that ~sy ~~ the Project areas as
spawning andlor 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 NQA.A k'ishencs.
If these projects are processed under Nationwide 23, they will be cazefully reviewed for .
incorporation of the recommcndationsllsted above, and we may elect to provicic additional
commcnts`and recommendationsthatare 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. .
Fitmlly,•the shortness sturgeon, ~a fedeislly protected species under the purview of NOAH.
Fisheries is fiautd in the Cape Fear River. These comrnents do not satisfy federal agency
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the F.adangered Species Act of l 973, as
amended. If any activity "rosy effect" listed species snd habitats under NOAH Fisheries
. ~ purview, corrsultatiQn should be initiated with our Protected Resources Division at 9721 .
Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, )r lorida 33702
_e a '~ the o rty for carly_parttci anon in the re»ew of these,bridge replacement
_w ppreci ppor~,in' - .- ~ -- -- .._ ....----- -
projoets. if we can be of further assistance,: please contact Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field
Office at 252-728-5090 dr at ro~n.scchler cr nose Gov.
Sincerely;
IT Andreas Mager, Jr
Assistant Regional Administ<ator
Habitat Conservation Division

uwrT-Ea STATES ^EPAFiTMEt'1tT OF COMMERCE
~/ ; ..~ ~ Nattonal Oceanic end Atmoaphertc Admtntatretton
_y' ~' NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SEfaVICE
'~.~, a ~
t N~._J' '
~ abitat Consen~ation Division
101 Pivers.Island Raad
Beaufort, North Carolina 2SS 1 G-9722
June 7, 2002
1~F~
William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head ~
Bridge Replacement Unit ~ ,,,, - ~
Project Development and Environmental Analysis~Branch ~~ `~ ~~;
1548 Mail Service Center ~ ~ `` ~?~
~,~ 'QF ~°
Raleigh, Nortn Carolina 27699-_1548 4~~
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 year200S: ,
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. ~ ~~'. - ~ ~ - -
- Permanent arid.temporary~wetland~losses ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ .- ~ ~~ - - -
.- Offsite versus.onsite detours ~ ~~
- Time° of year restrictions.nrtmstream wofk ~ ~~~ •~~~~• -~•j • •~ •-~~ - ~ •. ~ ~ - . ~ . ~ - -
-Treatment o€wetland~restoratinn~areas -~~ • ~ ~-_~~~_~ ~ - ~~ ===_ -~~- - - ~ .. - ...:. .
-Existing bridge demolition arrd~removal-~ '~ ~}~-=-~ ° ~-- - - • - -• -- . ~ ~.
- _Len~thening eitisting:bridge$ as a wetland restoration measure =~ - ~.~ ~ ~ -- - ~ - -
The NMFS agrees that these issi3es should be ~'iilly -iiddTessea'-twrfh-regard to ~iiiipacts and mitigation.
We also agree with the Corps' determination"that identifying projects'involving-these aciivi~ies as
Green-Light Projects. is misleading and' hould~ not ~e~used. `Therefore, the following. Group 2
projects should be identified-as either Yellow or Red.Light projects.
Section I~- Yellow Light Projects (YLPs)~ - ~ ~~ ~ . , ~,.- .~ -: - - - -- ~ ~--
The bridge replacement projects listed below are located in areas`thaf do not support 1~'MFS trust
fishery resources: Otherwise; they have normal environmental concerns and; therefore, are identif ed
as YLPs. - .
I'rintcd cx~ Rccyrlyd Paper
~•''"''"q,,4
.~~
~` ~
F.
4~.~.a

Bridge Number
Project Number
LoCRtlon
Bridge No.l 3h ~ B - 4025 ~ Beaufort County •
Bridge rlo. 108 B -4154. ' Hyde County
BridgeNo. 118 ~ B - 4235 Pitt County
Bridge No. 191. B - 4272 Sampson County
Section Il -Yellow Light Projects (YLPs)
The bridge`replacement projects listed below are located in the Roanoke River, Neuse River; Tar
River, Chowan River, Trent .River, Cape Fear River basins .which are likely to support NMFS trust
• anadromous fishery resources and are, therefore, classified.as YLPs.
. ,
Bridge Number
Bridge No.~ 45
Bridge No. 29
Bridge No. _l 0
Bridge No. 4G
Bridge No. 49
Bridge No. 43
Bridbe No. 67
Bridge No: 7
Bridtre No. 5
Project Number
B - 4026
B -4314
~B-4086
B - 4125
B-4]26
B - 4127
B - 4150 '
B - 4169
B - 4187
Location
~Bertie County .
Washington County
. ~ Craven County
Greene County
Greene and Lenoir
.Counties
Green County
Hertford~County- .
Jones County
~~r:
Bridge No. 69 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •B `-4227 ~ ... ~ " Perquimaiis County - ~ -. _ ~. .
Bridge No: ~ 98 ~ ~• ~ ~ 'B - 4234. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pith County ~ ~ ~ .. - _
Spawning and nursery habitat~foi•~anadromous fishes-may:be~ad~ersely:itnpacted bye these projects- ~. .
.unless measures to.avoid andminimize. impacts ~to waters $nd wetlands .are~•inclu~ded: in •tfie project- ~ .
plans. Accordingly, the NN1ES ~niay recommend against Department: ofthe~:Army authorization of:
these projects under Nationwide~:P.errnit 23,unless floe following recommendations are;incorporated: ~ ~ .
1. Following impact avoidance~-~and mitumization,~~arnavoidable-wetland_-losses ~ shall be ~offset~~ ~~ ~` ~~ = -
through implementation of~ compensatory mitigation plari~that has~been approved b}-.the Corps ~. ~~ . • .
of Engineers acid in consultation with.the NMFS:.~ ~ ~~ .
2. All construction related activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that - . .
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to those systems and-their. associated flora and fauna. :.. - - .~ - --. .
3. In order to protect anadromous fishery resources that may utilize the project areas as spawning
or nursery habitat, work in the waters of the creek shall .be restricted to~the period October 1 and
March 1 of any year unless prior approval is .granted by -the .Corps of Engineers following
consultation with the NMFS.

Section 111 -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 or 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 maybe 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 tlte.fact that work in these locations could adversely effect NMFS trust fishery resources,
they are.classified as RLPs. In addition, same of~these project areas include Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) for species. manabed~ under authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
• Management Act(P.L 104-297) 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 B ~ 361:1. Beaufort County
Bridge No: 72 B - 4031 Brunswick County
Bridge No. 1.9 B - 4215 Onslow County
Bridge No. 24. B - 4214 ~ • Onslow County
,Bridge No. 65 ~ B - 4219 ~ ~ Pamlico County
Bridge. No: 4 B - 4221 . - . Pamlico County
Finally, the shortnose sturgeon, a .Federally~.protected species under the purview of the NMFS is
found in the ~ Cape ~ ear and Roanoke. Rivers: ~ ~'I'hese comments do not satisfy Federal agency
consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered. Species'Act of 1973, as~amended.
If any activity. "may effecf" listed, species'and habitats under NMFS purview, consultation should be . '
initiated- with, ourProtected -Resources'~iwsion at 972] .Executive Center DriveNorth, St.
Petersburg, Florida'33702:
We appreciate the opportunity. for- early participation in the review of these bride replacement
projects.. If I sari be of further assistance, please contact me at the letterhead address or at 252-728-
5090. • ~ .
. Sincerely,
' ~ dJ"7
Ron Sechler
Fishery Biologist .

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ralcigh Field Of£icc
Post Office Box 33726.
Raleigh, North Carolina 2763fr3726
November 14, 2002
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
. Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis .
1548~Mai1 Service Center ~ .
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-154$
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
~E~~F17
N~V 1 ~ ~t1n~
i
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:--P-lease note that the-projects-listed.-for Davidson, Rowan
and Stokes Couhties 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) an 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 of the 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:

I: 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 anSi/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. ~Inwaterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish; in- .
water work~ould be avoided during. moratorium periods associated with migration;
spawning and sensitive pre-adult. life stages. Tie 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
`~ corridors;
. 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 lazge enough to
alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. ~'he 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;
~. 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 ofthe 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 aze on
the Federal List of Endangered and ?'hreatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as federal species of
concern. 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.fi~~s.g;ov. If suitable habitat for
any of the listed species exists in the project areas, biological surveys for the listed species
should be conducted. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for these projects, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order. to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation.. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for these projects include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:.. ~ '
• 1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact
area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., ncluding•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
~om_,, s 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.

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment. on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning processes, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan. at (919). 856-4520 (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
i'„^
'~
. ~ B.af ue Ph.D.
Garland d ,
. Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE;~ Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
Chris 1Vlilitscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
..

.'-,
.. ~_ .
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 38726
Raleigh, North Carolina 276363726
June 12, 2002
Mr. William T. Goodwin, Jr.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
i7nit 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 Year (CFY) 2005. Your letters requested the
Service to review these reports and determine the level of concerns we might have for trust
resources under-our jurisdiction. This report provides scoping information in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife, Coordination Act (FWCA).(16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and '
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C..1531=1543).
This report also serves~as initial scoping comments to federal and slate resource agencies for use
in their permitting and/or certification processes for this proj ect.
The bridges scheduled for replacement are:
1. B-3611, Bridge No. 77 on~NC 99 over Pantego Creek, Beaufort County;
2. B-4024, 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 County;
5. B-4031, Bridge No. 72 on NC 179 over Jinnys Branch, Brunswick County;
6. B-4077, Bridge No. 25 on NC 130 over Waccamaw River outflow, Columbus County
7. B-4082, Bridge 280 on SR 1843 over Dan's Creek, Columbus Counfiy;
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 .
bounty; .

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 Feaz 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 Mi11 Road), Robeson
County,
~~ 26. B-4272, Bridge No. 19T 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 protect 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 minimise
adverse environmental impacts to, fish. and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland impacts should be avoided and minimised 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 insensitive 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 minim;~e habitat fragmentation and encroachment. At the completion of
construction, the entire detour azea, including any previous detour from past construction

~~
. r
3
activities, should be entirely removed and the impacted areas should be planted with
appropriate, endemic vegetation, including trees if necessary;
3. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset; .
4. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided
during moratoriumperiods associated with migration, spawning, and sensitive pre-adult.
life stages. The generaT~moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 15;
c 5. Best Management P. ractices (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) ate 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 are
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
articular time of year for accurate identification. The biological conclusions of the No f DOT for
P
plants should include the time of year that a survey was conducted, the person ours
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 Yeats 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 lndian.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 lazge mammal. O'Shea and Ludlow (1992) wrote
that. the primary habitat requirements for the species aze 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 theproject 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 ~addr~ssed in our 1996 guidelines to NCDOT (tJSFWS 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 inhabif a given azea 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 recommendatioi}s based on those iesults, 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 azea. 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

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 azea, but the species was not
observed during natural resources investigation.. The NRTR provided a biological
conclusion of "no effect." The Service will require additional surveys closer to the time
of actual construction and greater details of survey methodology, including time of year
and the. intensity of the survey, before we can concur that the project will have. no effect
on the species. ~ .
The NRTR states that "marginal habitat~exists foi rough=leaved loosestrife [Lysima~hia
asperulaefolia] in the form of shallow organic soils adjacent to a forest community" in
the project area. 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 fdr the manatee is not present. The Service disagrees and ,
recommends that prof ect plans should incorporates measures given in "Precautions for
General Construction in Areas Which May Be Used by the West Indian Manatee is North
Carolina" that the Service provided the NCDOT in 1996. Suitable habitat. for sensitive
jointvetch exists in the project area (p. ~17), but the NRTR concludes that the project
would have "no effect" on the species based, in part, on the fact that no plant were "found
in the project area." The Service cannot concur with this determination. _ The Servicewill
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 cap
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 azea." 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 may be used by manatees.. The NRTR states that the
biological conclusions for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Federally
endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana) are `unresolved." 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 project azea is used, if even on a temporary basis, by these species. If wood storks do
feed in the project area during a limited portion of the year, the Service would
recommend that this project be scheduled outside this particular period.

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 azea. 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. 10$ on SR~ 134Q over Old State Canal, Hyde County - The NRTR notes that
. habitat for the sensitive jointvetch is present in the project area, but concludes that the
project will have no impacts on the species, based in part, on a failure to fund the species
during surveys. The Service will require additional. surveys closer to the time of actual
construction and greater details of survey methodology, including tone of year 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
followprocedures given in "Precautions for General Construction in Areas W_ hich May
Be Used by the West Indian Manatee in North Crlolina."
B- 4223, Bridge No. 21 on NC 210. over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County -The
NRTR notes (p. 20) that manatees could occur in the poeject azea and states that impacts
to the species aze "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
particulaz construction site. The species moves through North Crlolina 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 Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). The
azea surveyed should extend from 100 meters (32$ 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 1.00 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.. Th~~two habitats mentioned are shallowponds .
with sandy substrate and Carolina bays.. This species is associated with wetland habitats
such as bottomland and hardwoods in the interiox areas, and the margins of sinks, ponds
and other depressions in the more coastal sites. The plants generally grow in shaded areas
but may also be found in full sun. Since the project area includes 0.5 acre of coastal plain
bottomland hazdwood 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, r/,,;~
_ l ~ ~~
/~'~-'
~o ~ Dr. Garland B. Pazdue
-~ Ecological Services Super-visor
Attachment
Literature cited
O'Shea, T. J. and M. E. Ludlow. 1992. Florida manatee. pp. 190-200. In S. R. Humphrey (ed.).
Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume I. Mammals. University of Florida Press.
Gainesville. 392 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996.. Communication to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation. LTSFWS, Raleigh Field Office. Raleigh, NC. 4 pp.

8
cc:
Ted Bisterfeld, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA
Ron Sechler, NMFS, Beaufort, NC
Michael Bell. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field O~'ice, 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 ~ .
~,

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 2001011.72
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property
Owner:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., ManagerY
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 -Mail Service Center ,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1548 '
County: Pender
Authorized Agent:
JeffHarbour, PWS
Environmental Services, INC
524 New Hope Road . ~~
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Size and Location of Property (waterhody, 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:

0
0
0
There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be ,verified by our 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 det ~ed by th~~N~O1e
andlor its representatives for the subject NGDOT project: A select number of wetland sites lnspec
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 putposes,and impact assessment. .
:The wetlands on your lot have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction be reh~ u pn forma penod
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this detemunahon may Po .
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification... ~ .
There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of _._..~ _
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344): Unless there is a change in the law or our. published
re ~ ations, this determination 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 .
Management to detemune their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department .of the
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). ' A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existin ease ontact MrIDave
have any questions regarding he Corps of Engineers regulatory program, p
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. ..

May 9,2002 ------------------------
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200101169, 200101170, 200101171, 200101172, 200101174,
200101175, and 200200726.
IVIr. 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 Febniary 18, 2002, March 1, 2002, March 18, 2002, and
April 24, 2002 regarding our scoping comments on the following proposed bridge
replacement projects:'
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-4272, Bridge Na 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-42.14, 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
. appeazs 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 dischazge 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 ofthe projects, extent of fill work within the waters of the United States,
i

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 su~cienf adverse impacts to consider
the work as having more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly,
the following items need to be addressed in the project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected by
the proposed project. .
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an on-site detour.is the recommended action, justification should be provided that
demonstrates that alternatives with lower wetland impacts are not practicable. On-site
detours, unless constructed on a spanning structure or on.a previous detour that was used
in a past construction activity, can cause permanent wetland. impacts due to sediment
consolidation resulting from the on-site detour itself and associated heavy equipment.
Substantial sediment consolidation in wetland. systems may in turn cause fragmentation of
the wetland and impair the ecological and hydrologic functions of the wetland. Thus, on-
site detours constructed in wetlands can result in more than minimal wetland impacts.
These types of wetland impacts will be considered as permanent wetland impacts. Please
note that an onsite detour constructed on a spanning structure can potentially avoid
permanent wetland impacts and should be considered whenever an on-site detour is the
recommended action. For projects where a spanning structure is not feasible, the .
NCDOT should investigate the existence of previous onsite .detours at the site that were
used in previous construction activities. These azeas 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 maybe
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
d'escrtbed~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
by the NC Wildlife Resowces Commission. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detows, the undercut material should be stockpiled on an upland site and later
used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted withendemic vegetation including trees, if
appropriate. Ror projects proposing a.temporary onsite detow in wetlands, the entire
detow area, including any previous detow frompast 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 also 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 pwsuant to the NCDOT policy entitled "Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States" dated September 20, 1999. ~.
3

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, TIl' Project No. 4031 connects to a 170 foot long causeway
through coastal wetlands. It is ~reconunended 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", "Crreen" 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 Vlilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4634.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
NCDOT Team Leader ger
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
4

J

Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Domey ~~
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621. ~ . .
~Mr. Doug~Huggett
North Carolina ~7ivision 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
Creedtrioor, North Carolina 27522
. Mr. Howazd 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 Cazolina 28401 ~.
Ms. Kathy Matthews
Wetlands Regulatory Section
USEPA/EAB ~ ~ .
980 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605
5

Jlclle UI !'~Ut tl I l.~cllCJ'•(I Ict
'`~d.a.~ Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
June 3, 2002
ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: ~~ William T. Goodwin, Jr., RE, Unit Head
. Bridge Replacement Planning Unit ~ .
' ~ ~ Project Development and.~Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dorne '~
NC Division ~ at ality, 401 Unit
From: ~ Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water ualit~~1Q1 Unit
Q Y
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projectsscheduled 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 ]0 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.
,~,-•f~,I +~
~~
Wetlands/401 Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone [phone] 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 forma1401 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.021.6 (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 $MPs. 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~234 is in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. All activity should comply
' with the Ripariari Buffer Rules for that basih.
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 standazds are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. .

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

____
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-9150 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-9214 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--wa-ter---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. ~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-4314 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
oft 5/30/02 11:33 AM

f'°~
. ~ North CarolinaWildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
T0: ~ 'William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head .
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
~' -~
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co ina r -
Habi~at Conservation Program '
DATE: May 22, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements: ~ ~ .
Beaufort County -Bridge No. 77, NC 99, Pantego Creek, B-3611
~. Beaufort County -Bridge No. 136, SR 1626, Canal, B-4024..
. .B~r~ie County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026
Brunswick County - Bridge No.~ 72, NC 1 ~9, Jinnys Branch, B-4031
Chatham County -Bndge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065
Craven County-Bridge No. 10, SR 1111; Brices Creek, B-4086
Cumberland County -Bridge No. 85, I-95 Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
Durham County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1616, Mountain Creek, B-4110
Edgecombe County -Bndge No. 19, SR 1135, Cokey Swamp; B-4111
`Franklin County -Bndge 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 '
. GreenelLenoix 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 -Bndge No. 5, SR 1417,. Conoho Creek, B-4187
Nash County -Bridge No. 56, SR 1544, 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-422.1
Perquimans County -Bridge No. 69, SR 1222, Mill Creek, B-4227
Pitt County -Bridge No. 98, SR 1407, Conetoe Creek, B-4234
Pitt County -Bridge No: 118, SR 1538, Grindle Creek, B-4235
Randolph County-Bridge No_ 34, SR 1304, Second Creek, B-4242
Mailing Address: Division ~F Inlana Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service (.Alter • ttaleitih.l~IC ?7699-172!
Telephonc_ (9 I9) .733-3633 cxt. 25I • Pax: (~~ l9; 71 ~-76;3

L11~1`.-,V 1~1V 111V
1.1.+~ -.~+, r v v r -~
Randolph County -Bridge No. 257, SR 2824, Vestal Creek, B-4245
Richmond County -Bridge No: 129, SR 1321, Big Mountain Creel;, B-4247
Sampson County.-Bridge No. 150,~SR 1006, Little Coharie Creek, B-4268 ~,
Sampson County- Bridge No. 191, SR 1845, Great Coharie Creek, 'B-4272 .
Vance County -Bridge No. 3,-SR .1 I07,-Ruin Creek, B-4298
Wake CourTty~-.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 artd 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 Stan. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d): ~.
Our standard recommendations for bride replacement projects of this scope aze as
follows:
1. 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 drams sho~ald not dischazge 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 1.0'x10.'. I~possible, when-using temporary
stntctureathe area~should be cleared but not~grubbed. Clearing the azea 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 m~ni_m~zes disturbed soil.
6. A clear 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.

;;ridge Memo 3 May 22, 2002
9. In. streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal e:cclusions 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 loner 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 m>zrrm,~e sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducin; other
pollutants into streams.
15. -Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and .
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. 'During subsurface investigations; equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained fo 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
floodplam bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This maybe accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream. and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). 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 lineaz 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.

4 ~~~ay ~:., ,,,,,.
Bride Memo
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for vv~ldlife passage.
~~.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stye immures'call de easesded.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of struc typ Y
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.
Inmost cases, we prefei the replacement of the existing structure at the same location .
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, eed f r clr ~ndet and to avoid destabilz' gd
located to avoid wetland impacts, muumize then g
stream banks. If the structure will be oe 100- earl fl od laine Approach fill should be rmemoved
and the approach fills removed from th y P
down to the natural ground elevation.. d ~~e Ievr~o~iy wetbands~ NCDO shouldrestore the h
native tree species. If the area.reclaun p
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 _ .
otential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT should closely foollmowo tmne ``on ea ~'
P
Crossing Guidelines for pnadromous Fish Passage .This Lnelu es.a m
work vvithin~urisdictional waters from February 15 to June I5.
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. ~ .
4. Bertie~ County -Bridge No. 45, SR 1110, Choowatic Creek, B-4026
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for an ~ lm forSAnad~romous Fish PasDsage".
should closely follow the."Stream Crossing G
This includes a moratorium. on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15.
5. Brunswick County - Bridge No. 72, NC 179, orn us f sh at~this~oc tion, NCDOT
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadr
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Pa15 go"
This includes a moratorium on work withinacurisdi~ onauw~a~rs astmal weet and at ttliis
June 15. There is also the potential for imp Sh q
location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts to these
resources.

----J- . "..." ~ _ May 22, 2002
6. Chatham County -Bridge No. 142, SR 2170, Meadow Creek, B-4065
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to the Cape Fear
Shiner, NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting
to discuss special measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Standard
recommendations apply.
7. Craven County -Bridge No. 10, SR 1111, Brices Creek, B-4086
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the. potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15 to
June 15. Biologists indicate that 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 standard recommendations apply:
8. Cumberland County - Bridge. No. 85, I-95 Business, Cape Fear River, B-4091
YELLOW LIGHT. Due to the potential for anadromous fish at this location, NCDOT
should closely follow the "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage".
This includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters. from February 15 to
June 15. Other standard recommendations apply.
9. Durham County -Bridge No. 5, SR 1616, Mountain Creek, B-4110
.YELLOW LIGHT. Due to' the pWQ water quality classification, we recommend High
Quality Sedunentation 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. ~tandazd recommendations
aPP1Y, _
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 Ariadromous Fish Passage". This
-- -~-~--- ~ includes a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from February 15.to.June 15.
..There aze records of state and federally listed mussels in the project vicuuty. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
withNCWRC 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 vicuuty. Therefore,
due to the potential for impacts to listed species we request that NCDOT perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project_ Other
standard recommendations apply.

~:~ .tip-:.~.
-~~«:
:.i:.
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 site.
NCDOT should -avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands. Standard recommendations
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.tfl 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 rriussels;
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 Iurisdictional~waters from February 15 to ~`
June 15. Other standard continents 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 LIGI~T. Big Chinquapin Branch supports a good fishery for sunfish;
therefore, we recommend a moratorium on work within~urisdictional 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 min,rr>i?e 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 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.
23. Nash County -Bridge No. 56, SR 1544, Tar River, B-4211

Sedge Memo 7 Ma 2~ ~
, y _, 002
YELLOW LIGHT. The Taz River supports a good fishery for sunfish; therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work wi'n jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 15.
If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels, NCDOT should
contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to discuss special
measures to reduce potential adverse effects. Other standard recommendations apply.
24. Onslow 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 within jurisdictional waters from February 15 ~to September 30. Other standard
recommendations apply. ~ .
25. Onslow County -Bridge No. 19, NC 214, 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 Na. 65,_SR 1304; UT to Neuse River,-B-4219
YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for unpacts to high quality coastal wetlands at
this location. NCDOT should employ all measures necessary to avoid impacts ro these
r resources. Other standard comments apply. ~ -
' 27. Pamlico County=Bridge No. 4, SR -1344, South Prong Bay River, B-4221
. YELLOW LIGHT. There is the potential for impacts to high quality wetlands at this site.
NCDOT should avoid or minimize impacts to these wetlands: Other standard comments
aPP1Y
28. Pender County -Bridge No. 21, NC 210, NE Cape Fear River '~
RED LIGHT. There are records of the federally listed Shortnose sturgeon in the NE
Cape Fear in the project, area.. Due to the.potential for ariadromous 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, [JT 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 1 S. 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

L11 u:Jv 1~1V111V V 1~1Q,' rL, LVVL
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 Na 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,
NCDaT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for an on-site meeting to
discuss special measures~to reduce potential adverse effects: Other standard~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, 8-4272 ~ ~,~
~. YELLOW LIGI~T..Great Coharie Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish; .therefore, ~.
we recommend a moratorium on work within~urisdichonal waters from April l 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.
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 lie 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.
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 l 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
standard recommendations apply.

edge 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. S2, SR 1131, Turkey Creek, B-4327
RED LIGHT. Turkey Creek supports a good fishery for sunfish, therefore, we
recommend a moratorium on work within jurisdictional waters from April 1 to June 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 perform a
mussel survey prior to the construction of this bridge. An on-site meeting should be held
with NCWRC and USFWS biologists, prior to the `404' permit application, to discuss
bridge design and construction. We request NCDOT incorporate High Quality .
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures into the design of this project.. Other
standard recommendations apply. ~ , ,
41: Wilson County -Bridge No. 3, SR 1634, Great Swamp, B- 4328 .
YELLOW LIGHT. If aquatic surveys indicate the potential for impacts to listed mussels,
NCDOT should contact USFWS and NCWRC biologists for anon-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 treams.
..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 NCV~RC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to .review and
comment on these projects. .
cc: USFWS, Raleigh

North Carolipa Department. of Cultural Resources
State FYistoric Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. AdmiizieEretar
Dfus!lael F. ~ae}ay, Govermr
Iaebetb C. Evaat~, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Caw, Deputy Secretary
O~ve ofArcLives and lii~tary
Division pf Historical Eesv[ueea
Septewber 10, 2003

. M~IOR.A~vvDUM
To: ~ ~ Muy Pope Farr, Histauc Axchitecture Supet:cisor
Project Devclopmet>tt and Environmental Analysis Breach
NC170T Division of .Highways
...
i~ROM: Davin B=oalt ~~.~~--~ _ .
SUBJECT: Historic/Atchitectwral Resources Stxtvep Repot Bridge Z3o, 21 NC 210 over
Northast Cmpe'Fear River, B~223, Pepder County, FRL)2-8S6i
Thank you for pour letter of Daly 3i, 2403, transmitting the survey report by Vanessa E. Pan~ck, NCDOT.
The fallaa~g property is determined not eligible fa>y 1i~g in the National Rr~ste~t of Historic Places:
Davis-Trask House, NC 214 (Lane's Ferry RAac~ .
Davis-Trask House, NC 210 (Lau~Ie's ]?espy Rand), is not eligible far tk~c National Register of Historic
Places because it is no longer reeains its outbuildings And ctunnot convey its historq as a farm or nursezy.
The house is not associated with persons significant fxom our past Futthes, the house is mot atchitceturzlly .
distinguished in foam, construction, or design.
The above commelnta are made pwtsuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Presctvxtion Act and the
Advisory Councal on T listoric Preaervatioa's Regtilatians fpr Cauxpliance with Sr:caoa 106 codi~6ted At 36
CFR Paxt 800.
Thank you far your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concetxdug the above commart,
contort Renee Gledh~l-Earley, environmcsttal review eoordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all futuxe
communiattion concerning tlxis project; please cite the above referenced traclti>og number.
cc Greg Thorpe, NCY7GT'
www.hao.dtr.st~tte.nc.ua
i
~~„ ~ MailieR Address ~ Tdcphobe/Fu
ADMINT$'t1tA7'tOIV 547 N. Blount Sl.. Rakich NC ~/6t7 Mei1 Service Cen[ee, Rakigh NC 2?699~46t7 (9t9) T3]-4763 .773-E1S3
RESfOM71oN SIS N. 9lcwnt SI„ Raleigh NC 4b17 Mail Service Cen[er, Raleigh NC 27699-4bI i {919) 733~Sa7 •715-4601
'3tI1tVEY rc ~LANN[NG S lS N. Bioun[ St„ Raloiy~ NC 16 t l Mail Scrvlcc Crnta Rakich NC 27699.4617 {g 19} 733~dS.IS . T 15.4601 ,

e r ~wc o
ry. +.r°
.++..
"' •t7
.North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Z, o
State Historic Preservation Office ~'a~~`
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 20, 2002
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Greg Thorpe; Manager
' Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
~~
FROM: David Brook ~~- ' ~~1L~~t~.---• .
We have conducted a search of our snaps and files and located the following structure of historical or architectural
~ortance within the-general area of this.project: ~ • '
SUBJECT:. Replacement of Brid~.ge 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.
Bridge No. 21
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historicri 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 maybe 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 dare made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Aci: and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance .with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. -
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning.the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. Iti all future communication concerning
this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number. - .
Division of .
David J. Olson,
~o

~~~~
ri/c}ly~gy~
DB:doc
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
Location
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
4613 Maii Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
4618 Mail Scrvice Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephoue/Fsz
[phone].733-8653
[phone] •'115-4801
[phone] •715.-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC

H' d ~Y~q~
ti
~~~~~'_
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
l,isbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey ). Crow, Deputy Secretary
Once of Archives and History
March 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
/,~J~4
Division of Historical Resources
David ). Olson, Director
TO: ,~ William D. Gilmore, Manager ~ - . '
Project Development an~ Erivirc~nmental Analysis Branch ~ .
Division of Highways ~Afl 2 '' ~Ou2'
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ~'
~~'
. N
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 21 a~`Sl~ 210 over~Cape Fear River, B-4223,
/~
Pender County,, ER 02-8581
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 maybe 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 Fury, in the Architectural History Section, to
determine if further study o f 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 296
CFR Part $00.
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
Loeition Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Rai«gh 27699-4617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Ral«gh 27699613
Survey 6c Planning ~ 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raldgh 27699-4618
Tdephone/Fax
[phone] •Z33-8653
(9!9)733-6547.715-4801
[phone].715-4801

4~ .

~ ~~~t~rex ~~a~urct~
' C4CJN7`Y MANAGEit'S bFFICE
" 887 S. WALKER ST"RE~~'
,.. POST OFFJCE J~pX 5
A~ ~UR,GAW, NORTH CARQLINA 28425
TELEPHONE [phone] FAX (9t 0) 259-1402
May 8, zoa~
~~cE~ v a
MaY ~ ~ ZGn;

Mr. tmgory J. 'Thorpe, Ph.D.
Eavis+orcmentalMernagement Director
Project bevelopment and Environmental Analysis araach . .
1548 Mail Service Center
Ralei~, NC 27599-1548
RE Rerolunan in S,~pport o, f Requesting N.C.17UT'to BuiXd a Temporary Bridge over ttte
Northeast Cape Fear River o+t N.C. Hwy 21 t1, or Place the 1Vew Bridge beside the
Existing One
T?eax Mx. Thorpe: ' ~ '
Attached is a copy of the resolution unanimously approved by the Pendes County Boazd
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,
Raspcctfully' -
~ G~~--
Glenda Pridgen _
Deputy Clerk to the I3oar<i
/CAP
Attachment

cc: Thurman Casey

INT$ODUCEA BY: An, dy Hedn,_ck,~att~'m~ Manager Date: 5!S 3
ltesalution in Support of Iteguesting N,C, DOT to Build
a ~'emporary Bridge aver the Northeast Cape Fear River. on N,G.
Hwy 210, or Place the New Bridge beside the Existing One ~.
SUBJkr.CT AREA: onv uni Develo went
AG'ITO1N REQUESTED:
To request N.C. DOT to build a temporary bridge over the Northeast Cape Tear
River on Hwy 210, or place tlu new bridge beside the existitt$ one.
HISTORY/BACKGRQCIND s
N' C. ~T ~ PreP~B ~ replace tb~ bridge over the Northeast Cape Fear River
on N.C. Hwy 210 at Lane's Ferry, Pender County Schools is requesting N.C. D(}T to
consider placing a temporary br3dgo across the river while they are buildiab a new oAe, or
placing s new bridge beside the existing one.
RV.ai.~,UATIQN:
If the exisdng bridge was taken up and replaced, not only would it be cosily for
the Schools' vehicles having to detour, it would also put hardship on the students by
having to increase their riding time,.

i

•~
MANAGER'S RECO1t~Il1~NDATION
~~~~d~~~~ ~~
nvrrrA~s
RE6OLUTION: NQW 1'~~'ORE $E IT RESOLVED by the Pender County
Board. of Commissioners that
N.C. Dot consider placing a new bridge beside the. existing one, or-place a
tetuporary bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear ~tiver white the existin; one is being
replaced....
. ~• i
. l,.
AIVIENAN~NTS ~ ..
MO'VRb ~ i -/ G h 64 r~i SECONDED ~ + «t a m 5
APPROVED X bENTEp UNANIMOUS
i
„r --~.---,. -.- ~l~,rnA~$. ~E,ST &~iekie~d-~- ~ W~iHiams ~ Dall~nd ~ - meadows ~; Rivaitbettc R ~• _ -- ~ ,.~ - -
M
Dwight Strickland, Chairman ~
ATTEST
IU~ ~/5/03
~~ ~ pate
i

'~
~e~t~rer ~~ur~~t~
~ COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
t " 108 S. COWAN STREET
t..,... POST QFFICE BOX 5
~'Mp~~1 BURGAW, NORTH CAROLINA 28425
TELEPHONE {910) 259-1200 FAX (910} 259-1402
December 11, 2002
Mr. Don Eggert
Rural ~'ransportation Planner
Cape Fear Council of Grovernments` ~ _ .
1480 Harbour Drive
Wilmington, NC 28401
Dear Mr. Eggert:
As per your suggestio~o, I am forwarding continents' on the planned replacement: of fridge Number
Z1 (Highway 210) over the Northeast Cape Fear Rivez in Fender County to you for submission with other
comments from the-region.- The Fender-County hoard-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 Est item is that Fender County wants to advise the Departmern of Transportation that Fender
County bas received perrraission from the. Council of State to bore under the Northeast Cape Fear River to
`~cate a water transmission line just south of the content bridge location. Several discussions have been
Held with Fender County Department of Transportation employees as to the plannedlocation of~the new
bridge, but no .one was able to advise about a prefe,nred placement. The installation of the water
transmission main will take place in calendar 2003: Yt 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 from Interstate 40.' ~£prolonged detours become necessary due to the bridge being located
where the current one exists, Fender County requests that alternate routes be heavily idernified on
Interstate 40 and Highway 17 along with notices at state welcome centers in eastern North Carol'ura
concerning a detour to arrive in eastern Fender County. Tf 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 Counfiy appreciates the opportunity to connTrrerrt on the project. Fender County looks
forward to the completion of this needed transportation irnprovezxrent.
Sincerely,
Andy edrick
Assistant County Manager
TOTAL P.03

e
PENDER CBUNTY BUS GARAGE
995 PENDERLEAHWY
BURGAi~V, N.C. 28425
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
email- [e-mail] ~~ ^ C ~ ~~
V C
DATE: November 24, 2002
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D. ~ SEC 3 2002
Environmental Management Director
o ~~
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~o~FC HIGHyy^y~
• ~ 1545 Mail Service Center ~'yF,y~FV~~oP~'~
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-15 . ~ rqt ANA~~s
. ~"^" ~ ..
FROM: Thurman Casey
Transportation Director
'. RE: ~ ~ Comments on B-422,:Pender County, Division 3, ReplaceBridge #21
At present, Pe>r~der 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 Ila~mpstead•to do inspections daily on 16 buses and fuel these
', buses.
• If other routes are used for these vehicles, it will add approzimately 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 ezisting
bridge or place a temporary bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to have input concerning. the impact that this
proposed project would have on the Pender County Schools Transportation Department
and the students that ride our buses.
cc: Dr. Marc Sosne
Superintendent
Pender County Schools

Pender County Emergency Management
Carson H. Smith, Jr. Eddie King Jan Dawson P.O. Booc 28 - Burgaw, NC 28425
Coordinator Fire Marshal Addressing Coordinator Telephone [phone]
smithc~pender-county.com [e-mail] dawsonj~pender-county.com Fax [phone]
August 8, 2001
Mr Davis Moore
State of North. Carolina
Department ~of Transportation
Project DevelopmentBranch
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. I understand the bridge in this location is
somewhat longer than.other bridges in the county that are routinely replaced and .-
areplacement 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 Rire
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.

._ .
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 Hurr~i~,ane 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 rep{aced on Hwy 210 between
Rocky Point and Hampstead over the past several years but neither one of them
was elevated. As a result, every large flood event causes water to' come across
in those areas (Merricks Creek and Harrisons Creek) and we loose the use. of the
North Carolina Highway. It would be prudent I think to raise Hwy 210 near the
River several feet so we will not have this problem, in this area again.
Again thank you for. requesting input and if you have any questions, please
contact me. . ~ ~ ~ `' ~ .
.Sincerely,
~~ ~~
. Carson H. Smith Jr.,
Coordinator

FENDER COUNTY BUS GARAGE
995 PENDERLEA HWY
BURdAW, N.C. 28425
one
Fax [phone]
email- pcbuses(a~.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 Fender County Schools has 5 regular school buses that cross this
bridge twice a day.. This number could increase b~- 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
eztra on every bus and an additiona145-60 minute riding time, each morning .and
afternoon for the students. At the present time, it host 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 houfs which have students that live beyond this
bridge. These students would also have #o be taken home in the late afternoons.-
We also have a fuel truck and service vehicles that pass over this.bridge~to servicethe
. 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.
~'es, this would create an "UNWORKABLE" situation for bus transportation for Fender
County Schools.
If you have other questions, please ca11910-259-0141.

C
DATA F{JRM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(198T COE Wetlands Defineatiort Manual)
Project/Site:- ~ " t`{ ~ ~ 3 • • Date: ~ o? S, j ~ j
ApplicaatfOwner N~(~G7J County: ~ ~C
Investigator: ~ .`~ L State: /U ~..
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y~e No Community 1D: Swratp ~,,.is f
is the site signitit:antly tfisturbed (Atypical Situation)? ~ Ye o Trensect ID: ~-J~ c.•
{s the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: ~ . t,,,E~,,,~
Ill needed, explain:on reverse
VEGETATION
m
r
Ti
Do
arrt
Plant SpFcics
~, Str
a
tum Indcator _Oominarrt Plant Species Strattern )ndreator
}
-
-
~
~
l ~ 1
1-_ I'tXD~tul-i C~i37Y~hHrY1 -
r
. • ` ~~ ~ 9.

a_ C1uE•tc tau.-i~1;a T ~4C ~ tt.
4. /~~ /'C.c 6r~,n T c.
,c
~ 12.
5_ ~
'S.~O~t
t'~(E. Q!'1'C~/lrTtr C'f p
A
V
1
~-
J. 73. .
n
t (('''
n
`
~- 15.
8. ~ 76.
Percent o! Dominam Species that are OBI. FACw or )
FAC lexdudmg FAC-) ~ l~ n
(.r /D
RemarAs:
1 pd.
HYDROLOGY
i
~~
Recorded Data IDescnbe in Remarks):
_Stream. lakc or Tide Gauge .
_Acrial Photographs
Other
~No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology lndcators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_/Saturated in Upper ,2 lnchcs
' / Water Marks
Drih Lines
~Sed~ment Deposits
VDrainage Pan erns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators 12 or more required):
_Ox;dired Aoot Channels ;n Vppcr t2 Inches
_/Water-Sta;ned leaves
Local Sort Survey Data
_FAGNCUtrat Test
-Other IEapla;n ;n Remar6s)
Rem,rks:.
Fidd Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water ;n Pit: [in,)
Oepth to Saturated So;l: lt) (;n.)

SOILS
Mop Unit Name ~

( ~J t'~ '"" "'
(Series and PAase): ~. N ~d.•t it-t-~
Drairo a Class:
~ Field Observations
ed T
S Confirm Map
'
ype: Yes No
Taxonomy (Subgraupl: ~ rn~G!(S p
T,
a-1~/'t S
profae Ucscription'
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Cobrs Mottle ~ 7exturt. Concretions. .
u
Inches Horiion INFunsCA Moist) IMunSfII Moist) AbundancelCo~ Str
cture. etc.
o..,a ~vy~ ~~a • s~~~----
•~ (D `~ ~ ~1~ S~v ~~^-
~
Hydric Sorl Indicators:
1•Gstosd _ Concretions ~
k~istie Epipedon _ liigb Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Sots
_ _
Sulfidic Odor
_ Organc Streaking in Sandy Sols
~ Listed on local dric Sols list
~
•
Agave Moisture Regime .
_
• Reducing Conditions /isted pn National Hydric Soils list
• ~Gleyed or low-Chrome Colors _ Other IEnpiain in Remarks)
Remarks:
• WETLAND DETERMINA7)ON
• '+ Hydrophytit Vegeution Present? es No (Carle) IC'ncie)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
es Nu
No
fs this Sampling Point Within
a Wetland? es No
Hydrit: Soils Present?
:{ •
.:' Remarks:
Approved by HaVSACE 2(92
~.:
HJL
8/93 ~~
• ~r
G~:
i•
Lr
{•.
,.

r
(~ ~ 1 ~ v
DATA FORM
RQl17INE WETLAND DETERMINA710N
(1987'COE Wetlands De{ineativn Manual)
a _ ~----
Project/Site: _a - I~ 'l 0")-•3 Date: $~a ~/D~
Applicant/owner: .~lC (~ D~'" Counry: _
Investigator: ~ ~ State: N t!
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No Community ID: s =S'~
!s the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ye ~o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes{No) PIoI 1D: . ~d
Iff needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION ~ '
Dominant Plant Soccies Stratvrn Indcator
7-~q~~c rt•t.~Orc~.w~ ~~-~_ SAC
?- /~~~ u t2l It u4 i1 ~La~ 1 ~R ~
4.
5.
6.
7_
g, • .
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACYV or
FAC lexduding FAC-)
Dominant_ Plant Soecies Stratum Indreator~ '{
s.
7 0.
77.
-,-.._
72.
13.
74:,
75.
. =--,~-
76.
1vo?o ~~
I Remarks: L~P j~'1w~ ~PbL°C1 Gt.[~y~ (' I VCS >'',
HYDROLOGY
~~
_Recorded Data IDescnbe in Remarksl: tNetland Hydrology hndcators:
^Speam. lake a Tidc Gauge primary Indicators:
Aerial photographs _ r~undated
Other
R Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
ecorded Data Available
r _
Drih lints
l
Sedrmern Deposits '

Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns ;n Wetlands
Seconda.y lndcators 12 w more required):
-Depth of Svriace Water- »...
•
Lin
) _Oxidr:ed Root Channels in Vppe~~ 1Z Inches
' Water-Stained leaves
Depth to free Water in Pit: ~ ~ Gn J local Soil Survery Da.U

Depth to Sarurated 5oi1- 7 I ~
(;n,J FAC•Neuual Test
_Other IEaplain :n Remarks)
AemarFs: /~ 1~ ~`, ~D 10~ ~ ~ lt~a 1 Cd..'~0~~

SO.tLS
Map, Uni[_Namc
(Series and Phasel: /Y(~1!!1_C) L•~ ~'/Or'P'/AYt 1~'~ - - DrairTage Class: ~. ~ T~~ t ~'~0_
~~ Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgnwp). I y~iL mQt',;,5[u9r1 SfS Confirm Mapped 7ypet Yes No
Profile Description•
Depth Matrix Cola Mottle Colors Motile Te~cture, Concretions,
inches Noriton (Mur-seA Moisil (Munscit Moist) Abundance/CorttLast Structure, ctC_
L- 7 D7o . Ca
_ Ss~9.t91 r.r
'FTydric.Soa hr~cators= ... .
_ Histosol _ Concretions •
_ kl'cstic Eprpcdon ~ _ ugh Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sols
_ Aquic Moisture Regime . _ Listed on Local •Mydric Soils list
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
6ieycd w Low-CMoma Colors _ Oilacr (F}plain in Remarks)
Rrrnaiks: ~ ~ tQ •
~at. ( ~f ( ~Y~oh- ~tj~1L
.WETLAND DETERMINATION •'
Hydrophlrtic Vegetation Present? 7es No !C•uclc)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes' No
~: Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
•
s.
s_ ~ Remarks:
HJl
$!93
lCirtle)
Is this SampFng Point Within a Wetland? . Yes No
. ~i
Approved by HpL/SACE ?/92. ~:_
~.
. ~..
~~
/~Dn,, : .
AP v V
RI
~. 2 goo
~~
~' r ~~
~.'

0
O c°v
Q ~
~
(p N
a

~
]
_
x U "

O p W ~
w o z ~ ~.~'

~•
~ ~ M `,
o 3 ~'`
a
w
A
•U
Z
F
WW
• x

M
W
Q
~D
O

O
11
z
0
0

w
0
g

H
W

Q

Q
W
~ ~
Q z

c
'
~ ~ o 0
Z ~ 0

~ y
cct'i a
o
F- r"n m n. y ~
~- ° o
U
Q L E ~--
3SU-
~
~ C
rn a~ ~ a~
W N td a~~ O 0
~ Wv ~a

w
U ~ 0 0
~ ~ ~ N O O
j O O
y~
/
. ~
T
7
~t C
'~j ~ ~
~
C ~ ~ ~ O
0 O
0
N a~ _
H a
V
d y
c
c
c
~ ~ C ~ ~ o

M 0

M
F- U 3 0 0

a N
~~'o
~ L~ y~ O O
~ ~V?~ 0 0
~ U ~ c

3 a o ~'
~ ~
~ 5 0
0 ~
~
~-
g ~.
~
~ o 0
~ •
N
n C~ V
E -_ - ~p O
O O
O
~ LL. >
> O O
~
G C C
~
~ ~ N N
- tC1 to
~tL> O O
~.

' O
O N
'~
d n ~
~ T
,~ `.-
O
m
m ~..
M N
N r dl
~
`
rn a
~ ~
c
O C +
-~
'~ E
° N
~
v
M
C7

J
y O .- ~
fn 2 O

REFERENCE NO. ~~®~~~~ 11
NAMES AND
NAMES ®D`1' l~l ~~~
ADDRESSES
ADDRESSES
2511 S. CanEerbur~ Road
1 Cason Trask
WilmingEon, NC 28403

2
River Rock Farms, LLC 2511 S. CanEerbur~ Road
WilmingEon, NC 28403
1802 FawncresE CE.
• 3 E. Allen James , •
Vienna, VA 22182.
Hall Famih ProperEiec of 718 MarkeE SEreeE
~
WilmingEon, LLC WilmingEon, NC 28401
5 Randall M. BosEic 10604. NC Hwy 210
Rocky PoinE, NC 28457
8635 TuEEIe Road
6 Wesley Williams
Springfield, VA 22152
P•O. Boz 93
7 HuberE Harrell
Burgaw, NC 28.425
8 Lam Moore 10567 NC Hwy 210
Rocky PoinE, NC 28457
9 Lisa Mae HaEcb New York, NY 10026
P.O. Boz 276
10 gaErina L. Robinson Rock, PoinE, NC 28457

~.
U
w
~~
Za
W ~
/ Q
~~~
E
~_
N
0
0
N eaa
a~i irr~d ~av~ .~
LEY3.HILON V QOOb
Z
. I ~
Z~
. -~
Q
W OC
m d
`Q'
0
H
0

~
w
° ~
`~
~
CV
~ ~

per..
~ _
~
U ~
~ ~ ~ ~ z
~
x z aa o w z

~

~ .,

~;

~

w
0

a ~ o a ~ ~~
~ z o H ~ o 0
z w ~,
~ ~ a
o 0. p ~ w (~J
? a ~
ca F a .
.a z~ H
z ~ w
.

~
_
YJ J

~'
~, NOR' H CAROLiNP

..
~ ~
~ ~'~
1 ~.
\ ,,, ~ _ 635 lsso
Pti-,422 ~,. ~ " t. ~ ~ v.+
~ ~, _ ~-
s16 ~ ~' ~
,630 ~
~, f
1632 1636 151E 319 ~~ ,
~~ 1517 ~ .` ~ 1 i
• ~ ~.
,,, 1636 1s1o
1
~ - ,
1 ~ ~ 1 ' `1
(NOT TO SCALE)
1 r ~~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p PENDER COUNTY
~/ ~( PROJECT:33561.1.1 (B-223)
BRIDGE N0.21 OVER
1° 1L ~ NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON NC 210
SHEET \ OF ~~ ~ / 22 / OS

v p
o ~ o
^ ~ ^
~~
U
:~ ~ ~ ~ :~
• -~.2 ~ ^0^ ~ ~rl
O
.~ i Q'
~ ~ ~ i ..0
,o
~~ ~_ ,o a
~_ a^ ;o
m d ~ ~ v ;o E
.. _ ~,~ ~
jm
,~ ~ ~ im
io B
a n. ~
s~~=~~~
y ggqO~~ a ~ ~ ~ I _
>~~~~: ~ N
~ '
~~ ~~~ 0 N
~ o ~ z .. $
c ~
kr~ ~ ~~~
~~. ~
°.L~f~.b;. a -¢ .:`o ~ ~ ~ o moo, LL
:h ..,~
U
f ~.
• ~~ .' -~ .SIN
O ~
..~ ~ • ~ CU
O ~ O ,.a
~~~ ~ -~
~~ ~ ~
~ .~ ~ ~ ~ $ °
~~" : ~_ o
to ~ ~ ~ ^
~d ~ . ; ao d ` ri v O
. _ m
,m
p
.a > a j o
Qo m
'~O:m ~.O O
L N
~ "O
2~ 3..t t ~ 3 a a ~'~
av a. m t "' o y H 4oc ~ .~
E " « a°o o V y V1 .~
U ._ d N Q O "~ erg rn

U
a:
a
0.

N
lL
M
O
.n
as o rz° m
^^ ~ o^ ~
o w

Ci r
3
m
~o ~
~~
E ~
~ ~ ¢
~D' O
U
W m
d 2, fL
--
^^ ^

m
>
~
~
m ~ ~
~~~~
I~ ~} ~~~
Ia x m o
a

~ a a
a .
E~~~i~
o
8~i >
.m
~~ _~°~ 3
}~
tr7
~ `~
k ~
rl
~ O
0"'
~ o
~o
0
0
a ~
~~
m
m
~,o
N
r
a
S
Y € O
y
C
~~ ~~ ~ ~+N
~~~~~~
~
w
a ~z $ $
w
~ ~
C
~~;gym
t.
~ $ - w~.q ~ ~

ot..
a.r
ro ~
,~ ~
€
Uxa~,do ~. ~ xr3 ~~ u°.

~
q
O
.
~1 ~ ~•~'
L.1
O
~ Z. L
~ M
~
'~

~
r w
U 3 a
~
r ~ ~ ~ ~
-• ,~ ~ 3S ~ O ~ U7
~ 3S a~ ci i ~

$,
` m.

~ z

^oo
~~
~o

4
~ .~
m - S Q"
2 ..D

~ g ~~ ~~ ~,~ 80
~
rn m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ O a
rmr~~
d SO' ri v ~
. E
~ ~

1.~ ~ .: ~.
~,. ~ ._,. rn
~ ~ ~ v
m
~ ~Rf 7
o~moE
U dlr ~`N
N O O r.. ui
yP O
ri Z,m vx E
m~ v~
_>>~~~ a
R N t0 m V
~~$mm$y o
~m~ ~,
~ m C ~ ~ O m
m~o3Y~ °v
av amt a
m
EEcy.oi°.o
U°=a`ai¢`o a
m ~
O
I~ o°
N
U_ oNo
..r
y y N
C UU N
q Rt
N
o
l3.1 °: ,

U
m
vi
o
z m
m y
U Z
dr ~.

Q/
Q
~ T
M
O
m

r
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.., , , .. , ,~ , ,_ , _, .., , ,, , .,_ ,W .., , . _ : ', ... _
VEGETATION PLANTING
The restoration site will be planted following the completion of the site grading. The
" following riverine swamp .tree species will be planted: bald cypress and swamp
blackgum.
The hardwood -tree species utilized shall be 18"-30" in size and shall be bare root
seedlings that are at least one growing season in age. Planting density shall be 680
seedlings per acre, which equates to a plant spacing of 8 feet on-center.
MONITORING: ~ ~ .. ' '
Upon successful completion. of construction, the following monitoring strategy is
--~ - "proposed for--the mitigation site. Any remediation necessary during the--monitoring --
period will be coordinated with the appropriate agencies.
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
No specific hydrological monitoring is proposed for this. restoration site. The target
elevation will be based on the adjacent wetland and verified during construction.
Constructing the site at the adjacent wetland elevation will ensure that the hydrology in
the restored area is similar to the hydrology in the reference area.
VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
NCDOT shall monitor the restoration site by visual observation and photo points for
survival of planted seedlings. NCDOT shall monitor the site for a minimum of five years.
Monitoring will be initiated upon completion of the site planting.

Y
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..-...Tlie. project .begins .approximately..1.10.0 feet. west. of Bridge..hla.. 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. 2.1 are 0.52 acre. Therefore, the
surplus 0.43 acre of restoration will be available for future projects in the Cape Feaz
River Basin (HUC 03030007). _
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
.The project is located in Pender County approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 km) north of
1Vlooretown 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 irr ~ - ~-
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 vaz. 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/hazdwood forest
. along the existing causeway. Canopy species in this transition zone between the swamp
forest and the existing causeway aze dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple,
sweet bay, and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
The proposed wetland mitigation will consist of restoring approximately 0.95 acre of
riverine swamp wetland. Restoration will involve removing causeway fill and transition
area to match the adjacent swamp wetland elevation. The restored area will be planted
with species commonly found in riverine swamp communities.
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for TIP B-4223, dated April 2004, provides further
details concerning existing and proposed roadway conditions.

Form DCM-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 azea to be filled- 530 feet
(2) Width of area to be filled SS .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 Asper plans
(3) Purpose of fill Proposed roadway shoulder
improvements
4. GENERAL
a. .Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
X Yes No
If yes, explain in detail Fill and excavation required
for Droaosed 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, 6ackhoe 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
Iv too T
Applicant or Project Name
~~
Signs
3~I~tG
Date
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-MP-S
2. CITI,VERTS
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 cleazance underneath existing
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain)
Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert? ~.
Yes No .
If yes,
(lj 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
j. 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 in cubic
. 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
' •~ ~ yazds
c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes No
If .yes,
(1) Length of azea 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
Unlrnown 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. --
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-IVIP-5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for LAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-I. 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
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
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge 1.
Northeast Cape Fear River
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL 1VILW 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 pair of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain)
g. Length of proposed bridge
h. Width of proposed bridge
920 feet
33 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 Fi11 for shoulder
imvrovements. NCDOT will be ouenine 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.
Revised 03/95

Form DCM-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 fonm, 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 may knowledge.
~E
This is the 1 .day of /~iw,li ,-k9
Print Name ~t, p S • ~~s "~
Signature L~.~
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 DCM-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-.
elm 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
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the
applicable zoning? x Yes No
(Attach 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
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. ~ pescribe 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 DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
b. City, town, community or landmark
Rocky Point
1. APPLICANT
c. Street address or secondary road number
NC 210
a. Landowner: ' .
Name lVC Department'of Transportation
Address 1548 Mail Service Center
City Raleigh 'State N.C.
Zip 27699 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name ~ .
Address
City
State
Zip Day Phone
Fax
c. Project name (if any) B-4223
NOTE: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Pender
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
a. List all 'development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, .bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Bridge Construction -Replace existing
bridge to the south. Construction of work
bridge, excavation and filling activities
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? New
c. Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? Public
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 existing
structure (16.5/10(i sufficiency rating}. Typical
roadway construction methods and techniques.
Revised 03/95

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. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Prog. and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE-Wilmington
Mr. Elmo Vance, PDEA '

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 a No E No Effect
Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Yes E No Effect
Schwalbea americana American chaffseed ~. No ~ E No Effect
Cltaradrius melodus Pi in lover No ' T No Effect
Picoides borealis . Red-cockaded wood ecker No . E No Effect
Alli ator mississi iensis American alli ator NA T S/A) NA
Carattd carretta Lo erhead sea turtle No ~ T No Effect
Aci eraser brevirostrum Shortnose star eon Yes E MA-NLAA
Thalictrum Goole i Coole 's meadowrue No E No Effect
Amaranthus umilus Seabeach amaranth No T No Effect
L simachia as erulae olia Rou leaved loosestrife No E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered.
"T" denotes Threatened.
"f(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 sepazate application, we are 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.

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
-f •'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 betwe February 1 and June 30 tt~ 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 ~estoratiori' 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.

~Y .ten°~
~y ° r-+•
~.~~ ~~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTN~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 2, 200b
N. C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
2877 Highway 70 .
Beaufort, NC 28516.
ATTENTION: Mr. Bill Arrington
DOT Project Coordinator
Dear Mr. Arrington:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
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. 33667.1.1,
' 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 `"i~pstream_.;,of the existing bridge and B ~~Sw
~~tr€of the existing bridge. Construction of the proposed project will result in
permanent :lilt of ~.52,_acre of jurisd~ctioial wetlands and x.35 acre of hand ar~g:
Impacts to the Northeast Cape Fearl~~'~~sifposed~ o~,Q:0~~4 a of pert~canenIx
from the construction of bridge bents anal x.008 acre of temporary fill` for th~ construction
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVK:E CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPtIONE: 919-715-1334
FAX: [phone]
weas~re: www,ncdot.ora
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SURE 240
RALEIGH NC 27699

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT -- B-4223, Bridge No. 21 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County
PAGE 3
10. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
As proposed, the construction of the bridge approaches with 3:1 slopes would require the filling of
approximately 0.52 acres of 404 type. wetlands and approximately S.S acres of impacts to high
ground. The additional width of the bridge would cause approximately 3780 square feet of additional
shading impacts to Public Trust Waters AEC. Removal of approximately 550 lineal feet of
previously filled causeway (50 feet on each side will later be used to armor.the end bents under the
new bridge) would result in the disturbance of approximately 0.95 acres of high ground.: Disturbance
of 0.014 acres ~of surface wafer is expected during the installation of the bridge bents.
NC DOT has -reduced the wetland excavation and. fill impacts associated with this proposal by
lengthening the bridge from 590 to 920 feet. NCDOT agreed to use hand clearing rather than Type III
mechanical clearing in wetland areas adjacent to the river. The bridgewill span. the waters of the
Northeast. Cape Feaz River, be constructed by top down methods, and be lengthened to reduce
impacts to the wetlands adjacent to the bridge. Lengthening the bridge also creates a wetland buffer
between the bridge approaches and the waters of the Northeast Cape Fear River, allowing some
treatment of .the storm water run off associated with the bridge and roadway. NC DOT has
committed to dropping no materials from the bridge demolition in the water. Due to the presence of
anadromous fish in the Northeast Cape Fear River, NC DOT has committed to an in-water work
moratorium from February 15 to June 15. The NC DlOT~lias proposed to use Design Standazds for
Sensitive Watersheds BNiP's to minimize the impacts of erosion. -
The proposed removal of 550 feet of existing causeway (minus the area rip rapped to protect the end
bents) should restore approximately 0.95 acres of fill causeway to its natural hydrology. NC DOT is
asking for riverine restoration mitigation credit for this azea. Due to the relatively. small areas
involved and the direct connection to the waters of the Northeast Cape Fear River, NC DOT has
asked to use verification of elevations in the restoration azea rather than performing hydrologic
monitoring. NC DOT would be permanently impacting approximately 0.52 acres of wetlands in this
proposal and is proposing to offset these impacts with the 0.95 acres of restoration, leaving 0.43
acres of riverine mitigation credit for future projects.
The collective disturbance area for the project is approximately 6.4 acres.
Bill Arrington
April 3, 2006
Morehead City

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
NC DOT - B-4223, Bridge No. 21 over the Northeast Cape Fear River, Pender County
PAGE 2
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The site of this proposal is Bridge No. 21 on NC210, approximately 3 miles east of the intersection
with NC 117, at the crossing of the Northeast Cape Feaz River, in Pender County. The general
purpose of the project is to replace the deteriorated 590-foot long by 24-foot wide bridge with a 920-
foot long by 33-foot wide concrete box girder bridge Spanning the Northeast Cape Fear River and
the adjacent wetlands, to allow safer driving conditions for the traveling public and restore a more
natural hydrology to the Wetlands adjacent to bridge No. 21. ~_
Bridge No. 21 crosses the Northeast Cape Fear River where the river is approximately 420 feet wide.
The bridge crossing the Northeast Cape Fear River is flanked with 404 type wetlands in the southeast
and northeast quadrants and wetlands along the river in the northwest and~southwest quadrants.
There is a picnic azea/camp site in southwest quadrant and a small store and boat ramp in the
northwest quadrant. Vertical clearance between the water and bridge bottom is approximately 24
feet. The 404 type wetland area is . classified as a Cypress-Gum swamp. -The road shoulder is
vegetated with grasses, Poison Ivey, Greenbrier, Red Cedar, Sweet Gum, Black Willow and Myrtle.
Soils on this site are Dorovan Muck and Norville Muck as classified by the NC Soil Conservation
Service. Approximate elevations on the site range between 1 feet and 10 feet above Normal High
Water (NHW). No evidence of SAV beds was noted. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
classifies waters of the Northeast Gape Fear River as C-Sw upstream and B-Sw downstream of
bridge. The Northeast Cape Fear River is not Primary Nursery Area, as designated by the North
Cazolina Division of Marine Fisheries, at this site. Shellfish were not observed in the Northeast
Cape Feaz River and the area is closed to the harvesting of shellfish. The project azea is within
CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern and is designated as Conservation bythe Pender County
Land Use Plan.
The proposal is to replace the existing 590-foot long by 24-foot wide bridge with a 920-foot long by
33-foot wide box girder concrete bridge to the immediate south side of the existing bridge. The
proposed bridge would have a vertical clearance approximately the same as the existing bridge
(approximately 24 feet). Constructing this project would include removing 450 feet of the previously
filled causeway (that is approximately 60 feet wide) and grading it to correspond with the
surrounding wetlands. The bridge approach roadway would be approximately 6 inches higher than
the existing roadway. The bridge is being widened from 24 feet to 33 feet to more closely correspond
to the 12 foot paved travel lanes and 6 foot grassed shoulders of NC210. NC -DOT Best
Management Practices would be used for bridge demolition and Design Standards for Sensitive
Watersheds would be used for Erosion control. NC DOT has committed to no in-water work from
February 15 through June 15 of each year, due to anadromous fish moratoriums.

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Bridge No. 21, on NC 210 over the Northeast Cape
Fear River in Pender County
Photo Index - 2000: 238 grid: 6H & 6I 1995: 230 grid: 18E & 18F
State Plane Coordinates: x 2349419 y: 173585 GPS: Rover File #Xl 10915A
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. IIWESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit -11/9/05
Was Agent Present - Nb
. 5. ~ PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received as Complete- 3/10/2006
Office -Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan -Pender County
Land Classification from LUP -Rural & Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved:, CS and PTA
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
~. (F) Type of Structures: Existing - NC 210 and 590-foot long by 24-foot wide bridge
• Planned.- NC 210 and 920-foot long by 33-foot wide bridge
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A Source: N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
F..rr-av~tp.l Filled ether
(A) 404 Type Wetlands 0.52 acres shoulder 0.35 acres temporary
widening and rip rap Disturbance for hand
clearing
~ 0.014 acres- (bridge bents) is m10,080sq. ft.
Public Trust Area -
~) ~ 0.008 acres temporary (work rtt aI
Open Water brid a and tem .bulkhead Shading 3780 sq. ft.
(C) Other -High Ground 0.95 acres Approximately 4:5 acres
(causeway (In roadway)
removal)
(D) Total CAMA AEC Disturbed: Approximately 0.57 acres
(E) Total azea disturbed by project: Approximately 6.4 acres
(F) Primary Nursery Area: No
(G) Water Classification: C-Sw upstream and B-Sw downstream of bridge
(H) Open for Shellfishing: No
8. PROJECT .SUMMARY: The N.C. Department of Transportation is proposing to replace the
existing 590-foot long bridge over the Northeast Cape Feaz River with a920-foot box girder concrete
bridge spanning the Northeast Cape Feaz River and the adjacent wetlands. Approximately S50 feet of
causeway would be excavated from the existing roadbed with 450 feet of that area restored to its
previous wetland hydrology.

DCM Ye OWQ X
Development Type FEE (14300 1601 435100093.1625 6253 .. 2430016Q2 435100Q95 2341
1. Private, non-commercial ,
development that does not involve 5250 100°!° (5250) 0% (St))
.the filling ofexcavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
II. Public or commercai development
that does not involve the filling or 5400 1009'0 (5400) 0% (50)
expvation of any wetlands or open
water areas:
III. Far development that involves the ~ .
'tilling and/or excavation of up to 1
acre of wetlands and/or open water
areas, determine if A, B, C, or D
below applies:
lll(A). For Private, non-commercial
development, if General water Quality 8250 100°/, (5250) 0% (SO)
Certification No.3301 (see attached)
can be applied: ,
III(f3): For public or commercial
development, if General water t]uality 5400 1009'° (S400) 0% (50)
Certification No.3301 (see attaphed) •
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) '
could be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional review and 5400 60% (5240) 40% (5160)
written DWQ concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to water
quality or aquatic life:
111(D). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3301 (see attached) 5400 60% (5240) 40% (5160)
can not be applied:
IV. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of more 5475 60% (5285) 40% (5190)
than one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas:

Z ~ j~ z ~ ~ c
Z ~ 4
~ z ~~~~
o ~~
Z ~ zg 3.
~ N ~ ~' ~ . ~
G ~ ''<~ a8 ~W ~ .
o ~~ a. W~ ~, 1 0
° ~~ ~ ~'
W
z~ I. ~
• 0 'W ~ ~
' `
J~
V N W ~ 'Y\'M.'•
We Z ~ ~ ~
s ~z~~ coy
0
i i~1~ WNW ~j. 3 ~~~~OS y
1~ _ ~ FF-1
~~:.~~E °zopu ~ \
arc
[G
•1
~ W ~
w
ww
~2
W In
~ ~, -MOS r
(A •-'• '^
H ~
U ;
QZ
°- o
E
z
03
zo
N ,. .:

N ..
r
O Z
Q
V
f8
Odd
Q/br~
J~
W I ~I
. 1
I
I
11
N
I I
~s W II
$~ 11 1
~ "~
~~ it
II
II
11
W I
I
~ I I -
v I
y A II
+bZ ~b'1S -~-
i3HS O1 Hilt
~1 I
I! II
r II ~• •

Y-~
+ pl I
~' I ~ 'j~({) ~ o
I~ I
Ih '~
~ I r
I
I ~ ~ a ~~
~~ ~ iI I u i
I . r '~ ~
II 1
III
I II
it
. ~I I I
11
II
II
II
I I I ,~
. ~ II
• ~
Il s
II
II
II
Ir
II
II
I '~
1I '
II
I I
I •
y ~ I
I I
I
I •
I •~ I
bI ~ ~
~I j
I I
I f I •
I
I I
I ~ I
~~!!t~,~
ti:1 I I
I ' f I
I N I
I' I
~T'I I~ I

J
qZ
f
O
Q'
W
~Si
e ~ .~
4 1~
lh$
40N 1 „
O m
V p
H ~
O O'~O
V~D ~'
_I m `~ p
p~~ ~
J .
a 8
a ~
N
0~ f •-
4 LL
~O
= N
~ m
u
a
.g
fDvWi~ ~ ~
~mx
ate, ° ~ 8
wu~ A
wag
W «~ ~
N F
£h
fiS
CC 'S~'~jj 4
ooA
L
O
_ ~ C
7
~- O
aa~ y: e
a~« ~
~J ~ ~ F
p~€ ~
w
a g
'^ +
€~ {
~.~ •a~
M LWfOM L002/6

J s~ .
1~ : ~ ~~ ~,
~i N
t ~ ,v 5. ~
~ /-` o
~ rt '
~~an .
N~
~~~ •
W V:+'t_~
"mil .. '~ .. .. .. ..
--~~_
~~ fey c~ b
W + ~~{ ~ i
~A ~~ c~,1
y ~~ C
C
.J ~~, O
a
9
r~ `_ L7~
4M ~ __ _
-L _
n/,
^/ ~ vn.
~ ~ Obf~d
SNOISIA311

V29/ZOOS ML22 AN
r~
\H
\- N/\ ~ ~N ~

L
L

~:
~~
m
~~ ~y0
~~ m
o ~
~-I
I
i~
8$ o
I ~,~~ I
~~ gon
'
;,
o x
''-- ,~
~
y ~Jy ~~
5
~.

+ ~
I^

~ n
_r
~~m
y
Y c
r
pyD
L
g O
Vim("'
'~ gm~
o~o a
s ~
C
x
ao ; ~;
~ ~ O+~
T~ ~^~
-~ Y 7
y N ~`~~~
u ~ ~
8 s /SfOp
r0
~~fT1
~ C o' n ~r_' _
'~ . $mc~
o~ o o
c a ~ \
~ a~ _
mo
~;r.: ~
w - ,~
• y
~! -~~~ ~lV~`
\• ~,
~~ " \ I c~
-r;.
~~rt.,, ~
i
n
~f
('.i ~!
~..__,__~\ l
r~ ~~
~,
20f00
----1r;~3 ,,~
/ ~
`£3 "`1~ 1°/ b
/...
~ .I. ^
~ ` ~ ~ ~?~R ~

+1
o .~ :.
-~
r '~
1 0
~ ^'
o ~.;
~`,}
m
rn
x
m
v
0
,ti;

'~- STA. 24+50
RENSIONS
i~
~~
.,
.,
I ~~
a
~`.
I
0

I ~~ J 1
-_ -_ _. --- .-'1

~.
~,
~~
\\ :t1
~\
\ _ _ ~_~
\\ (~
/•
`,/
~'
~.~ \..~ 1
1
s
N
~,t l
~,~ ~
/1/ 'JI
D ~'~;
~ ~'
~; ^. r / .
.~~ . `~..
`^->
~• ~ N_

ZO

"f .
~ O~
z
D
~
4
i'
1 i! Hn
ti
~N
E
In m
_~
mm
m
y
_,
~~ r.~
~-°m
_...~ \ ~ b~~p
s „. ~ rnA
"~ 2
Soo
rnA~
9o•~~

1_
as a 4
3..E ,3"
E
0
~
.
~` ~y NN~y A ~
: ~'
` ,
`
FTC
~
~ MCI ~V~Nz i
~
.
5~
5
Yy.
-ice .
r n
O

~'~--'~....~ ~ t W
^ ~=O
s
~~i
.
,
~
~~
l ~x z ~
g~ K
.,

.
."`..-J
..- T z~ "C
~~
~
.

RlVISIONS
vxiixoos ~~nu ~u
s=
2s+~
,~'
I L
r
.
a
-+ v
m m
~r~
C gsv
O
1

l
~~ 1
1 (''i.9f~ ...
/
cr.
n
3 ~
~
mov ~j ,
`
u~~n }
rr~
;~!;' 1

i i 1
1•
(
J
~~ ~
,

/ ~
r ~ ( ~ ~
~~'
\
t
x ti9
~~.~~ 1 }rp
\~\, /
~ AH `

.
~•~
n •
y `,`N ~r
~
~ = f
rn ~
~~
1
1..--•. y
\. l/~ j
~
~ O I
~A i
~, \

-V ~ > ~- MATCH TO

~~~
^80~
K I.
~:,
Np4TR E/Si CME FENP
~Q
^
4
€~
i~ `- .
c -I
~~,' \t NO
_.~- -_._._.._ D m
_ TN
4 ~ ~~ ~ -{
~, % ~ ,'4~ mm
_~ ~ y ~
'/ ~
i
0
o cm _o
f1Z Ty ZZ
m~ ~~ m°
DN S~ rN
c~iD ar z~
z mr or
p 9Z r
~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~. ~ ~ "s
~, N u ~ , .,..:r~.;,
m /
~ ~ aJ \. `'-rod. }~.~ .: __ '-~. ~. ~
J.J ~• ~1 ~..,+ . I ,,,~
~,..,
m
. ,
' rn tN
r ; <p `
~, ~
J ~ I n _...._.~
/~'/ ~IE R ~ ~ ~ ,~'J fix/ 1 _
m 1 ~ _~" r`
(~~ O.ll' S 28'SS'~S4
c oIJL '~~.~_ r~ =~'l7 J••f 257.8-
,~ ~ IJr II-`~
`£ N
c
~ . • c,~~o
. I ~o
e3
- f EBB.` FCB00 -)'
Z
tJ 41NN11 ~~p
NN~O ~07e
++++ O O
~~vv 1•~n
O uull
V VNNO pylO
t+t+y~
ppVVy ~~..m
M~RTN EAST CME FEM NNfR
'..;-rixa~~` .~~
5~
'"~

l~~
- ~s or ~m
y
~~
~

. p
I
mo c
ti
~r r

K
~i
_ ~

s oO~Q ~ ~ ~. : I ~
.
$y$N
l~r
~ a ~ It
~
I ~ ,
T'
K ~ ~~ ~

ti

~ ~
O

<~
' I
: I Z
' H-

~~
+
_
N
~ I
~
~ ~ .o ~^
~ ~~ ~ m ~ ~ t
~ i*1 ~ ~ ~
~ o ~ ~9Q o~ ~
~_, ,, rn s~~t ~~
<n n rn ~
rn < ~
~g
z ~ ~ MATCH TO SHEET 6
-L- STA. 38+50

,.
:.
...
If- ../ O~Z ~.. I'
v
~_ ~ ~
. r
/' ~ ~... ~ N ~ 0
~ ~ ~ O ._..._.
~ ~ `~\ 8 ~ z j ~ ~
,~ '~ ~J 1 ~ ~ s~ ~~~N~
p ~N
1 ,. ~
~y
~ ~J .'
. N ~ Q ltt

f = Q ~ ~ M.56 .6F .
ry
u m <,~ a rj ~~ ~y a ~°' Y' I Y~ a
-i ~ . {. t~ ~I O 1 . ..
x.a. ~ '•ro ' ~ ~ ~ ul W ~ ~t
-r ~.^ A
Y9 ^? e~ 7Zo~tne`n ~/ u~~ "`'~- ~ ` ~ `- Y- s c • ~ 00+05 ~~
_~ ` " ~ ~ ~p
NZ~ yam. ~ '~ ~ \; su I : J ~+
c ! y w F-+ t~ es'
G: Y e'ei ~~> ~ ~ Olo m c'.
m } `f',... ~_„~. f~~ \Y I I W ~ ~. \`. 1 3.CS .CS .9Z S
'l..- ..,
~ ,.5 f sr r a ~> ° ~ ` Ora' ~ "'
~~~'y .. a W ~ I ~I ~ ~f ~~ ~ Y
`\\\~~~ ''~ ,,t, I ICI F ~ 83
'~ O~k' ~ I ~~ W .n•.v_ _ .oo•zsl ~S I
3.04 .t-.OC 1
,~,'~;,~~ _~ ~ I ~ 3.05.1-.flt S ~ x
~8 ~~
'~4~ 43 I I~ N
~~ ~ ~ ~ §ti
II (~ Oqg~ C3 e ~
,, t _-_W III W °D ¢oC r ° ~ °'a
,ri u, I~ - 7pSp ~~ X x
u,~w . I u.
l `2(t]Q J•+K ~
~.1,~•,J~"....~ [O NULL \\ H~ ~ ~.Jj
~1...~'y r 111 ~\ • $ .~!`~,r!~J .
t ~I
} ,~t •' I
.~ ~ . W I I
L ~ I I ~
* I~ I ~ ' o
~} ~ I ~
N
~ Jti ~ ~~ S'~ ~ ~ 1 ~! ~ ~ W I 2 I p
i s I y M
'~;f' Y
, / h
4 I/ ` ' `'~ . ;. ~
? ti~~ tt ~ ~
.w ~ N ~ ~ i ' I ~ ..o
l v J ' I yi o
,- _ o ~
^ ,.f ?~ ~ p I I.. ~ a~x g
f.. -w II I wa«
,~,J' ~'"'„1' ~~ , j ~I~ II I Da€ o
~`~ 3 ~ ~ , II I v, g 8
~/./~j ff ,. -.Y
~~~
A ~~ °~° ' I ~~a
~t Q 1 O~M~ v~Q ~ ~W
J V y,~ O 1-0
~ \ ~ ~ .I I lL S ~ y ~ oa
`~ ~ .~ \
i~ pp
~ ~ 1 ~r~., it ( I W ~~~ w`« ~
I I p~' • a R
'~ ~ 31 ~•' d~s~
I N 4
/,~ J, ...~. wmg
/ J O r^ ~ s g
~ ~ `t' a ~ w ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I fv II c g ~ee~
O q'1 ~n, ~ O~+ / I •8 7
~\ o a o. / ~ w ~~~ ~ ~ Y ~ fig.
N H ~!
•` I
~ w ~'" ~
~1 5 133HS Ol H~1dW
m 0S45Y SooLitii!
SN0ISIA3il

RlVISIONS
f/ZT/ZOOS IIlY16 W
4~

c ~~..
~ a

E /~
-.
. a
..~
~I

}
~€
L o --

3 ~ m
~>m

G o r~
'S xCir=
vo
]I> ! i o TI

~r
~
b~ y
$
'I /
i
01 O
i
} .~ i ...J

r
m p
T
•
~Q,

O '
O
N ].y /
_-~
/ _
~

~
~ ~
G
8
+ m
N

O
:°j
~y~
r V

V
D ~
8 x~P
=• 0 4scl
=~

G ,no+.
0
siy

~~~
~'f'~
C
v I ~~~+
• i (~/, ~
MATCH TO SHEET 5 ~~~~ ~
-L- STA. 38+50 _ ,- '~'
`_ ~
+ `~
~ IE iM ~' /+z '~~ o 0
+ 1 / ~ z zm ...~.:
I ~ U 1 ~~ r ~ ~~ iN
~ IE ~" ~ ~` 1 , 1 ~
na z~
~~a ~
~ ~/
~,.. to ~ / !.~ \.. ~ ~
~ ,
~ ~-rJ~ `> ice{ a ~\.-. M 5~, r ~` ~;, -'/ _.,
I ~ \~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;~
I 1 ~ .. - •;
~~
./ `
Z 9 :.i S \
IE u ! .! y"m to `)/ i ~,y ~'~_'__•.-~.
/ r ~ ..
I -. o .~ ~ ^
~ ~ (.:._... w _.i S
r (~ {F ''~ i 'O 1 r~. ~°.
I !7~ , ul z J y~\ r
m r / ~:
/ % ` ~ `' fir
vT~ --~ '
_____--- `~ ~.....r -~
y N aNN J.
~ ; X x X111 I . '1\ ~' r~~l' ,f ~
~ ~.. E
9y ~ ~ .
_ ~ "'
~ . ~ ...N
X
t_x ~ ~ s I / ~ ..,
_~. ~r
/ .. .. s~ ~
o> ~ _
'U~ / ~8 ~ I I ~`~ N.
• 1
~~ _
~.__.--
„ ~ ~•.- ~
h~""`~-~
.. .. .. ..
.. ~ ~ °~,e. , ~-
~`) Q ter--" ® ~ ~ f'`-~,, `•_.. ~.,.-4..,
S 26' SJ' S]' E "' N hl I ~hh / r.,., .....~ a A'a
I.Oi1.68' ('' ~ ~- I' `,\ g.-1.\ 1 •".~ ^t ... - __' Sf'/\ ~ O<hm
..\ \,. J • ~ p~N ~~
l ~.._.\ ~hd .hF n ll1 ~ ~ . E ..~P~, ( oil
L~~•
~ / ~ s
s
`~ ` ~ " n ~'~, :~ ° '~ z Cam' ~ ~ N
1 "~
~ 11 ..1~ ~~ \,
~.
., ~l ~ . ~ ~ E g~,
m

I •~,, I I {, _i f ': I rr~-r1} i-il Tlrl.l.._ I f Ii _.. Iltill fhp :..
' ,.. I r I " 1 f j1 [ ,i 1 ttfl' 11+ ,f'f 1,1+ .,: IJj
+ I r 1 I r ~ I-{.a r f a h F i I L ~.
I ~': f i } , it I Ir ~t {F L I F t1 iIf +~ ft r
N ' ~!~ I. i 1;-1 I'ra::tj'~...{.~ .Ir~,d! i}~},~~ft t~J..~-~.:1.1'.t.i ,-~-'f.r~_1'. i.~ {"
x~o ,~I I~ ,,, 1 .,,.-, , V I 1
i I I ~ .:1 If , i. , (} ~It ~~lii ft.i +~ I~I F i t~ ~iE~ ~:
i 11j.h ; ,~1 + tI fl},`• + 'r f r ,.rr ~t ,ir ' i
I 1
~: _ ., ~~ ~ I I' ~It,+ .i,, +'}rl A t2$ t , }~} } f ri~}{I ,# r-,
}}
I 1
~, ,
' ;
~ I ~i_ . I ~', ; I I :. t ~ . , I l ` ~ f:;-: _r ~ : ~ r ~~..~ ~ { L..:. _ ~. ~:~ ~a ~~1 ~ ~
t~''' o ~ If ''I ,' 11.!'; .~I..I;_ 1,1,...f,..1_',-..,..~.~_IJ.;... I:~a:.t..-. 1 ..~ rl' a.~'
. ~ ~:~
.. _
I
I.. T f.
I i
1 f' I~ I I I I f f l l {. ! 1 1 1' ~ t~ r i i i .'. 4}?+ i .. L f f~ f }' ''~ ~ r +' f} 1
I (' }j rt TIt-
, (: .I 1,:; ,..!. I ~-' , L.} I I~. _! 1 { ~}.I ~r.~~ ail I~{ y fl ' li -I :'}
' ~ I ~ I1 ~ Lt ht l i, fIr f} 3.:.i:r'}' ~ T~~ f ~{_:'I.{`_ .~.." r}•~} I I}+
I -` ---~ L. ~ 13
-•-r~cr r-"---•--1- .
## ~ C i It' rl ~ rl' ~..I, ! k t r f-}-'.I...}..~t-.{ ~ ._i r i
L
' , ~~i ~,.. i ~ _ ~ i I L.; , L i } ~. ~ .:i I # I r r j ~ ~ f ~ t ~ L { i ~~ } 1 ~:~. { .T. _ :.:.{. ~~'ii.. ~ i ~ - ~ 3
_._ y I ~ _
,,, ,'' ;I.; I ~- , ( t -.f {~tl ~r{t ' jri -'4. f. ~:..r~_.I.:l-_~:.~::I ~~ }
J ~ ~ .~ .... ... .. .l::.. .. L .~
i 1 _.. __ .. ..
~ I I. 1. 1, rT ~;~,~+ i i ~ ~#' '~i =t } f~ti r .i
f ~
' I ', r {~ }
' 1 ; t {-( 1
f ~ I 1 f ~ i :-:; t.}r i~-1_{I II ~~ »:~~~1 ~'3::C~~'ii{ _I ll~ i.~i~f ~~.: -J
~_~ I j
-r--~- I
I; I I { r l i ltil~f }{{~1 ~1. } t TT ~. t. ~ } i.$ f~;l
t
1 ~ Y
} J.
._ ._. _
~~,~ ~^ I } 1 f , .. }.. , ,
I 1 1 I` ' r•"12 ,~~ } }_- r t T i i(I I* :.
I I !, _,'r I~~_~ I 1 t r 1 I~ I
I I I i 1 is I I I I f; I I t t , r '-I 1} { I} .. I k
I i ~ ~I ~ 1 ~ 1 :.
j.! II r I J i I :1 ! i;i ( .+;I#Ir t fitr 1 t `1..` { ~i:
..
' ;I}
I ; i
-:_.-a04~f '~` -____~_-`- 1+ I ,' I r ft i } r r~ t r I ! k -
I. ~ I i I r a+.a.: ;:::,_ f 1$I i rr, ,}l i
_.i, i. 1 ,,. i 1, of r 11T{ T ~i } , j I.. } ...
. {-fr
~ i II~T~ I {'I:{ I 'r }li,ij..~ rl-y_ ~ l .f I ~ 1, It ~I :.
4 , } ~t{~
If .: , , _ Y }-I I + J 'I ~ { I. ~ t (- 1 i ~.. C~'t'7T + ~ j I 1 f~} t
I , . f ~ ~'~f}I ~rt rf r .~. } T y-..}.. , i I }
~',~__ I ~ , ,. ~~I r },j t}I~ h.j,ti r .~:'t~..1_~.~. r ~ f~t}, }rrl
i II II I 1,1112.11 j ,~, I. r , { 7 , ~'{, ~rl
' i! I f f'+ I r t r -~ '.G: "}. -; 1 i I. 1 -t ' r I 1 .{ t I
I'
I jj}
1. __._L
~I~. ~. .. { L.. I 1 . 1 1. :r:L...1_...I-.. ... t-' ~. .y.1 +'~~~~.).::i::"L:
h. '; I l ~ r . , , ' I i , ; i ! I ,:;-::: t_k:..:~.~'~ ~ } , -f- t= ~ . {.. ~1..f..._..1 } I
'
I I I 1., 1 I } ~,rf. _t+_.;: ~ ~ F_..{:::,_.....{~ ,.fit
1
`T~I 1r i ~: L i. I F~ ~ i ~ r.l ~ ~'rt I t r ~T :~ i.+
t :'1- ~ } t
\ ' 1
1 r` •t ~t{I tr 1f -1 q 1 .' r...+.._
o l' i I ', r, t I t t I i I t }.. I
LL ~ r ~ }
~~
I (
~~ I L r ~~' r ~ ~ I_' I ~. ~ 1 I j I ~ T ~ I. h~`i. g' ~ T.i ~ }+~ { } ' .
I I r }:! ' .[..I.. t:°t i...r1`..; t~.. } !1}I
I~~
r'
.,
i f j$
r-
i I I ,t I i 1 '1 IIt i~~~tt} ~ ~ 7~1_.~ r ~~i lfl ~_
N; i I j l + I L t l ,. 1 ~
' }
J i ~ I,,L1..1 }.} 1lr,trf L _
-_ Q I . ;^- - - ~:'-`l"-I 4 i.~ t I 1 r,. , i' :_ ..tr .•'.. t }}}} i ~ } I 1
' .~ ' .~II I }r -A(- 1' r ~` ~ i ~T t ~~ t {r t
1
I ~'~ I , 1 li t .t.,.. r 4~1. ! F}}~'t tf` f- ~~T--- ,•• t ~ ' ..}... 'T
~ j I + ~ I ~ k ~ ...,_ ,.
I
I :' III -~ N.. I ~ ~,' i ,I!'~, I r.}_I~ L,'Itjl~.. 1 ~ t-f_, 1. ~.~..
• f ,'. .' ;, i 1 ' I I l f ,, +r'r } _;, ;~I~-' 1 } I-i~,.~:}:$~~{.} .ll.~~_
.. (... t..., ~L ~, ~Ir 1. 4 1 L .}
-1 I , I I ~r l ,li-Ir r~..I'I ,I, _' I fI L- ~ti~r;ilt'~1lr
f ` I , ` 1 -..;. ~ 1 ' , I r f ~ i t i I ': ;. r ~ ; +~ I r ,_ ; I*..I.1 , -t , ti~. j~ ! t
. ' ~ ~ i , li I ,il,fl ,_ I_ .~.. I
i, ~ 1 ~t~r #ftit I'. -r 7 t•~{ I Irrll I
~~ ' ~ ~;, I t .., ... I 1 ..!. ~ f r ! I T i (, f . _,. -,.. 1 j' t ..,.. 7_
~~,~ I , i i I i 1 1 LflJ,ii lri~l , J~j~ .~'1~ , }T~ ~ I
,~:, I .I.... , I , I}~'{ ~ I t ~ _i ;' '. 1.~1 , 111 r
---z; - _-~, r '1 it ` 1 I+' '111 ~IfI I ItI~' I I i I 1 ~~ f p {.I~
I ~, 1 ~ T I I IIt. 1 j L1I ~ ,III 11 I I , j 'a T ,~fi iir I~, ~ I'I
... ' I 1 } r rr 'f' ~1 ilr ~.+T rtT 1 '~1_ '} T ' ref
1
I ~_ ~ ,J~,~ ~ ', C r ' I t rII 4 }~Ir},~} a~-t_~- 'i 1 # 'r. iii -~} I r#
`~,+- 1 t I , t 2, I r ! I t J-r -}-t F ,_ 1 + ,.. ..
I;~ I ~ {I 1ii~ft 1 '',~~~1T1 ~ ,1~`* ~ ~ '-t ~ {-i ,_ j _,:~f r
,I . I ~ i i 1. Ii ' _r I (,. I IIi f I ~+ ~ _i..~ ~ . ~~
t I '
I ~:: ' 11' I I .' ~ I i I fJ 1' Ir` i '11 T7a ,}~ i I I
- '~
_-,_~I__~ I t , I i' I i'II }I'.a I 'I i~:1 _ ~.J..:.I~;..?.. _
.~ :
' ~ 1 ~ IJ r I , .II I i+t I'' L} il.T~ ti-lii 7 } "t t j ~i 'TI.
~!' rl Itl t i i ff r H ~1 .: j_«. til ! I
,111 11, 1'I l..} II fl . ,I •1 ~ ~f~ III ~ r ~ 1T-
I. ,..4 ~ ., i 1 1.i IIIf lf~l ~IL.~, I'I 1 !I{ I .p ~ I -- J .. : ~ I. t L ~_ _
.!.' :..1.... i I. , 1 1 ~ ' 1.1 I~ 114 ., I I i~ f t '. .I. 1- t. , , ~~.'.
_ }.:
I I. ~ i 'II fl T1 } 11~, 11 ~..I I*-I{t, 1-} Ir t %. I ~~{ 1 i !..
fr ll ' {iI ! I' !II {11 I Ili'T I Ir 11 { f Ili~ir'T1i i I r- r 1 i r
' f {II i 11` I f ,~Ii ~ 1 li'IIII it ~-!i+} r-r 1 T t~i >17 f' ~{ ~ i,t }
I } L,. itllli I T,I ,1I I ;, I1,11T1~T ~~:-I-{'r'.I, 1"~' r
, T ,..,.,.. _.,.r .,.,_• z ,-~ 't-t r t.T.;_ .r. ..}. -rr ' . -r - • -r. _.-rr.. '- .. ..
--. ~ ~I~I I ,t~: r'r'r ~, ifitl'i 1..~, , ~{L..,. Iji~h. , (~~~.{_.. ? {-1 T~~~I! i T.- ~ #
1' I' .i I I II , I; Ira I I;T#..~.~trf iil~i~, t + ~I t ~i-F' t ~ I t ~' -
!I 11f 1 i .~ ~ },,4ri ri,ti r w ~ -~~.; ~..; ;.~ + 1 }~~.:.
t ~{ -{ i
.. 1 I 1 i i,1 I ILI Ir ,7 r' ~.I.T~'.,.
.' 1_I ,._ tl t..,.,. , t,_. , ,;.(. t.~ ..}1-•ti~ ~F-~ ?~i?~-t { -: i t.;... ;_ 1 ~L. -
~il I .r I r , t tf, .I, } 11 T ii 2 i ~~t r; f' f ~{i F
1 I' ~i i
,
1 Ill'', I I f ..~ f l '..:~ ~ I' f f.l f l i i~ l l i t f l -I f r~ ~:~ rt-~ j 1. ~ j' ?-' ~-~,-,~-rl ~
i ' ~ !' ~ I I _~ i ~' I ' i r t i i t -} T t } 1 f ~-}...:~ 1 , * ''' ~ , '~ ,- -
-~ I._.. ~ li: '-f1 I...I 1 .... ...I.. , ., ; ..i,:.~.lj T'±-;1.. - -{- i ~-_.._ ~ I~'{.. -
,I ~ ~ ~, I +1 i I+ (tl,l } 1F I r~ I },~ ~ tf~ j ,.:~f t i
II, i , ~ 1 ~I, Illf li I;,~ I,# II;,I} lad r ~ i i ~ir --{{ j f I ? 1'-
f " ; I ,.} I r ' ~ , , ! I I ,:f f i , 1 1 , I 1 ~ ,, , }~I ~ { T ~~T ~a ~,:~~ ~ T
o .,I i+~.;... j-::-} 'r.l...l~lll..._:.I '_ } %.~'~. :I 11..... is
r ~ .1 f Jll II! til ifr t I I , 17 . , tl , t ,-~11 I
' II .1 i l ~.f I j(•itr ( `.I, ' ~ r~11,E I r {} T ~'. ~ f 11 }
I I. rI I II Iij I -I {1.tI, f i L , I~t 1 ! + ~ ~~(~ i _.. {~. } ~ .L..
r ~I 'iA I '{~III;~I,..~I.r;~llri i~.'? I 1 141 yt~. T..I i -r-~-~~! +~ ..~~..~:
--~ ° p .. } r , , } p .`t ..t_ . r ~ { } t 1-it' _ - ...}.. -i •. i.. _i_ F...i- t -
~.I, i +-j 111;I~~ i1 I I I i ~ I~ {f~LIt.~ I~I ,1.? I~..i..~ - # +, p J r_... I T. ..
I: 1 I ~..ilr I' I }' Ir ~ f 11~~ I 1 "I11~I~L ~Ci}'1~ +~ ~ t ~ ff 1::! ~ I~. ~'!i ~...
.. _
;_ . , ~-~-
1 -
T.~, .. 11 f I r r I i r I ~~ r i ~ I. i~ I} }. I, f I,~}., I, i. r'{ T .~. {- 1 ~_ t:..
I I "I,I i...1 I ~ 1141}IIr }t~t~T I I~ }I { ~I I ~ ~ ~ 1i ~- 1}t ''~t 'i i I
I I t l , 1 ,? -I 1
_~,_p Ii-'-III,,.,:.. I..},...,.. I .~.; ,.., r. ..l ...f f,. .....r..i., , t ...,.ly-iY... {rr.-±~~!.. }. _:... :.+. f '.,~, }...T.. .+.
fr: 1 ~ } I I III{.. i '}.r ~! LI. t f I , ~ ,... ~ T - }. t" ,
' 11'_.11 1 `!r}i~ t~- } ~I}~I+ I Ita I i t.I ' t ~" }+I.I 1_} 1 ~ F !~j ~ '.
~,.. I i !_. i I . ~ ~ I I r ! I i I i l ' I1... ..}.'- ~..I I.1 ~ } .. ! 1 I f ; t -{~.. _ .j' t ~..~_ _r _ .. 1...
{
1 0 „....I ;..1 i :. i r :_:., ~ t }.~.T l .. .f...., , J ~:.;.t rl ~ f I...f. ~. i :~„~ ,1 _ . ~ ~ t~l_i: ; ~.j ~ {
: ._ _ '..
• : I ..4 I.... 1.. I .... i : ,
: :
: I I I f I ~-T-.-....}.r.r .2 ..t.r}T.t..' } -Hr}-i....{..11-1-
i,rl,;t. rl:l: ;!, t. .r.ll I'-~ rt r!-i , ...,._. :
i I I J 1 I' t { 4, 1 i f
..

I
} r :.r ~
f I r
1. ,
, _I .
.1 I
.
'T I i i I
: i
.
IIf ~ + {a~ , ~ , ~
I , 1 r' i I f..t.
' I
1~' : I'
:

1

I 1{
1. ..

1 r

1 1
{

J j
( I

'

, ~
1 :

. /
..~.

I
~

1
4 ~
t G
t
`1 .
4 I I...A f ~
4 f. ~ } i f , 1 ~ ~ ~~

1
J :
11 ..
' i
1
~ ~

f

I

r
'"
,
.
r
I
..
~ .., ,
+
I ~ 1
+i + I f ij

~
i
~ ^~
I 1 ; 1 : r :
,
I

F
i ,
t , (
f 1
- J.'r
I. 1
1
L.
..
' i`' !
t _
1 1 l.. _ ~..11jr. , f..
i l ~
.....f
I
'1t lllfI11 IIltll~lllllllllllf l: IIIIII I!I111

lrtll~l~-1~~,1~1~11f~1`IIIII'i~1~I~II
I 1 ~ n
!Irn
:'111 1'I' 1 '- 1' I h I~ 1 11 1-1 I-i 11111 1-!-141 1 1 1

~ I.;: I 1 I
1• 41 1(
o ~ t I ~ l i I ; Il iii Itt
+ T
y17 J C: i '
w x , o '' lr ~ :.1~ ,~.:.; IJ ,,..,.;. :: is
ti ~ I. ', I I J.. t 1 .., I, .:
,
~jlcol ~ i ~5 ~ I '.I i ~ ~ ~ ~...I ~.
x1N ~ ~ 1 ' I r'",:
~N I
~~ 1 :p : I.: ~ I ~ I .i.
I r
I 1 L J.J I •J
L'i '. I
I ~
j 'v-~~_._ ._ '..J..i.
~:
~ l j
I I • .:
• I ~I~~ . + } 1 J
----r---- , I I _,
'' ;-III i 1 _I ~ j , >° ~..'.i
I ~I ., ~ ,- i J L... ~ r I ~ _j
I I ,J,..~ I i. I ~ .I
I I i. ~, r.
II I i S, I 't :~ I ~3
b ~ ~~• iiJ---...---
~~ , , I I I
I>' I ~ !I t: I I I'~f
1_
:i I :~.I ~ `~:I I I'I I I L i
~I. ,..
I.. t t I _ i ~!:: 1
WQ.~ ~ ~~..4 ;;.
_ I '~ ~ I I ~' ' ' {~
I
1 1.
1
I '. ~.I.
f
~ II ICI, ; it !ji
i~
.' ~.
I . , t ' ~I ~ ~ '.
.: . i-' ~ . ~ ~.
-~
-ff I at_t I, 1! 1 rt
I ~ _ ~ ~~~ }
.- - ~ ._
~. j Iti
III - ~ i I ~ ~- I 1
_ ~I~ '~ I I,:~I
~~f I ~ 5., : I:.
,.~ ~. ' ~ I
' ~';
r +
~ 1 -i I+ t , r r'
~~ ~ ~ ,~ 11, f ~I ~~; f
• / r !1 ,
r P ~I ~I ,ilji •~,!Jrrl,r ~1
,~ ~.._ , ~ I a a
I is II .,; #li'j f ~ ?`~ti t
I rf' If~IM ~ ''~1,
I I ~~ ,I I Jl j ;
I; ~~~ i~. 1 I I'_;~jl I II ~
I j.. , i' 4 . ~ i ~ ~ '~
_~~ I, ~ ICI' ~lil_1'}b '_:.
' I lip}{ II. { 1 ~~ JI?}a~j
t. la I{ {I~ ~ }, lrl.~ 4_I } 1 Imo.
. 4 I i 1~,
„..
- Ct-t__ j..; I 1.. ,_! I', ,.La ! i:;..e J.::_l. }.I ,1~
r..
I' I , 4'
I.
~. ;r t. I J 1~ I a , 4 f i I •,j , i i I I i i I..1.!_
77 (( i t ~ I
I ,I~,Iif }li ~ la.. l ~I II~,II II li ~ I_j.
~`+-"'
, ,11 gill 1 I.n?J~ ~{.I i~ I ,. Iil,.l ~. I.:f :~
' ~. ~ I'~..~~ 'I ~ I L:11 ii L~j 4J, 7jf~,_4 F.T'~.
~ 1~ 1 .;f ~~'f~ IJ I,-~ I. i'I I?t' rig:
I
.:_.._9._._. -
N; {
III
~ , r, I -
I I. ~ I' ~k 1l i-I.
~ I Iii I if ,7~' Ir11.
- ____ ' Ih '~ ~ I J ~ r ( ~ ~ ' T r' 1 ~. 1 ~ 1 I 1 i. 1- 1 t..i .
., I L L ..
I' l ! I ,
' ~ i I ., I i I '' ' I } I I III } 1 ~ i ,, ~ ~. , ~-
I ,; ~ , ,.. 1, l' rll ICI} I' I;f X11 'f: I:
I I } , .f..
t III>I'ti r ~. I ~[ 'll...:-I-
`~I.~ ;_`1-~ Ii :. }Ii irI i 1.1 tr ff.;l r Ir..
ij ' i ' ;'I j11i' iI 1:~:11~iIF jet {,~' :,_f.:
s I{ t r.l J. 1 1 1' 1 i i_}_I- I I ~; t-
I ~-~ I ;;;, ,f 1 J f' rill J! ' `_
I ...
1 ;.. I ' I 1 ;. ~ ' ; f :... _ i I J .I :':.[ i ~ ~.1.~ I J1 j' L4' ' ~ f
{i I' I'j:l r.li II -1111 I I, i.il I~il.' 1, I~~i.l~l~.l,. I~S
} ~
1
1
.. {
L `!
1. 4 1 ~ I
~I ; .
~
I I I
I I
~ ~ I.. J ~
r .
~: ~. I
I !
l
I
~
f
i
i 4
~
'
I 1
. A
I I
~ 1
I
I ~... 1 I ~
I i
1
' J
I
~
! i
~...
I

j
I
i
i I. .
I
1- { 1 I.
_.
r ,
{ ~ t _J,. ~
j 1 I 1
I I
J
r
: r is
I ~ .
I I.. i i }
r ] .~ r I I I
I
I J
J r I I I r II
I (
I '~
I
I
` 4
{
1.. I 1.
f
..f
'
: I a. I i I~ f i :l I
. fi r-
I r, J.
I 1 [

' I I
, II
, I I

I I

r.. ,
J
I ~
,
~ ~:{
,I
t... !

~ !

I. ~

~.~ r ~

~ i j

i ~ i
f
1
~
.
j- I ~ ( :i
. I
~ I
. f-
t i J . T ~: I , 1 }

.. 1 r , ~ .t. r
t I ,::.
~ It t r [+ . r l l , ,
_
}
~.
r j
~
i
.
C.
. ,
~
.I
4 F I
; F . ~ '
t .. ~ ..
;. .r _ ,. r . I_ :. I .
I I.
i
,,11111 ll.lllllil~
{ ' ` _L! I i ! I , . ; I L , Ch r r. .T. j: -t- _ L .,_ _ } .. ..1_ ..?_ I _ 1 _ ...r_ ! ?
...
:~ _.~: . t i I r..
{{ Y T ~ _,.
. .:. , }.,._ i j ; :;.~ 11 ."i l _ -r; I ! i +:., .:, N . :; ~ , . ~ _ ~ 11 f_}: ..j: f , _~ - _ ~ } _,. - - _ - 1 . , r':1 ? i , I f I _..J. ...
I f ~ :.
:
,. ~ ; ..
I ~ ' .... _r ...._ _ {{
,.., ., - -
~ J ,_4 i I
,'.._ 1. I .. i I J ~ ,..f :.; t.? ,..., ~:t r.. j'' 'r: ... _ .. .t.. I •_J. .~ ~ - _ ~.+ .. .i- i... ..+.. ._J.. .. ._,_..a J.. , ...
;_'.. .....;'. .,_ -, ; ; it r, L1; -11'_.,_+;_ ~:.. - , T _• _~ II-- - ::._ f.. F i 1
( _. ..
,.. {
: I ; I ~' I , ~ ; , F 1 .. _ . _,_ ' 'i _.-r''-~' .~.. ~~ ~ . i ~ : ~ ~ .. f j r.. r...; ~ ~ i T ~. .{.. . ~ 1
..... ., , 1~ f. :. ? .. ~.l ~ ~,_ . t.. ;. _ i -1 is i T 1. ~ , ~ ,. ' ; -i.. .
I ; ~ t, 1. : ~. :...
.: b .. '. I ., ! ... .. .... ... ... t, ~~ -4F- -! 1. :. _ T .... •. .., ._L. .. ...i.:~
,_:___~,r__-_,__ ~ : t. . ~ :. f , }.....-~. -t-~ .-F.1 .; _ ~_.. .~.._~..::~::.:~:$.+:a~-r ;- ~ ~ ~ _ :.1- :,.__ _r: ! 1:::1.: i ~ ~I I ..i...t_ 1.
' I _ -
I I ~ L 1 L 4 ..ii i, ._ _ .. ..
~ .(. ~ I I I I I r r) 11. r ; J - '`... -t. _ ... " ... ~ _ ,+ . _ f. _ _ ..a_ ......,... J
~ t F kk ~.
,.
I, ;. ; i.r.... !,..a_.. ~~~.. J _._..... ! j:.r - -- :~' ,. _ i•. f r ~ * .. ]._ _r ._~ i ::.L Y r 4 F .a. .F }.. I ..}. y _i.
- i
~ _.: , ., ,__,:. .:;..;. , : , ±_~ 1.1 ..,-i l f ....: r I t f I t , ~ , i f ~, r - -k- i' _+ ~ ..:... _,..J:.. _ .+.
I l i l l ! , I I I , ~ ; ~ r L ; i .. _ ,..C.r _~ _,. 1 '. ~ L 1 .:;- .. _ ~ ~ l ~ r I :}: , ;-
r , :: ~ :.....
__,...t.. ,... L....,.J ...,..L. _:... :. __.. I: _ :C: :.. ,.:., I~, L _! ~' I - ~' - i I. r - .~_::.- .L ..i _J ...:....i-.. _ .~.: I
.. .. .. 7
i-
:.
'I' . ,
!i I Ir li t 1 I i r i. . ..... _..
I[ j
_:. ._,_, I I,.I 111 r I ~, 1! L , ;..r _._ .I -~ {I ,.~- - -- 1 .~ ~ r ~ .,.._' ?
r ;. .... ,.. , ..! I, I I J:~...:.!-' I ~1`i':j ?"T_ ~T 1" j. (• '....._. '. I' .. 11~~ '}"' ! -F' _ ~ ~ I ~ , ! I
1 I :. ~ - -
,~ III, r.,
~ ... _ -
: ~} - } i µ
_ ::~_ ' r I
.
~.. :
~. _
1
:.: ~
, ~._ t ... .:.. :..... f . i , i 1 ~ 1; i I, I .; ; .j , :. j- r -1. i.. ~ `. .t- - - - - ..: _ , I I I ..T !.
t
_ ~ ~ ,
;.. ;.:....1 ; ' ('....i...I J r J , ~ _ , rt_ ; , , i I ., . _ " i..'..t ..,.. _ •_ ~ i... - - - ~ t t ~ - j i.. I , i
:
hr {
...._,..._ _.:_: ,_ _: : ' ..}:..~ ......, ...,rt......: I-t i ~r , ~~ -~ t -•- -r .i .r , _ _ . ' .~.. ... _ .I- ~ ^ _ .. ' . i L :: - •'- --' - - ' . a ....~• 1 - :', ('..~:.' L ~ ; _ ~ .....r 1 .!....,.. i f _ ..:~ I .,_ ..L..:.

I ~ ,', r
z I ; , t l ~;' 11;
~ K I ~ I I~~ ~ ~, I : L~ ! I. ~1 ~ I }i"IL I '"1 Ii . _~.
~ '
~ r. ~ I; Ii ~ ,t I
I ,
s r ! it
.... ~ I I ~~, I '. . I I ...1 i ._. I I ~ i.
V1~1 6~-r ~ III I I ` '~~~
''.(•yy I I . I
' O ,I
L4.
. i 1 ...
+ ~ i I ,
r r I ` ~'
1~ ~ I .~.. I It i..
, fl
, I ..
(V ~_~-
I I ~ -.~~ i ~ i! I y' ~ ~ ~' ' .~..
'-:'~ I i. .I.
y L
' t , ' ._,1
~:
'{ '
~._.,.~ -~T- - .-.~_ t i I.
,..1 Iii r 'r 1 r 1
_, I
I f.:
,
I I. I, It} ~ Ilrl.. I + _.~
I. I
I 1 'T
_ 1 1 L
' J.L +
I 1 '~+ _.,a.l i i
I I L
~~~ 1 1. ~: ~ i i L' 1~ 1.:
I I 1. ' I C I ~, J x~
I ,
~ l { I `' t
..
I ~ ri, i 1 ~If~'TT{ '
q I,I rl rl ,~ i f ~;{:
I, ~ I f II}i~J~l ~ l ~f.
III J ;11;t ' -~~i r~-~ I
1 1 1 L
~ I I~L~ II r I ~.1 ' f r,•i~i r
' 1 l~il ~ i ,1
_ t-' I
T~`- ~i~ :1 I 'rf ~.' is , ~:
, , ~'
. `I j.
' 4 I {I ~LLI I I I..
JI -- r.
I I I Il {..
' ~ 1t 1 1 1 { I. j 7 f ..
Ci lam.. ...1 ..T I + ,
~_ M! ~~ I ~_~ i s I 1
1...1 ~ , 1 : 1 f
l~, ...( 1.1111 i i ..:. 1. .~ :
I
t I I ~'
I~ ~ 1 11 1 1 1 ..~ i..
~~ ~ - t
I IxI'+if. ~~
I'
~. ..
I I, ; J t :i l I I I+
r, . , +.; . y_x f
._..~__ __~___y i f ..... ~ i.. ..
I I 1 11+ ~~ i~ S I
1 I _l L , j i. ,. 1
I 1 ~ ..
I I
_+~-~_ .
i 1 l+ i 4 t I~
~ , ,I~ ri 1
I
~~ ,_, I. ,..,_
,,, ,
~_Ci ~.. i 11 'li 11. '1'I 1 'fill I Ir
1
i ;', I~' ~ 1r~~tr J 1 , t
,
~11 ,- i +t ~- r
T . ;.
+ +
' r ~1 l
I ,
n _ I
_ f ~_
II , Aa
' ~ I I 1 ~.I 1 I I ~, lay}~~ .~ ! t '.
i i
T. ~ I. I I I t . L.. t V ~ r. i I. ~ ~ :1 S~ 1 l.l.. x 1 ~....~.
tf ..ifl
I I~ I l' I {~' 1 l i L I T' I l~ f
lil ~ 11lltj +t ' ~ Iii ~
_~ ~ , '
1
;.. 1 I ~ i~ii~ ~firl11 1rJi~~~ Ct
r~r'I , I
I , , 11t tii ~I i~hx
' I ~ -1 ~' , i t' I 'Iii , ~:~
+ a
; I I(T 1* II ~,li a
' }+ I i _.. i ~. 1 ~; 11.1 j.l I .., i t :ii I t 1..1
.. p ~ ' ' ~ I + ~ I 1 l ' r t ' ~ '. I 1 . ~ . ~.:I ..r.' I t..
ff J I l~l
~'
..~ ,
I. IJ L,. I . ,_, i.' I,. t ~::.. ..l ~ a.~.la.~ ; ..x:a.;..!: I J . ,1 i l
x..
i , I~' I I ' I ; ' j' I~ ~ 1 I 1 i '. I~ ~7 ~.' i ~~ ; 1 .Y.~1
,~ ,' 1 I r ' i i l l t i +
' .. , I I I I ~ L, 1. IJ ra~. ~ j..l'iljl ~ 'i,
I,, ~ ~ ~ Ir i I Ir ~ „ 3lI 11
I;I II ,.11 I I; 1 f',.. ' I 1'. l la~l ~' llf
11 ,.~ j ltl.+.. 71ri...'..~I +l#.IJI ; r II I l
I r . t... _ ~ +.. 1 ..~,
l I.. I~ i it ,I Ij 1. ifl 1 li,r. lii j11'x ,
ll ~I {II~ liil~ 'l '~ 111 ~ Lij rl rtll 1 '
. I I rl li l Ilil ii( }I [1 i~~..71' 1~1 , ~ '..
---a-I.I.I ~r~ .; III Il,+ilt ' E' _iiI ii~; i I ~t
fl I I j l'i i i + 1' I, I '.. .1 t I f l t flI ', I'- ~'1
I ~ .E'll~ ~'_ I}+~~. 3 ~ I~i lj 117 I Ijl l~-'.
I 1 .I + j j.~: . I 1 I {~ I I 1 j ~~ ~~~ ! CiYI 1 I j'. i~.
I
-- ~--,---~ T r ~
I II r'1» 11 } Ij..l.l LI _.~~ i. ~' - 11
__~~ ~4 1 4A J I.... J. I. t'... ~ I I ~ T..I_ ..1..~~.. I ....} i ~ 1 I-'~
{ i 1 !-
I ±'i fit l ~ F ~ jl ~lilJ ~"~~ I ~ ~j+.
~ I .. ,1'~~, ;, I lllili 11,
I J...
l ,.~., I, ~ ~ f: J 71 f I I.
1 , ._. , ,a f..~: ~ ,
i ;.
' „ ~i i~'f~ 1i~1~.~~~ l,i.~i ~ 1 r
~' f i I I i I i- 1 1 x!.11.1 t t i.
I T I I { t' J ~_ , I 11...1 ~ i ~ 1 1 1 , ~ i_~; i 11 ~ I.' , j ~ t , I.
y.. ,..
r r i ~ , 1 i _~'l i 11 , , -r T J i1 ,..i..f ~~-j'.
I
a ~. y..l .,-1 . I 1-~.::.II l.l.~.i 1-i~l~
tII
I I( i
I ; 1 { I I_~
1 I I IL
~I
I k t i i
I I ~' ~ j
E
~I!,I~ ~,
411
11

IJ I llijtl ill Jjll J Dili 1 t T I'.
1 '1~:~f1 1 ;Iii....; ~ ~ _, 1 j~: ~
..ii i li~,..~._~~riT4t ,....Jlrll~-+-1 ~ -~_~ 1 :.,.

z I , ( j.l,t, rl.
~~pp I .. ,. i.. I . , -...;
"X Lp ~~ '.- ...
,, I
' I ~ ~ ~~
I II ~, r~l
~I - r .. r , --~--~
~_ ~
r
+ I ,.,
~,N i i ~ ~ ~ ~ I. i I! 7 I ..I. i i t~.r ~t
y~~ I ,. 1 ~1 .,
o ~; I' .v I 11:
I i
r I r I Ifl.~ f!} I.
' j ~ I_ I I l i 'r ', i,~ 1 t f r:
,, ,; li
I. ~I I I. i, II. I-r.
~~~ ' I~'~ ~ I ~ II,,, 1 ii
_ I I
-~y ° -r ~ -
I ; I I f
~~ :l i is ~ I:; ~.I
~. I I l i I'~ ~ I Ij
--~ ° ~ ~ ~ .. . l . ~ ~ J: I I ,- ,
~~- L
I (., t
. ,~
I
o f I f ,' I I, ~:~fif ,11
.. I i,.. i ~ ~ ' t r
it
.. I i i '~ Itt.r i' i~. ,!11ffli ~'
Irl .Lllf 1.i1 11
I ~ r
I I.I~ ~ f i ''j' is
Tt~
I ,. I ~ j I ,ttl I.
~ L,
I f ~, I t. r 1.
.,
I I 111 II I.II' t_
I . r ;
! ~ r
----~-~ ~ . ~ t . }
_ ~ II
~ I I, i , IIII'1 T
• f
I I :I , , }t 1 ,'r ,'
.I ~~ , ~ t ~ ~t1~1rj ,1:I.
~ ~.~I ~I, f, I ,
I 11f :f
I r r
. ,II r~
~~_ r_ J I L i 7 t
-!t
I .
~ , ,_
I I j' I" IfL IT
I ~~I ~~ II~~ rfr1 T ~~~ li
~i+'S ~ - I --t -
I II t 1'I ~_f 1
1. t. ,.
~~ ~ ~ t ~ ~~~ f 2f
I ' '~ (','i It '.iAi ,.
I
h ~ t.T'~ I 11 {I
I I ~ ~. ~ r I
! ~ I 11 I~ I
I I I:
I I
.- ---t
,_., I.
, ,. I ,
II i M L.. ~ I 1 I I 2 1 k'j ..
~~ I I I n a ~112t. r l V
__~
I I ,i I'°,II ~ ~'i!11 1 f-LI~ 11.
I` . r
I °~' 'I~ I_. ~ tf ' 1
I I ~.~ L. I .. i. i i
' , , , L ~ {} I ~ f I c_I i l
J }}
i
` 1 1 1'I 1~ 'ft..l rll ~. ..
r 1
_ I '°'-~-+ r, I rill 1 Ir.t.l.
I'
~ f`~ I ... I i i. I t l I-l-~..... I A- t.l ., ~.. i . i ~I
~ 'I I
I i I I( _~ -- I I t i I ~ {
~ ~~ ~ ~ .. t fil
,. ~ i 1 y
1 ~ ' I I i' ~ ~; I I j' i ~,~I
,.., t ,. r 1 _'
I
f ( I I , 1 1 ~ 1 ,~ ~ ~, ~'I
` ~ II T
I ', i~~i I ,jrl j ~ 1111 It~l' I ~ i~
( I ...1. i- t r 2..1- i ~ - F,
1 II r
IlI r111r..q I i
( I I
I 1 I..~ ;l.. lr!~ r 1: I, l II~ ~i iri'h 1 r
~. 1 f
I
i
I , _1 i
t I r: I. i.. ll.i ',..il IIi k
{ ll }jllYl II ~I ~ 1~'
~'
11 I } f I f I f I r~fl
I 1~
~ I I,I II 2.. II ~ I ~ I 2i r.
i~ 11 tt 'I I ~ ifl
-=-~_~___'__ : I f I I t ( t +~ . 4~ ~ ~~ I j i I t' F r F
I' r ;41 I +r}ti, tip}* r ~ ff
li.~'1 I ~ ..I.' fll ~1. tj~}~_•tl `1i11i j~l
I'I. 4 I I ..'It ~.i+ 1~~~I if
___:_Q r +- t t 1 + t +
I r.l~~i ~ :. I1~1 (j F:F', jiJ.I.J r-rja'I
II I ~' LI ,t fll? ~ I yI~,! I'~-+ III
I f ~ ~
1-1 +~~~~. I1) i.I .I , 11 l,l r ,~~+ II fr it, Ij ~-
I ..
b I a I l r.It I j,I~ L:. !. ;__{j' 1.,L.L!.,~j II
..:~... 1 1 l~ i l., 1 1..1 I ~} ..t .~
I I .. i-I I-l i t I' ~. H i l l {~ i I r , I.-
_~ '. I I~i~~lti ,.~ } I f.; ..}i }rl:r:1l 1 .I.,.~ r I ~~
-YV I
~ I I I i I I~ I I ill rl+i i lli II
~Ilr I ~ ~ ~1 ~ ' 1111 it file( I III
I ,1111(1 ' I li ~'I +j 211
:.t r - ,-
~ Il l~..i, f IIr.!; i ~.,. II li:.. ffi1;...~.jl ,i I I~{I ' 1
fl y 1.
' I l l ~. I f t{ I I j i~~ I r r l l r l i .t_ L;~ I I i. i. ~ f i , L ",
II It I r I .' Ifr ~, } ~ t~ I
Iflll ,.. 'I I I,lil.l 1111 tr ' f r~,
t
I1 J.
C7 i t ,. 1 I I L ',.I .., r ~.L_I . 1'_ :_j., " 2 'I r I r#, I
-.p~- ~ ~ ~ t.. t 1 ..
{ '
1' , ~~' 2 r~ 1 F (r I• i~ I L~.. _ 1 r I 1 i i_I ' r
I
,.~
,, rlr,~;~~r, ;. ,I,-~ . ail --altl~a,=~ ~I+r,-Ea~~-.,t:.

Ifl

~ I
,~
~

.
4 ~
I {i

,
E ,
~
I

I
I~

.
~

,
I
~~
,
;_
,~
1 I
I. f } ~- I I , I j I
...~.
I
I
A
1
I
~ I_I
..
I I .
.
I
{ .
I
,. I
i.. '
I tt
..

~

t
'
i
'
a'

1

~
'
I
'
:

I ,

.

.
I

~~~ I
I1 I
,
f
~
}
~
~
~
~
' ;
i.
is
I
I
~~
,~ ~I:.:. .L.: , t II !
I1
1; ,t 1

2 ~ I l i ' I l I

~
~ 1
I f
,
f I

4 ;.
;f ~~
I I. I
I
,~
.
~
, ~I I I 1 rl I

I i I ~
I
i 1 ' i `I I i i I i '~
~

I
-,
2
t
a ~ !

f

~

I
~

.I

'

I
~
f I

I

i a } I I
r
1 a i ,.. I , ~ ,I
, I
, ~ ~~i
I , L..
~ .
1 I I
1:. M j I I I ~.~
~
I}
!
~ ,
( I I
a
f .. . ~ I I !

... III . ,
f..I. ;::+.
- `` ;.. I jj nII

.. ..
I
I
I
. i

~
I
I
,
.2_
1
I I
, i

~-

'

I.
I

f
, t
~
I i
,..
1.
.1
i
...
r
.
.
..
..
.I
... ~ I
, t

.
j . +.. ~

.:... .i ..~ I
i I
i ~ I
+ +
.

.I...,....` ..
i. L
.. I~ f.. (
1.::. 1 r
r 1. .. r
.'.
. ..~...~.. ~..
~.

• ,
~_ ~_.~~
----f_-~ t ~ } (I(
I I~~ 4 ! ..~ C..1 Tt{4. tit ~7~•`
I 1, , ~. , f t t.j...;...r
I "" `ter-_T -~_~
~I I . ~- ~ I _:1 a .. i>.
r
I I I .I I: ~~~, _ f} T
~I ~ ~. ~rit~F
~1 - ,
I _j.
~~~
Jam) _~ I , ~ , F If ~ I I I ~I.... I ~.,.
~ r
I I ' '..I ~ ,..} J-f 3 ..T~.
G ~ ~ 1~I ~ '~ I ~ ~I~'~
!: ,: ~ ~II k...
~~ I I I ~,~~ I ~ I..
© I ,1 1 ~ ~.
--a -
, ! i ~a .
I ~~ 1 ,h~
n ,,
I ~ ~ r ~~ i ~ i~ , i; ~ t
, i~ ~~
I' I,t ( Ilt
j ~ ~ I•I ~ .I ~'1 tt#FiI
I I ,~ ~ i ~ .. ~ ~ r
, ~ I_` i i _''i ~
i ~ I d -I t !-1 1~ 1 ~l
~ ~ i.. ~i i ~_.}a~~ {r
....L.. ta-7 r
~ I , I
t
I I I
, 1
I i I; I 1` }} ~ r •k} t~
L 1i1
(1)° ' V I I I I .~jj i~IJ1~
O. , F { 4 . ~ ~, ...;.
~~ -
~ I:. - 4F ~. id i }~
',
~I }
~ ~ d 1( t
w ' ~ '° ~.. ~ ..i I~
,, li
I ,i .:
I, ,L. ::
.T ^h.f~TT I.. I ~ r
.,,• I- ,......
~~~ ~I`I , ;, I i~ a
, ~
'O i I
i. it
~:~ _~_ ~ t . I t., ~.Lt.t_,.
,. L_ F ( i ( It t
~ ~ II ~' `' ~ t ' I ~ ~'~-
i (,~r. ~ ;
. I: ~t ~ , at t~ rG~ ~..
- ~- ~ ~..
' i~
. 1+ 1 ~ I ~~
., ,.
r t ..»..,
D ...1 i {' I t• t '~ f I { t l1 T r
I! ,, i ,, ;. ;.f. ,~;..
I 1-, .
~~,"_ ~_ ~. ~ f t, t T I I. t .~_ t I.
I t .} , ' .' I. 11 ... 1
YI I~~ ~ I~ta"~ ~ i'} I I a'~I't~F~ IJ'.~
F 1 , I .. ~ , , ~ f `I I,, II ~~J
~6`- , I G Y .. 1 Y..1
hr I , s
.T, ~ , I I ~}'1t t t~~~tFI
. t , r ; , l ~ , ~ t. h a_
~-~ : ,
T T tt
~ _
f ; ~ I;' Its +I' ~ ~~ ~~rl=.
I
~ I
I~1 I l , , i;,' . ,' . ~ .~~,'~tr
rr r I-~
Fa
, I,~
- I. II i,.:{ i i `r .T 11~i ~ ~ I 1 .± I ~I
.~
, , t ~ ~ i ..,_f
~~ _~ ~ Ili. I,r~ } !! ~ ~~ (}~ -t~
- -~--- .
s
~~ ':'~~I i-'~ + i7 } r ..
~x Fii~ I' Itilit ll'1~I (.
.: G ~ .., I .: , . ~ ..L, , i T.1 l 1 t.., .1.; ~ i.U i
I t ..
I
' I ~II,..I I i( I.T.L} i 1.~1 t ~ I~'.f"rf}~
~- I 1.~
i f
~~ ~ I i 1 1 ~
L.. Lj I ~ ~:~..
~~ I i t~ I~. ~ i f. .1'i 1.1 ...i , j , ~.. ~_~ I' I i ' _I ~ I
..
I t
T I,..T, +I t ,,lit ~ .,. _I
; ~ (
'it1 t ,I, ., 1~,i I ~I I ~.1 ~ I I
.ttl r i~ I I~ ~I a},. .. } t e a I I_„~Ct i I -
:~!li
iIj
r ~ ~! j~
~~ 4,~1~ of

~ ~
.. -
~ j
~

~
a ~

c II
~g
~

w~ II
x$
°' ~ ~
W
OG
V
t-
N
Z .
Q
W
l~J ?a ~ .
Y pG
~ Q
~~O vYM
a ~
s. a.
J L~
r- Z
~ ~ .
O Y
Z ~.
3
W
W .
F~-
~~ V~'''b1`l - ~~
~r
_ ~•
`` _
r " ~r.~
~ ~
~~
~ na ~,~-
x
o
h
h .n ~'
r' '~
0
I O
I Q
i
i
~~
I
`~
~~ F
Z.~
o ~~~ ti ~ >
o ~' ~~ ~~ ~
/ ~
a t .~
O
1 ~ ~ ,
i n
n © ~ ~~
n1~~--~ {y" I \ I I
V/
0
~~
i ~ ~~
Z w
0 • ~~
~~ MN~~
P >
^ IIVO~Y
w YYJJ
~Z n=iii
•T
n a u
M
N N
~ ~ G
G W
0
O °G
Q ~ 0.
6~. ~ 0-
°' F ~
F ~
3 ~ "
s
~ ~
a iii Z
W
O $. d~ ~ ~ ~
'r ^ .~- .p O .p 0 ~
n
u u u u n n
'O 'O ~ O f- > ~ ~~
~~ ~ ~v~
' Z{
a
8 ~
N

p
in
~
a
O^
N

O ~ IL
~ C
v
n _ h O __
«..
~.
~~rzxo~

S. ..
f
~~3~~~~~~~~
~~ ~ ~~~~
c 3 ~ ~
1
I~~
e ~ ~` ~ ~
I ~~
O ~ ~ ~ e ~ o ~ 0 y ~ ~.
3 ~ g ~ ~ O ~ ~ - ~ c
~ - 3
~ ;; ~
;• ~
1 ° 3
.
°
~. o
. C
~.
~ ~ ~i g ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ O
3
3 2~ a. °O ~ A~ O u o~ N N c n
~; ~~ O c a o i n N N ~o
• c a= a~. o o~~ g
a s a~ c „ A °
= T ~ _ ~ ~
o,
~ 77
b •1 I I
p~ r r 1 1 ~
v~~~v~ : 4 e v '° ~
~'
m o 0 m ,°~ e s o~~~
S
71 O ~ ^ G ~ ~ C ~ ~
b O ~j- O O ~
R o n o n ~.d
o° ~ s s o
C N C
in en ~.
-~' -~
a ; ~ ; ~ ®~e o m ¢ f
1
! ~ I
~ ~a~aaa~a.~~a.mZZ~~~po
m' n o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n y ~ ~' ~° . ~ 3 0 ~ ~ 3 '~C
$ ° D o ~ ~ o ' ~ ~ s u ' ° ~7
° ~ o ~ ~ ~ s ~ 3' ~
~ ~. ~c ~ ~ a ~ a 3 a
.~. 3 ~ ° ~ ~' ' ° ~ b
~,o°,~ a~
a S° a a 8 b
° ' ~ O
Z ~ .~ b
x ~
II.I1 i ( .
9 E ~ t rj i ®$O v0
.I I I ~ x ,I .I
~
a ~
a~
~ ~ 'o
aa
~ ~
~'a
m
~
~~' ~ ~
a a
o
~ '9
a
$
~'
m
~'
n N
a
~
~ x.
3. .
~ ~ .
~ a ~ .~
~
R c. ~
~ n. .. ~
°
s s s
3 s
3 s
3 o
'3 [1
.o'« _
°io ~m
~ m 3
. ~ ~ o
~

o
~ ~c
o v
a
3
~ ,
° 03
3
O $, n .°.. 3
°. ~.
~ s,
~ a
~ yyrr
v O A ~ ~ ~
n ~'~ ~ ~ S ~
~ ~
3 o, a
3
'`
y
K a
Q 'p
; o
3 ~
~s ~-s r'
s s °
~.
~~
3 c n ;
3 3 ~
~ o
3 3

hill ~ °'
~ R ~ ~ ' c 'c c ~ ~ ~ O
~aa•~;~~ ~o~~~
s ~.e ~ a ~ ~~`~n ~
~ ~
o ~
° A ~' -a a °- 3 ° ~
~ ° c ~ ~ ° C « ~ ~ y
o s ~ ~ ~ ° o
c o e
s = ~ o s
o ~. 3 o s
7 ° S °
0 0
C °
V
1 I
1
1 I
I
1
7e 7o N 70
v, ~ ~!
o a.
?~ o ~ ~ O
$- a ~° m
~ °
~~ ~~
.~ga~~~
~~
}
o a g a$ '~ o Z •~
° ommo~
3 ~ n. c ~ A a ~ ° e ~° ~
g. ° a ~. ~
s m~ ~ m m o ~
x a
~°Ai .. ~ ~
S ~ n o °b y.
O ?' - = x ~a
s g n A C
'~ o_ a. yny
'v_ - C
_ ° Q7
o.
01 rTl
°
I I u
.. ® i Q I
I I II .~
~ X ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~~_t 3~_ ~ v;'+ ~ o <~r ~ ~' o ~ <~r ~ R ' ~ y ~' ~ fo1 . ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ R o ~~, c o D
d~~ .~ ~~ ~C ~C ~ T m O O C O ~ f m O a <~ ' m ~ O. m O :. O m ~ = 6 O ~ gip,
~. _ ?r' ~`" ~ ° ° ° m ~ v+ a o ~' o N a c~ ~ci Q . ~ ~ o a ~ o o
O ~~ 0 ~' ~ N ~ T N N O d~ °~ ~ m °~ S ~ S~ S ~ O 0 Cd ~ ~t '• 1. O
3 ° ; O C N ~ A ~ ~ ~ 447 4' ~ 47 ~ = S ` `
~ ~ ti g° ~ S ~' ~ ~ bT p o g ~ n a e ° s
fl1 ~ N [; .t °+ ~
~ ' ~ ° ~ n ° ° ° ' °
o ° C c °oA. C in
~ N V N ° .. m
m m
..S
1 ~ ' f
Z j 1 1 I
1
1 I 7
O~~ a s ~® O O• ~ d 9 ©® ~, ~ ®O a a ~ ~ ®~ B Gt ~ b® ~
~ I ~ I; ~ I 1 I~ I ~. i I.
~!
n
a
C
~~
~~
~~
n
0
z
m
Z
O
z
D
r
5
z
rn
rn
t/Y
r
to
f~
c~
C81
®®
®~
~ ~
~~
~ ~
3
~C
>r
.~
9
~~

F

Y ~
~ a
O~

N
7
~~~~.

' «
c ~~
~~~

i® w
a4n

~ C
.~
m a
u n
C7AZcip
~~

o U
z~
w
~o
0
F~~~
~3~~ r
aann
Op~~
E„ Rk~
xs
H
W
h
'_
~~

. * t/! O
~"E+ _
'. ~ NtnLQ
v W M
~~M~
~
~ ~
~

O •+ ~
$
~ Ci N

m
~ '/ ~ n n
~W2W
~~ __ ~
~
ro 7
4

e Vj a
~~
1
'--
N
~' W
~ U
C3

~~«~• ,~ z g~~~
N pppy~~
w
z
e ~~
q
~ n
N l
N
J W
rY i
z ,yam
`~
a ~
B i
'~~ N
~~
~$~
~o~
~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~WbM
"~
~ - ~ + x ~
~
•
~
ry
2 ~
1
N~~
pp
~
~~
~~ ~ ~ V p
~~2 W
~
~ `4 W ~ ~ y ~ W
,Q
'~'•+ m
?
`~ ~~~~ W
~~
~ ~~~~
p
[~[~,.,,,
~~~ ~ w; M
W
~
J
~v~
~ ~~
°~`°~
°,
CV°~a~

1O.y
~~~
~~d~w
0.
~
~ •
• x ..

NQ4TH EAST CAPE FEAR RNER F'.
-E-- EB9 k F(.pDO --'J"
~~~~
W
~.
~~a~~
W v n
~~WZn
'' W
~a~
~o
~N
W~
J
~a~~
dR~~~
~i~iNa
SS,,~~ M W
0.W 2
~J
4
W
H
O
O
~~ a
~~~
z ~
.~ ~ a ~
a ~~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~ ~x
0
~~~ ~
~ ~ a~ ° ~
~1 ~ U
~ a ~~ ~~ s
ti ~~y~~~~
~ o ~a ~ o ~
v ~q ~~
a ~~~x °~~ ~~~
ti
~q ~~~~~ CEO ~ ~ ~ F
0
Ao~~'o~~ o~~~
°~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ cti
U W ~ ~ ~~ F
~a ~~~~ ~A
~a~~~~~wa~w h
• Y ~ • • m
•h ruo~ N r~~
. hLL . ~.~ LL
j ~ . . y J ~
n IV
m r ~ ~ r
~WWhW~ :WJJ~P W.:
W m O N_ . W m
N N ~ . ~y h N
• m Z J S• . m Z J K
r r r r r r r r r
ya J J J J J J J J J
t n f iD (p~~m~~
• / N ~ Fm-~ ~~~IIIpQIN •n+h
a LLLLLL ,
~~ O ~ n ti
~ J J
~~~ {qW~~
F ~~ 7~(~~Q~j Z ~~lm~fN~mp~~nn{°~yc
~~C ~ ~~ ~~p1`_ OQ ~ yJNn1p~1^Ompl~'I~nmO
~ I, r
~q'rW~ , i ~~~~ ~V?"' N~~~~NNN/P'1ffhU1
f~.~ ~ 1~ 1~ M M J
N ~ _ '~.e II M CG ,
a ~i.. ~~h~ 1 ~ W
, f~mN mI~C17 f m
Z. q 'I {~~N~1 Q , p/ m N N l'I T m N ~~ m
~O . ~\ ~~~ M ~ Z .r .~'n P.~i NN m~.~n N.,
ggg•O O ~
~T6~ i j W . Q
;aT ~ ~' > ,
~ ~$ 4 J ,
~ \ Q W ,
~q Nl
• 0.1 d ~mmnc~~~~NmN~mm~
!N~ _ _ ~ r , NPI~~IP M Nn •m.n~n
o a
.~ Z W.~M1901 (9MN ~~N
[y~~ JO ~ N N N N N N N
~~, ~~zaczsSr~ p tmp~~i~t~YtO~~~~
~7~~ Z , m
U ~mY.,n~.t mppr~~T Nf~ n bhpp
9 S ~ f01 Plm7 f 9' ~P+m
~~a~~
~ . ~~o~mo~m~,~~~
~w~~` ~ ,
~~~p n ~ Nmada~msdadm~mad
aty2W u ~ m
p~j m ~ aa
~~ ~~~ ~ , u
~~ ~~ W 2N Z~ W^N D
~a2Q as 2 ~~^W ~ comnmo•~ »~~.~.~ tit ''"~~~
~W 2 ~1~ n M ? ~~~~n yp~~ ~j~~~y
I ~ ~ ~ ~ _ : ~
. F ~~ N ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 4~ ~ o
.°~ ~
q~~w ~ ~~~~ ~~ ,3 ~
~a. ~
ueo•-bso-a-.raz-a~.A.e,,,:ueNeoe,~
ais
iu iturm cootison
R
a / .. ~ ~

~- ~ ~- ~-
t~ tT t~
~~
+ ~m
++ m0
{'Z ~i
~~
U•71
s~ vo
gs 8A
s mrn
a
;
~..~ p0 OQ O
~Z
t0 ~~
tT ~~
tZ Z
O
tn.+
0 ~.N
~+ pp'~
+
o r0
oz
8
~ t
n
O
g ~ Z
O
g ~ $ `•'
Z Z
O H
O
T ~
3

z
m
~~ ~ ..
~' <
~~ ~
m
z
-i
G c
m

W
O N
r
m
Y
v '~
o a'
i
''
~
~ -~
~ C
N
r

~ ~
~~
~

~ ~
W
~
n7
n
13 c N ~
~N ~
N _
z
0
-~
S
m
~

n

~
O
N ~

N ~
`~
m
r I

N 4
1
~~~~~_

I ~
Z ~
~ ~
~
N m ~~ N
~ C -I N .~ N j• N ~ W N ~-
~ m m O of -iW» D~ ~m» Dv G1DT Dv DT
m x y -
~ _
~ xm-ix -~9 xm-is• -as m-~x --~~o -~s
O r+ 9 D O O > O O O o O
a m ~ > D
. z•o» a~ zmm» » ~» av »
-+. ~ = p ,
G~ rz• z• r.z• z• rz• z• z•
p ~ 2 ! 9 s ~C>'>D< >D AAD< >> nD< DD DD
O D m m m<D <~ m<D <~
•9 m<D <v
• <~
•
~ p p =vmr m~
N -+omx
• m
SW Oms
9• m
v
S9 m
o
SS
m D 9 ~ 9• W 2 A D D
°

m
m ~
m zzov o?~ vzoo ~?~ >o
zG c
ia
c ~x
m > mm m m mm m mm m• m•
111 f;fl r y > mDS-T~1 W'= -•iDS-1 9N D9-~ S!D S~
~ z a
m
>
= > >
=
=m ~"~ m
D
= ~
D ~
D
-
•1. m m i
--
-
I -
1y •
-~ ' -
i i
- in
w x~m> mq smD m smD mD m
p O O NO'N9 OT ' NO'N9 Oq NON9 O'NV OD ~
z71S ~ T~ Z71S ~Ty ZTS CIS ~f~
O ~ 9 O_> r O_D S O_D _D

> rA an ra m1 -•~N ao oar
-i
3
-+
r • m n
wro o
rz m n
v~rv ro o n
ro n
ro r (ry
tAWZ ~. WO tlJ~mZ.. WO mtAZ WZ
' tDA
ql C7
-1• ~o tp S
m N C'S
...i• s t/f z
s X to n
n• x N C
f
a V! O
z
m m m
m S
D•o
1 ~m D'9'
t ~m TtT
l
f T~ T
zmm m zmm m'+
m omm mm mm
o (p
~ ~y a sr ~~oN xN ~
m C7
w
W
~xtp > N fA
m N
M
N 2 N -r N C N c
' N
Cm G +~Cm O..t N:O~ )T
L OC IT1
M n m ~
o v9 zo vm zom vm o~
m
~ o ~
• w o
•°
7D m m
D y m
o zo m 171
-
i•o
m v o

S
m
sm romc c n
~ -t = m x7°a >
9 c
i t
n
s~~ ~ ~v n ~m c>m ~
:< m O ,O O - x- m
m s
9 ~ =n
mo m o v-r o-i
mm N pmts N m-C -n<
Dvm m sum !n vv 'v -t
N =m ~m ~
m=t
ii O DS
~. m -1• •~ ~ W O N m
-~ o°~ 70 -~ ~ •fl -~ m r m N
O- c m m ° a
in •
t to m
~ W~ mm
y
to
aD ~_
m ~,
W
O p
W - `
W
Q O
Z ..
•
i

~

° R °
o
N N

H

°D-
v o
rn ~
~ nJ Oo
0 ~
-1
__
N o.
~ ~
N

rn
L
•o,
O '

c~ W
v
roil m
D O

Z O
N ~
N
r .
.l
•
~
~rl
-----
~
c -
w r
.
~ 7
o ~.
rn ° -~
•
O ~~•
N
N
r
0
m
N
T
. a
~• t
Z
v
v
C D 3N.
r
m
_. ' -
y Z ~.
Z`
O v
N
O
C
Z
Z ^
V• -
•

. ~ C
_
0
m

a
v
O
Z .rT N '
. ZO C Z~
rn. _
v •
G~
~ w / m
N
Z (((
W
r

st =
~~~ ;~
~P: ~~
-:~ _~
•r
• ~~
S~ ~ ~
s~ ~~
~z ~w
a ~
~~
r
y ~

w ~ ~
0.
4 = ~
~ z~
~~ ~ w
{ q 0.
I
~°,~ ~
~~ _ ~~'
.;
.!:.;
~~ ~~`~
~ f~=~
T

;~
0
J ~
N ~I
=
~ ~ i
-

4 W
7

;~
~~
N p
r~ ZO ~
r
~i Z ~ ~
Zo ~
0 0
E~
W ~ ~
N p
r
~O o
W ~~....
N
p~
1
'~~K
r1
yyy~~~~
N N
yyy~
Y yy~~
~C
:
W W W W
1~ W
z
.'~'
a a
it ~
a ~
o b
+ b
~ ~ a
~
$
7
N ~
•- ~p
~"' .
W
Z
.. J
~~ N ~ r..
O 'p ~ ~ ~ ~,
OD y~ N '
a ~
O
N b ~ H CO
W ~ ~p
N ~ CO !H m N
aC o
Q~ p U C9 N _d o ZM
~ F- C ~ t7 'r
~O N ~ M ~~
~ ~ : Z ~p S8 0 ~ W Z ~~ gW ~
J I. M Z 3 N n ~ ~'~~ WD C ~ Z Z F ~ Q
Z l3 + +
Z p '~ •o
- ~ - - - - ^ ~ y Z atom
• ~ o~ ~ ~ Gz ~~ J ~ ~ ~ EZ GW
O W aO 00 ~ - --- - -- O W NO O+
oC C') 0 p I ~ N ~ ~ pp N F- i/1 ~ ~ p
r ; 0~ J ~~ 80 V W J ~O pg
14, 11
n- G V ~
~ ~ N o G Z ` fV ~ C~
~ ~ O
r ~~ N ~ ~ ~
s
.- ~ ~ _ = p ~
W f- O
F O
. r..
(~ W .. r ~,
t!'1
0 ~ ~ O
r~i • ~ ~ C r
•o ch r
d
~7 Q
7
~~
,~
;~ ;~
~~
1'FO~'[ii-O~fo.y~RO~pooy~p
11d Op-4p [OOd/!/1
1 ~
•~
•.
~ ~ ~ M
•~ O •
W N C~ ~ Z
•~ ~~o ^ Z
p ~° o •O
t7~ - - - - ~
~ O~ N
o ~ J
~ ~ Z V
N o,

sr+noos
V10od~ u~. w .
O W@Lll -0~
LL
T
T
y
y
Y>
s~
~~
8~ ~€m
;~~
g>s o ~ o -~
~~
~~ ~ ~
a
-~
~
0 b„
s _
Z {IIQw

4
x
a ~
3
B
~ r
~~m
s m ~~~
a m~
a ~~ao
a
~ °~
ma
M M 1O~s1~Q
• { ~•
~ •
L
a
,,,
3 s
~ ~~o
~m
t ~~~_
°0 0 ~yn~
S ~Dr
q ~ ~'C)
~ ~
x
~ ~ ~
~o
u'i w
•~
~ ~
T r__ ___. ~_--
$i I4
I
' ~ ~'
~ .
~
~ II a

I I ~,
~ ~
~ ~ N
i
I o
+
• I f
I e
N
I r

.
I
I~
.I

~ ~ I
~ ~ .~
I.
I
~

II
II ~
£ II
II
/5~ ~ ~ '

• rl
it
II

r
j II
II Q
II
r ~
j II
~ ~
~•
~ '

` II
I I f
0 .
n I
I I ~ -

~ I
I a
it
. '
i I ~
.. i ~ a

O r ~ I
~,
I ' N
s .
I I~
~
I' I
+ r
I
S~
~~ O ~ I
I ~
~~
R
I I ~ ~$r O
~ ~
I
I
~~ I ~
I
~~
I
'
I
'~ ~*

~
~, 2 1
I

. I
I
~.

I ~ ~
I<
I n
~~ . T - I I
w~ ~ II I
~ m ~
I I ri
N , .
.
I
I +
Q~
'

=_=_ -__ ° ° a a ~ ~ I i .
~~ ~~__ ~ w la

\~
`
_ l:L
I
~ /~ I ~ I ~ T

I rn
~ ~
_
_
Q 4 -~~~ ~
I
~3s
I
f
g
~C
~s~O
93
I IN
I I
o ~3 ~~ ~ I I I I ..
~ © a I ~~ I' i ~,
~4 ~ I
~ T I
a I
T ! ~ ~.
~ ~~O
~~~ M ~ I ~ ~ '' ~ ~
~! /
rn y
~ MA 1®• ~ o
~ -~- STA ~
• 24+Sp
__' ~3
~e~ ;
~P'iC
~N~ ~'
~ ~~
~~
8~
~r K
~ i
N
~z ~ w

~~
~ `` ~
"
~
~ d

I~ z
c~
~ j v/1
~ a~ "`~ w (f,~
~ z ~~~~ ~ ~ J~J
~~~ ~~ ~ i ~'~ ~
1 < W 8 ~"„
~ 3~ 0. ~ \~./J ~
oW ~~~ ~ ~
s
~~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~
~ ~ ~
W~ -~ .~
Ye ;~~
..d:
~Y'l~tLt
.. .. _ ~ •~
. .~ ~ .
~ -~1
_ _ /
• ~ /
N .6b~T91.62 NN ~8J
~~ ~~~
~~~ ~~a~~
w I~xunnw
til n w w II II W II cLdOJh~
i ~QOJF~~tn> ~ -. .
~~ R~~
~iw u w w w p w ~°,w n~ u w
~LQ~JF-~v» ~LQOJI-~
N3NN M'3J 3AY7 lSV3 N1MM'
£B
O
0-N ~i~,~
J~
3
~~
w~w~
3~
o~~
b~
J~
t
Y1.
0
Z
= 2
(n
W
p J
z~
w
O

V
~.U[J
L~ ~J~J~
m ~ ~ - ~ P P
H }}}+
o o ~....
~~ r w~e,~
~~O I .
.. ~ YOy ~~.1 ~t
~~
~LLo 0++~3
~~~ ~~~~~
z
~- IXI01~ 7 BB3 --~ I
~< ,.
` _~ g
.mxb ` Ij~' ~
M .[S .A.9Z N .~~,~,
~ ~
~ -~ ..~~
-;~ ~+ ~
~~ ~ .~
~ _ /: g~ f
~ ~ / f f
a -~ ti
IJ /
~~
o~ ~ o
~ z
1 ~ I
~ ~. ~ i to
I
J LLQw

-~u~ii
~mP
© :.~
f£ b 1S -l-
HS O l HOldW 2 W
~Q~
"'
Q
W
~
I ~ d: AWN
~~~
~~ ~~~ ~ ~
W
~
~
~
Srg
'~{ ~ d L3~vy 4 ~ J
I
~ ~
~
~
I
;
.
W 1 ~
~
0~
~
~
'
~~ ~
~
:-
~ ,
\ ~N
~ $
I W
~~
~~ ~
.~
W
~
5r
'~ 7
C
~1 .S
-;~ ~I. OOtS£
r
~. ~
~ ._~
-31 _..-•- --~~-

H
,, 1
J I -~ bL ~-
d
~ I
~~
I
~q,~
tJr~ M3NU dM3~ 3dq 1SY3 NJIKW
~\
5~
I I
~~g
I I
~/
~~~
~ . ~ ~,~o
S~
j~1 j
tai ~
~ i j ~ i ~~
i fli~~~l ~
~ ~_~ { f
f ~
'~ ~ b i g
4~ f~ ~~~ I I
~~ jf i ~ ~
®fWf /~ I I I
~f ~,• ~
I~fi ~ i ~ ~
r
fl ~ I I
~J ~ ~ t ~ ~
'NOSId J_ ~ ,. 1 i I
~ 1331iS pi H31 dW
~8
~...

4
~~
O N.~
N ~~
~~
'9'ON 1~i'I~ Ql 1t~W~1Yi AL111t11N~iVYY1H~,S[ C90W
S01L9 NOIStA~ AYM d0 1N9d
~~
~~~~
,~s~
~~
,:+`
~~~
~ S ~
. ~.
Dom

~ ~

~ _
oa~ ~"° ~
I ~
a2.6 .9 Q' ~
~ _ S
r
CWg R
~.
J FO
~f~ ~

••
Ep M
Rd 5-~9-'1 5002/K/!
~ ~

RKiNT Of WAY RlVISION 62185
ADdEO 1S' l~I~AAMLNT tIINJrY EISydB1f TO MLCEL Nq, 6.
v2xi3oos L26Af w ~ '
W\NOOOr \Pre ~D~tl.r .D~AOt.dOn ~ - - .
. _ ~
MATCH TO SHE T 5 ~ h~
-'L-* STA 38+ 0 ~ ~ p
1
~ ~ _+ a a
~ ~ r ~ 40+00 ~~~ I : I ~~~ ~, \ ,-~.-.~~\Jr .~ /
!. ~ ~ ~ /
~ ~~ . I IE FE ~^ ~` ~ ~~, µ J
I
} I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I I Q
t ~~ ~~R I ~ ~ { ,~
G o ~ acs ~ ~ I I jE- ~ \~ ~
o~ o S ~ ~, r ,~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q; ~F o+ ~I ~ I ~..'
~ # ~~~ ~ 0 'r I ; ~ -~_
I~ LFS
I > ; ~ $ ~.
` I II ~
3 I I
8 m I I ;~ r' v.
~ ~y~ I t
v O t+- y A~ ~ If- ~ a o
8 1 ~~r ~ ~ ~ I I ~• ~ 8
J
1 + •'
N /^"\`
I +~.. •• ~ ~• ~
. ~ ~ ; a ~ i ~
~ ~ '~ ~~ ~~
--~~ ~-
~ ^ I ~ I ~^ `` ~ ~ 1\ p 4 ~ ~ a ~ ~ Nc cRi
'~ I ~ .~
~~~-u-oD~ ~ ~~ ~ j I agg \\ ~\ a l ~ 8
~ ~N'~"~ ~ I I I 4 ~~ ~ ., is
~ ~ --
~ ~ I f-~~~ ~~~~ P~
~~ -~~ a bI~ I Z -w,
Cx ' ~' ] ~ a
X ~ ~ `- r C
N ~ ~ J~ O T i I~ T _ i
~, -• +, ~~
70' 7' SO' E
T~ O~i ~
. ~~ ~ I, , ~
:~.~ ~~ ~
II ~, ~ i~
• ~ \~'
4063.6!• ~~ `~ ~ ~ ~•, I I 1 `~
. ~\~ .. i ~i =~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ i~
~ ~ i
~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~'' r ~
~ g v'~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v
m i a o .. a .... ,
m ~ ~~I I ~" a ~ ~ ~^ y

~
~~ ~~

i ~,
~
5i~ ~
`gyp ~ ~
~/
~,,( ~
i t+7

~~a ~ s
,i~ ,.z Wg
~~
F; Z ~'
oW
{
'
~ ~~
i
v.....,

:.~

+~% _~~
~ e~
~ ~
^

{
~

? `:
. P~~:~
+,

anq~Q
~~2
t~W4i
'~
x
,~
~a
. ~,T.~
~W~,`
~~~
~~
z~
'tib

•~
~ O O
~ O
N O p C
N ~ O j

J
O O ~
N r

~o
Q$
~1 ~
~ (' 4
5
y~~
~~~~~
A
M SWN~4
~ ~~4.
~~
~~~r~~
N
.-
mz
J. ~
~ ~
~i
MI
~I
r~ l
M
M
M
~I M I
EMI
~i
NI
I
NI
~o
N
N
m ~~M60 5002/LO/~0

~C W
.~
r A .1-
O

~ ~
~'
i
v ~ ~~

-> < A i
~
~
rn
W A
N

A ~`
W

A

A
C11

r

.a.
o• ~^
~, ~ ~
~
~~w

x

A
V
~
~ r
~Zr
~ ro
y~~
~~,p
!H
'~~~~ w
~
~~
~ ~
~
ro ~
~
~ i+e~
T
T~

A
~O

I'
~~`~~ =3

+
=7C
~~ :
'
s(~
~~C

~1~~+'CR-V fall V~e•OOMf~V
m oc~ aoovur

N/200i ALAS AY - -
Ar~tl.rb-iiLN~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~4'7~"A~+QfITMII W rPCa1PY
IY iA~9W f00i/i/-

~ ~
~~ V~~

X - ~r rr~ _ - ~ + _ { } r -
- . ~ - t _ i *' ~'f'' ' _ - - _ -

4'I-r~-'-~y r r -~~ - ~ L * _ ~ - - ~t
I
l
+ . , - _ - -
~Y - J ~ 1 ~4-I_ ~
~ ~1
~~- t _ 1 -
, '
-I -- ~
-r=te' t - -e - i' r
`-f- r
_-.~'
t ~* ~ r'- -
-
- - -
-j ~-
e ~ ~~ ~ ~ t F-
' 1 - -f- r -
_
~ _
} _ - - - - + -
T~

t
111 ~
~J Y
1 t - t}i{' 7
- rte-
~ {,~' t
~ }.~ r + ~ _ _

~r`~ _ :T 1
_ ~ ~~ _ ~r _ _ _ ~ _ 1 T 1
~ ~-'~-r - i
~`'- r, -

- 1 T~
-
- _
~~ - - 1 1 -

~ rri-rl-+-1- '-r ~ . I lf -~

~ T
~~-t -1-
r~~- -t~+ ~ - ~
~ +

`tT+, ~ ~~ `1.x.1+-
_~
Y f-~ ~ ~-' ~ ~+- 1- + ~t ' ~ t r -I _
_
~
itl _ t ~.. _ ~~-fr-+ 1-t+
' ~ _ T~ - F
- - r- -
'_Il . _ ~r
.- ; ' . T . ter ~
i F
. ~ r
T~~ ~ ~ . _ - - -
t
i ~-{'+'i~'e -1 f ~ tt~ -
~ tit x~~~fi~~-- -
- ,
- :
rt~r~
-
T
;
- _
~
,-
..i
_ -
fi
~
~
,
_
r 1 ' . . ~
-r .-
r ~-Y 4 - .
~ '
~1t'~
A -~'~
~ 1 'yt i~
r ' ~ ~ T ~ .
-r~
-
_ _ T 1 ..x.7.1 H_ ..
~1~ _
. - ~ "~' 1 - _ f t ~ . ' .- 1.
{- ~, _ ~. _ - IT

~.
T 1
~~ rrfi ~_-~r.. tiY ~.f ~
; - -
-;-
r :.
F Fi-+~ ~-'-iY
~
} -~?-T f y Y .
- '~ i-.
-
. 1'.'
r
i
+
~r ~
-- -r1-
~ - Y
Y
- ,
-
i
r
r
r-
~-~
~~-!-ly-~ ~~ ~}} t-' ~
'~
a
~
t T
{ y
~ r
rT1 r~
r` ~
tTi
t
- 1
t 1 1
_
r-.--f_ _
+
-. ---
-
r ty
_r
-
-
~
t ~ ~ ~~ rt~ ;
r~
+~~ ~'~ ~
-
-
-
r
-~-; , ~ r
~. r ~ rr ~~-,
t~ T _ _ _ _
_~ 1.
~+~ _ _ - - -
.
~
- } r
~ _ ~±

'~?~ _ r1~}- t - ~
tl ~~
"~ ~
T -
_ i }~t

4
~~
~ 1
- ~-H -
rt~ -
-
1. _ _
~ ~
; ~ i y r~ _

L t 3 ~ f - _ +
1 i-

"~
-- -
1_ rt.
t ..
~~ -
t
- - N - Y
.~, f. ~_ - -
_~. '-t- r-• ~rir-l-ry-~ rtr F ~-~ r - _ t ~ i '~ 7

1 :;
1 - ~-~+ r j~ ~
-*
_ _ t f + -F
- '-~ - -r r -H - .-

r 1
F+ ~-:-~-1~'
~-
,
~, ~-'
+ -
. ~~-..
Y-T
~ ~ ; ~ ~~;
T -
f
_I
-r- -r~ t- - 1 - _ - r
'+' i t
~, iL ~ r t
K r 't

-r-~-'r - i-

- .Hd- ~ -~~

-r
-

~- .l~
r -
7
• t r r _
~~ 1
,
LL~ ,
..1--f
4 ~
~J - + ' i _ _
-
-1-
- ~ . ~ ~-
zi - _
e
~M1a~ArmN~alt~AO~M~Y
Ilr tir[\ fODi/U-

,n.>ms ..w W
ww.+.4nx..~am...er.+ew.~

~ V'IM'p~+~M~rll WMM W V
11- OOrI~ lOOi~/lA

uv:oo. uroe W
sue+e~Mx..wew~a.~

wwrq~un~«~cwwow~r
m torn ~ootiu-

N/100 -l~p AY

* , . ,.