20052179 Ver 1_Complete File_20050129

p?pF WATF,9QG Michael F. Easley,Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
of P.E. Director
Alan W. Klimek,
W Division of Water Quality
May 9, 2006
DWQ Project # 052179 Modification
Carteret County
Mr. Mike Randall
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Eastern Region
CAO/RPFLO/Project Planning Management Division
601 East 120' Street, Room 1749
Kansas City, MO 64106-2877
771 r
i7 fl
SUBJECT: Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Cond tpus =' _t ?? t- a f
Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge MAY 1 t?
2 zoos
Dear Mr. Randall: ;Er1D1E?'?Ft ; 4?`sarcR IrY
? src ""„ "7i R ERA .cl/
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to fill or
otherwise impact 0.121 acres of coastal wetlands and 0.112 acres of open water for the purpose of
replacing the existing Pivers Island Bridge in Carteret County, as described within your application dated
November 4, 2005, received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on December 9, 2005, and a
modification request received on March 14, 2006 and the Stormwater Plan received on March 29, 2006.
After reviewing your revised application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water
Quality Certification Number 3404. The Certification allows you to use General Permit 198200031 when
issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise
comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project
including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, Non-discharge, and NPDES Stormwater
regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to
waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following temporary and isolated wetland impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the
other specific and general conditions of this Certification are met. No other impacts are approved
including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream N/A (feet)
Isolated Wetlands N/A (acres)
Coastal Wetlands 0.121 acres Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan
Open Water 0.112 (acres) Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Phone [phone] Customer Service 1-877.623-674 8 One
FAX [phone] Internet h2o.enr.state.nc.us NO hCarolina
vVatizrallf
NOAA Pivers Island Bridge Replacement
Page 2 of 2
May 9, 2006
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
6. Written Stormwater Management Plan (No Further Approval Needed)
The final, written stormwater management plans dated March 23, 2006, must be implemented and
the stormwater management facilities shall be constructed and operational before the new bridge
is opened for use. The structural stormwater practices as approved by this Office as well as
drainage patterns must be maintained in perpetuity. No changes to the structural stormwater
practices shall be made without written authorization from the Division of Water Quality.
NOAA Pivers Island Bridge Replacement
Page 2 of 2
May 9, 2006
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Noelle Lutheran in the DWQ Wilmington Regional
Office at 910-796-7405 or Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721.
Sincerel
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/nnnl
Enclosures: WQC 3404
Certificate of Completion
cc: David Stevick, P.E., Trader Construction Company, PO Drawer 1578, New Bern, NC 28563
Henry Wicker, USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Ian McMillan, DWQ 401 Oversight Unit
Trentt James, DLR Wilmington Regional Office
Stephen Rynas, DCM Morehead City
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 052179.j an06
401 Projects
Subject: 401 Projects
From: Patricia Collins <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:13:04 -0400
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
The following projects were issued 401 permits:
DWQ#: 2006 0477, Cape Fear Boat Works, Brunswick County
DWQ#: 2005 2179, Pivers Island Bridge, Carteret County
Thanks,
Patricia Collins
Administrative Assistant
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington, North Carolina
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 5/10/2006 4:19 PM
TRADER CONSTRUCTION
N. C. UCENSE No. 2943
March 29, 2006
9anara[ ( ontractom
Ms. Noelle Lutheran
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2-1-7?
C 0. - -?
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. DRAWER 1578
NEW BERN, N.C. 28563
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement at Pivers Island, Carteret County
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
fl@@1R# ??/j
V
MAR 3
119
Z006
a Ire,
On behalf of the NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat, Trader Construction Company is
providing your office with the stormwater information requested per the Section 401 water quality
certification special conditions for the above referenced project.
As indicated on the attached drawing, stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces associated with the
proposed new bridge will flow north and south from the high point at the center of the bridge. Stormwater
will then flow through grass-lined swales that will provide filtration of potential pollutants before the runoff
is discharged into open water or adjacent wetlands.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
S' rely,
rad r Cons uction Company
Mr. David Ste ic.
X
Project Engineer
enclosure
cc: Ms. Cyndi Karoly, Division of Water Quality (w/enclosure)
Mr. Henry Wicker, USACE (w/enclosure)
Mr. Michael D. Randall, Project Manager, NOAA (w/enclosure)
Mr. David Johnson, Ph.D., NOAA (w/enclosure)
THE LPA GROUP Project File (w/enclosure)
C
a
0
m
0
0
c
0
l
v
E
L
0
n
0
l
S
u
L
m
a
P
3
a
m
L
u
L
f
N
O
C
0
W
9
a
ti
'Dt+
dO?°m
m?"?
NM ?.?
NN Ld
SO]Y
e
. TRADER CONSTRUCTION
v
?C
K ni
N. C. UCENSE No. 2943
March 13, 2006
Mr. Henry Wicker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
NEW BERN, N.C. 28563
Q
MAR Z 6 Z006
DENR - WATER QUAUTY
?% W4DS P14D STOWINATER 6RAl.C11
nD E C E I V E t
DWQ , p0--A -
PROJ ;1
SUBJECT: Permit Modification Request for Action ID 200600457, Regional General Permit
Number 19820031; Bridge Replacement at Pivers Island, Carteret County,
Dear Mr. Wicker:
On behalf of the NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat, Trader Construction Company
is requesting a permit modification for the above referenced project. Impacts associated with the
original permit application were based on a conceptual bridge construction design. The need for
the permit modification arose from design changes that were made during the final design phase
of the project.
The original Regional General Permit Number 19820031 (Action ID 200600457 dated January
31, 2006) was issued for the construction of a five span bridge that would involve 0.042 acres of
wetland fill impact on the north side of the bridge, 0.049 acres of fill impacts to a sandy beach
area located north of the bridge, and 0.053 acres of open water impacts.
The final bridge design is a six span bridge with pilings placed such that they closely mimic the
existing bridge, with the two center spans being five feet longer than the existing center spans
(refer to the attached plan sheets). Construction of the project based on the final bridge design
would result in a reduction in wetland fill impacts from 0.042 acres to 0.037 acres, an increase in
sandy beach fill impacts from 0.049 acres to 0.084 acres, and an increase in open water impacts
from 0.053 acres to 0.112 acres. The design modifications resulted in a total increase of 0.089
acres of fill impact. The increase in impacts to sandy beach area and open water would result
from the installation of rip rap at the base of the new bulkhead for protection from turbulence due
to tidal flow under the bridge.
L easC
?anara[ (..onfracfor:
C 0. - -?
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. DRAWER 1578

Permit ID 200600457 Modification Request - continued
Additional temporary impacts would result from the installation of sheet pile walls to construct
coffer dams that will allow temporary de-watering for the construction of the new permanent
bulkheads at each end of the bridge. The coffer dams would be removed upon completion of the
new bulkheads therefore these impacts would be temporary.
Trader Construction Company respectfully requests that the referenced 404 Permit be modified to
reflect the revisions outlined in this letter. Attached please find plan sheets that indicate the
impact areas. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to
call.
Sincerely,
T de Construction Company
Mr. David Stevick, P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Noelle Lutheran, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Tere Barrett, Division of Coastal Management (w/enclosures)
Mr. Michael D. Randall, Project Manager, NOAA (w/enclosures)
Mr. David Johnson, Ph.D., NOAA (w/enclosures)
THE LPA GROUP Project File (w/enclosures)
1)
oaf `W 'A rFR
gyp?/ ??'• ?G
VWG. -1
Nfichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. 12oss Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
January 27, 2006
Mr. Mike Randall
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Eastern Region
CAO/RPFLO/Project Planning Management Division
601 East 120' Street, Room 1749
Kansas City, MO 64106-2877
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 052179
Carteret County
SUBJECT: Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
Dear Mr. Randall:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to fill or
otherwise impact 0.091 acres of coastal wetlands and 0.053 acres of open water for the purpose of
replacing the existing Pivers Island Bridge in Carteret County, as described within your application dated
November 4, 2005 and received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on December 9, 2005.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3404. The Certification allows you to use General Permit 198200031 when issued
by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with
any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, Non-discharge, and NPDES Stormwater regulations. Also,
this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in
your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following temporary and isolated wetland impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the
other specific and general conditions of this Certification are met. No other impacts are approved
including incidental impacts:
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream N/A (feet)
Isolated Wetlands N/A (acres)
Coastal Wetlands 0.091 (acres) Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan
Open Water 0.053 (acres) Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405-3845
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Phone [phone] Customer Servicel-877-623-6748 One
FAX [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us NOrthCarohna
Naturally
NOAA Pivers Island Bridge Replacement
January 27, 2006
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion: Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Afanual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
6. Written Stormwater Management Plan (Final Plan Needed)
A final, written stormwater management plan shall be submitted to this office and to the 401
Oversight and Express Permitting Unit (2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC, 27604)
within 60 days of the issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification. The runoff from the
impervious surfaces must be directed away from surface waters as much as possible and Best
Management Practices must be employed in a manner that minimizes water quality impacts. The
stormwater management plans shall be approved in writing by this Office before the impacts
specified in this Certification occur per Condition No. 6 in WQC No. 3404.
I
NOAA Pivers Island Bridge Replacement
January 27, 2006
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CANIA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Noelle Lutheran in the DWQ Wilmington Regional
Office at 910-796-7405 or Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721.
Sincerer,
AWK/nunl
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Enclosures: WQC 3404
Certificate of Completion
cc: Jeff Reeder, TranSystems Corporation
Henry Wicker, USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Ian McMillan, DWQ 401 Oversight Unit
Trentt James, DLR Wilmington Regional Office
Stephen Rynas, DCM Morehead City
File Copy
Central Files
Fi l en amc: 052179.j an06
all
FEB 2006
DENR %"ATEER GLIAUTi
15'ETLFt:?? ?! ?D STC; ?':'"; ?.T ER ERFd "CH

D
C
Y
LOCATION MAP VICINITY MAP 1 Nib 1
B 2
F I1N
LL?? ??yg
Q °
MAR I g 2006
°= 9 a
?Sr'?4'„xy'?rTt
€ "' ^rt l!
DECEdVE
Zm
ItIg asa
b MAR 141006 111 ? $ og 5-xz
a o<
DWQ o J>
PROJ #
° Sheet
reference
numbers
EP-001
A°
oo»

?e
n ?
00]i
D
0
?W APPROXIMATE AREA OF CONFLICT.
OF PROPER A TY LINE OF THE UNITED STATES 7,917 S.F..
I
MERICA AS
p'W SHOWN ON A MAP BY
Po WELL SURVEYING COMPANY DATED
m? , y0 AO 9,1994 ANO AMENDER WW OR FORMERLY
AUGUST 17,1994, pOONEY P. HOELL
AREA OF LI 7
THIS LINE CALLS FOR THE HIGH WATER LINE REED BOON 870, PAGE 21
OF KNASTY HARBOR IN THE HOELL DEED. 1 TRACT II
I WW OA FORMERLY
C ROONEY P. HOELL
BOON 81p, PAGE 21
TRACT I
MAP BOOK 28, PAGE 422
n>
B
a

S 15'821' 495.08'
0
N8 M9
40
?8!
? 12
I
\ W86
CONSINUWETLANBU FER e!"
N ? - 1
MEAN HIGH WATER LIM AS FLAGGED
BY LAW MANAGEMENT GROUP.
ANTICIPATED FILL
IN WETLANDS
11 In i 4
E s g ??
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF PROPERTY LINES
Q
PROPERTY LINE OF THE UNITED STATES X7
_ OF AMERICA AS SHOWN ON A WP BY J
POWELL SURVEYING COMPANY DATED
AUGUST 9.1994 AND AMENDED k
AUGUST 17, 1994.
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINES OF TRACT II
/ ACCORDING TO A DEED TO RODNEY P.HOELL
RECORDED IN DEED BOON 870,PAGE 21
OF THE CARTERET COUNTY REGISTRY.
GALLANTS CHANNEL
s
MAR 16 2006
~s ?? of waT 9UAUTY
6*?
t Y.
c8
.-4
PV
4

• ddy?
o,
8 \
83dF?,?7
PROPOSED BULKHEAD
EXTENSION
ANTICIPATED FILL
IN SANDY BEACH AREA
CONSTRUCTION BUFFER
n IN WETLANDS
J9? z W
:? 4Q
-- ? 20'9'1611 586.05' ? 2
k
N S 14'8142' 1 M A
-n-m(TIE LIW] -k l o
KEYNOTES / S 15.0'10' "
95.31'
(TIE LINE) >>?
QI ANTICIPATED FILL IN WETLANDS = 0.037 ACRES
q" Q2 ANTICIPATED FILL IN SANDY BEACH AREA = 0,084 ACRES
t Q3 ANTICIPATED FILL IN NEW BULKHEAD AREA = 0.112 ACRES?
a ; +? 3
w?
"
?y a
I m/ m ?
"
?U
PROPOSED BULKHEAD
EXTENSION
/CAPTURED AREA BY NEW BULKHEADNTIRE AREA IS ROCKS,SUBMERGED a ?
AND SEMI-SUBMERGED
!
194
LEGEND
O 6'-O'WIDE CONSTRUCTION BUFFER
- FILL IN WETLANDS OR SANDY BEACH AREA
- FILL IN NEW BRIDGE LANDING AREA BEHIND NEW BULKHEAD
- PROPOSED RIP RAP
- NEW ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT
EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED

c` Ib=_I
N
SFEQ?
D 2 CL
W O Vi D
Ln 5 ?
v Z
o?1?y J
~F LIJ
N
Sheet
refer noe
numbers
EP-002
I 2 3 4 5
,
+ 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 ® "fit
*a°
.§?.5001--5-50OY
VC 280.000
ELEV,16.270
0,0-
STA,15+81.45 -L-
SURVEY GRADE DATA o
40 SPAN A SPAN B SPAN C SPAN D SPAN E SPAN F?
W.P. ei - BEGIN BRIDGE W.P. sT - END BRIDGE
lit
D 30 FIEL ACE 0 END N L FA E Q NO?k3ENT 2
G.P. ELEV. 7.947 G.P. ELEV. 7.947 0
3'-O'x 1'-9' PRESTRESSED
20 TEMPORARY , ONCRETE CORED SLAB UNITS PROPOSED
SHEETPILE (TYP.) RIP RAP (TYP.) a
WALL ITYPJ O (lA
O
10 FIX EXP FIX EXP FIX EXP FIX WATER SURFACE E%P FIX
JEXP
IX EXP C) ??
0 1-6' j _ ?IIIIF Gal
ITYP.I
HP 12x53
1
0 PROPOSED PRO
POSED STEEL PILES
BULKHEAD BULKHEAD (TYP.END BENTS)
20 APPROXIMATE LINE 20'PRESTRESSED
30 OF EXISTING GROUND CONCRETE PILES
(TYP.INTERIOR BENTS)
C END BENT 1 BENT 1 BENT 2 BENT 3 BENT 4 BENT 5 END BENT 2
SECTION ALONG BRIDGE o?g
RAIL NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY ?4 V
MA ?D
- 1 '6 ?Opg D 1
?
W,
302'-9' (FILL FACE Q END BENT 1 TO FILL FACE Q END BENT 2) ¢ F
51'-4 ' 45'-0' 55'-0' 55'-0' 45'-0' 51'-4 ' loftftq h a
-EXISTING BULKHEAD Nib
(TO REMAIN) G ROADWAY
EXISTING ROADWAY EXISTING BULKHEAD E(TOTBE REMOVED)
(TO BE REMOVED) (TO REMAIN)
? z
EXISTING BRIDGE J
(TO BE REMOVED) n 0

BEAUFORT
L
.? FEW

d
ASSUMED BULKHEAD
e EXTENSION
A
k

o ?
i
o Cyr
\ 1< x

`z
Q
C
W ?

A. + - -
+ - -
+
- -

45 -L-
TA
16+87

i

l +

-L- PIYERS ISLAND
X7 .
. .

Q? 90°-001-00'
T SURVEY L FILL FACE Q J
T (TYP,) END BENT 2 + LL-
O

q a
0
t-? BENT 1 ter
BENT 2 -? BENT 3 '-r
BENT 4 BENT 5 Q
,
,
A SSUMED BULKHEAD F? Z
EXTENSION r

z Q
TEMPORARY SHEETPILE WALL s PROPOSED CL
FOR PROPOSED BULKHEAD C.) TEMPORARY SHEETPILE WALL RIP RAP
CONSTRUCTION FOR PROPOSED BULKHEAD
PROPOSED RIP RAP CONSTRUCTION
Sheet
reference
PLAN
numbers
SAMPLI
P
F
RM NOT
W EP-003
NG
LAT
O
SHO
N (TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS)
,.1 00 ` UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CO gMERCE
a = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi iistration
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTIZATI ?E OFFICEIZ
Project Planning & Managemcnt, E-astem Rt gion
601 East 12'x' Strcet. Room 1 749
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
February 1, 2006
Re: Design-Build Bridge Replacement
NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge
Beaufort, NC D
toe
Mr. David Stevick, P. E. MARX ?D
6
Project Engineer iI pF?, ZQQ6
2500 eHwy 70O Eastn Company j'4z,ry
New Bern, NC 28560 41vcf,
SUBJECT: AUTHORITZATION
This letter is provided to acknowledge that Trader Construction Company is hereby allowed o be
the Duly Authorized Representative for the U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCAO;
PPMD-Eastern Region in regards to submitting documents and applicable fees for permits,
certifications, and/or approvals as applicable for design modifications on the above reference
project.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 816/426-7815.
Sincerely,
W?Ao c' 41o__1
Michael D. Randall
Project Manager
cc: William Becker - Contracting Officer
Roger McCollum - COTR
401 Project
Subject: 401 Project
From: Patricia Collins <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:27:06 -0500
To: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
Henry. M.Wicker. [e-mail]. army.mil, Doug Huggett <[e-mail]>
The following project was issued a 401 permit on 01/27/2006
Piver's Island Bridge/NOAA/NOA, DWQ# 2005 2179, Carteret County
Patricia Collins
Administrative Assistant
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality - Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington, North Carolina
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1 of 1 1/30/2006 9:29 AM
Triage Check List
Date: 12/14/05 Project Name: Rivers Island Bridge c/o NOAA
DWQ#: 05-2179
County: Carteret
To: Noelle Lutheran, Wilmington Regional Office
60-Day processing time: 12/09/05 to 2/07/06
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone: [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
1-1 Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
TT?A\/SYSTrEMS
COQ?PO/?AT/ON
December 5, 2005
Ms. Noelle Lutheran
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Pivers Island Road Bridge
Application for 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
52179
On behalf of NOAA, we are pleased to submit this application for a 401 Water Quality
Certification for the referenced project.
Attached you will find 7 copies of our application for a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Included with this submittal are copies of the Consistency Determination that was submitted to
the Division of Coastal Management and the Preconstruction Notification for Confirmation of
Compliance with Regional General Permit No. 198200031 that was submitted to the Army Corps
of Engineers. We have also included numerous graphical exhibits associated with these
documents that should assist you in your review of the project. Also attached are copies of letters
from NOAA officials establishing a Finding of No Significant Impact for this project as well as
one copy of the original Environmental Assessment which covered the project. (If you need
additional copies of the Environmental Assessment or would like an electronic file, please let me
know. We have the document copied in PDF format as well.)
We appreciate your assistance as well as your patience on this project. We look forward to a
successful project that will benefit NOAA and Duke University facilities on Pivers Island.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
7fReeder, YSTE S CORPORATION
P. .
Vice President
cc: Mike Randall, NOAA
File
1:Jct1\docs`,miscA1ut11cranIcttcr120505
v?
//R---
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400 ? Kansas City, Missouri 64108 ? Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CO rIMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admix istration
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATI /E OFFICER
Project Planning & Management, Eastern Re ;ion
601 East 12'' Street, Room 1749
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
November 7, 2005
Re: Design-Build Bridge Replacement
NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge
Beaufort, NC
Jeff Reeder
Vice President
TranSystems Corporation
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64108
SUBJECT: AUTHORITZATION
This letter is provided to hereby acknowledge that TranSystems Corporation is hereby autho ized
to be the Duly Authorized Representative for the U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, C -_AO,
PPMD-Eastern Region, and is allowed to submit documents and applicable fees for the follo wing:
• 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quali ty
• 404 Regional General Permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 816/426-7815.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Randall
Project Manager
cc: William Becker - Contracting Officer
Roger McCollum - COTR
MAWSYSTERAiS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CGY2P0/?AT/O_N ?;.
3rd Floor - 2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400, Kansas City, Missouri 64108 [phone] ? [phone] Fax
TO: Noelle Lutheran
Division of Water Quality
401 / Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Ralei£h, NC 27699-1650
DATE: 12/05/05
JOB NfIAIE: NOAA- Beaufort, NC Pivers Island
JOB NO: P101040318
RE: Water Quality Certification Application
WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOIVING ITEMS VIA: ? Mail ? Overnight ? Courier ? Hand Deliver
COPIES DESCRIPTION
7 Water Quality Certification Application
7 Consistency Determination
7 Pre-Construction Notification
7 Susan A. Kennedy Letter (United States Dept. of Commerce)
7 Richard W. Spinrad Letter (United States Dept. of Commerce)
7 Environmental Assessment Summary and findings of no significant impact
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS INDICATED BELOW:
S110P DRAIVINGS (As Applicable)
? URGENT!! ? Please Confirm Receipt ? Approved as Submitted ? Approved as Noted
? For Your Use ? For Review and Comment ? Returned for Corrections ? Rejected
® As Requested ? For Your Approval ? See Remarks
REMARKS:
Also included:
7 copies of Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J
1 copy of final Environmental Assessment
J13g @ 9 ?V gQ
0?c 9 2005
940 ST XTER 6RAILH
Y,?T1At1DS Ra
CC:
SIGNED:
e er, P. .
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
20052 179
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: (COE) 3404
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further detail. TuIR U
II. Applicant Information DEC y ZOU5
1. Owner/Applicant Information DE K _ WA1ER QUALITY
Name: NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/Center for Costal Fisheries andrHa,bitOflSTOa'"WATERBm"CH
Mailing Address: Mr. Mike Randall
National Oceanoqraphic and Atmospheric Administration Eastern Region
CAO/RPFLO/Proiect Planning Manaqement Division
601 East 12th Street, Room 1749, Kansas City, MO 64106-2877
Telephone Number: 816-426-7815 Fax Number: 816-426-7532
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Jeff Reeder
Company Affiliation: TranSystems Corporation
Mailing Address: 2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone Number: 816-329-8600 Fax Number: 816-329-8602
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Tax Exempt No: 19030214
4. Location
County: Carteret Nearest Town: Beaufort
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): NA
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The existing and pro-
posed bridges are located approximately 114mile south of state highway 70
immediately west of Beaufort and east of Moorehead City, North Carolina.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): - -76.67203 °N 34.72120 °W (pt. "A" on
attached Exhibit J), and -76.67421W 34.7217 °W (pt. "B" on attached Exhibit J.)
6. Property size (acres): Pivers Island is approximately 25 acres in area. The area
owned by the NOAH laboratory north of Old Channel is approximately 6 acres.
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Old Channel ("Thoroughfare")
8. River Basin: White Oak
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at littp:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Pivers Island houses the NOAA National Ocean Service
Page 2 of 10
Laboratory and the Duke University Marine Laboratory. The sole means of land
access to the island is by the Pivers Island Bridge. South of the bridge, the island is
developed with several laboratory and support buildings. The area north of the
bridge contains Pivers Island Road and existing beach and wetland areas. A small
marina, operated bV the adjacent property owner, is located immediately east of the
north abutment of the existing bridge.
IV.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
project is the removal and replacement of the existinq Pivers Island Bridge. The
current bridge is approximately 40 years old, is severely deteriorated and must be
replaced to ensure safe vehicular access to the Island. The new two-lane bridge will
be located immediately west of the existing bridge and will be slightly higher above
the water of Old Channel and will feature a sidewalk and fish sampling platform on
the west side of the bridge. The new bridge will be of concrete construction and will
be five spans of approximately 60 feet each. The project will require construction of
a new abutment and bulkheads on the island to create a landing area for the south
end of the bridge and will require construction of a new abutment on the north side.
The bridge will be founded on lines of concrete piles in the channel. The existinq
Pivers Island Road north of the bridge will have to be re-aligned to accommodate the
location of the new bridge. Some realignment of the drives on the island will have to
be performed as well. After the new bridge is operational, the old bridge will be
demolished and removed from the site. This proiect is a design-build project. NOAH,
with assistance from TranSVstems Corporation, has produced a public solicitation in
the form of "Design-Build Criteria Documents" that describe the project in detail for
bidding bVprospective design-build teams. A copy of the design-build criteria plans
for the new bridge is attached to this application for your review. (See attached
Exhibits E & F)
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:The bridge will replace the existing,
deteriorating bridge that spans Old Channel and will link the mainland with Pivers
Island.
Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. A Consistency Determination has been filed with the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management (submitted to Ms. Terre Barrett on April 29,
2005. Additionally, a Preconstruction Notification for Confirmation of Compliance with
Reqional General Permit 198200031 has been submitted to Mr. Henry Wicker of the
U.S. Army Corps of Enqineers, Wilmington NC. It is our understanding that Mr. Wicker
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this
wetland, stream and
is a NCDOT project,
Page 3 of 10
will issue his final approval of the Confirmation of Compliance after the 401 Water
Quality Permit is issued by the Division of Water Quality. A letter stating that this
project is consistent with the policies of the Division of Coastal Manaqement was
received from Mr. Steven Reinnes and is attached for your convenience. Additionally,
this project was part of a multi project program at Pivers Island that was the subject of
an environmental assessment performed bVStokes Environmental of Norfolk, VA.
Based on the results of this environmental assessment, a FONSI was issued bV NOAA
for the proposed program, including the replacement of the Pivers Island Bridge. A
copy of the FONSI letter is attached for your convenience and review.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional permits other than the Corps of Engineers Permit and the Determination
of Consistency is anticipated at this time.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
- Wetlands - Impacts to wetlands on the north side of the proposed bridge are shown
graphically on the attached Project Plan (Exhibits C and D). The fill area in the
wetlands north of the bridge is 0.042 acres.
- Perennial Waters (open water impact) - Approximately 0.053 acres of rocks in a
shallow tidal area at the south abutment will be impacted. Rocks with oysters will be
relocated from this area to accommodate the new bridge.
-Sandy Beach Area - area north of proposed bridge (see Exhibits C & D)- approx.
0.049 acres will be covered by new bridge abutment and wing wall structures.
Page 4 of 10
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of (e.g., forested, 100-year
Nearest Stream Impact

(indicate on map) Impact marsh, herbaceous, Floodplain
(linear feet) (acres)
bog, etc.) (yes/no)
West side of the re-aligned Immed.
Pivers Island Road north of Fill Inter-tidal Yes Adjacent to 042
0
the proposed bridge Marsh Old .
Channel

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.042
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 5.1 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
No impact 0

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name

(if ape)
applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
Area of Impact
(acres)
Thoroughfare Old Channel Fill channel 0.053

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.053
Page 5 of 10
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project.
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): (Includes Sand Beach) 0.091
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.053
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.144
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by tile USACE.
8. Pond Creation NA
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts: All construction activities,
including demolition, shall be performed in accordance with the Best Management
Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities and requirements of the Division
of Water Quality, as published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Au_qust 2003. The Contract documents for design and construction of the bridge include
this language. The proposed bridge would have one less line of piles in the channel
than the existing bridge and will be less disruptive to the environment of the Channel
than the current bridge. The proposed bridge will be located as close to the existing
bridge as possible to make use of the existing access roadways and to minimize the
impact on existing natural areas. The approach roadway alignment has been
established to minimize the impact to the existing wetlands. Any shellfish beds that are
Page 6 of 10
impacted by the new bulkheads would be relocated to locations approved by the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor will make every reasonable effort to minimize the impact on fish, wildlife, and
the natural environment in conducting the work of the construction contract and
minimize degradation of water quality.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet]ands/strmgide.htm1.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed. It is the intent of the Owner (NOAH) to provide
compensatory mitigation for all impacts on wetlands that are associated with this
proiect. A mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner (NOAH) and submitted to
Division of Coastal Management for their review and approval prior to installation.
Also, any shellfish beds that are impacted by the construction of new bulkheads on
Pivers Island will be moved as part of the project in coordination with the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Project specifications will require that no spoils
Page 7 of 10
will be deposited waterward of normal water level or normal high water, or will cause
the degradation of any shellfish beds.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.stite.nc.us/w!p/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federaUstate) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call tile SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ® A Field Environmental Assessment encompassing this
protect has been developed and a FONSI for the proposed work has been issued by
NOAH. A copy of the Environmental Assessment and FONSI are attached for your
rnnvaniAnra
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 8 of 10
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 0 1.5
Total 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. Not required
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
This project will have a slight increase in impervious area because of the realignment of
Pivers Island Road north and south of the bridge. The increase will be approximately
0.012 acres in aggregate (no increase on Pivers Island and 0.012 acres on the
mainland.) Total site area is approximately 25 acres.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No sewage disposal
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 10
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
This project delivery method for this project will be through a design-build contractor. The final
design has yet to be completed. The final design will be performed in accordance with Corps of
Engineers and State of North Carolina (Division of Coastal Management and Division of Water
Quality)
-Mplfli jfan Age s Signature ))ate l
is signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
Consistency Determination
for NOAA/NOS Center for Coastal Fisheries & Habitat Research
Design-Build Replacement
of the
NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge
The following attachments accompany and support this Consistency Determination:
• Exhibit A - Location and Vicinity Maps (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit B - Existing Survey (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit D - Partial Site Layout Plans (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit E - Bridge Plan and Elevation (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit F - Sections and Details (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Final Environmental Assessment (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• FONSI letter from Department of Commerce (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• Copy of RGP-31 Confirmation submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(PDF version on accompanying CD)
1. Project Background
TranSystems Corporation, as a sub-consultant to Helix Architects under an indefinite delivery contract
(IDIQ) with NOAH, has been contracted to produce the Design-Build Criteria Documents for the removal
and replacement of the existing Pivers Island Bridge in Beaufort, North Carolina. The Criteria
Documents will be issued to prospective contractors as an official "Request for Proposal". This project is
being administered through NOAA's Central Administrative Support Center (CASC) in Kansas City.
The existing 2-lane Pivers Island Bridge is the sole means of access between the mainland and the island
and spans approximately 300 feet across what is known locally as "Old Channel." The island currently
serves as the home for the NOAA/NOS Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research and the Duke
University Marine Laboratory. The bridge was constructed in the late 1960's and is a 2-lane, 6-span
prestressed I-girder structure. Girders are supported by reinforced concrete pile caps at 50-feet on center
within the channel and concrete abutments at the north and south ends. The bridge is founded on square
concrete piles. The existing bridge girders have experienced significant deterioration over their life.
Until three weeks ago, the bridge had been limited to one lane of traffic instead of the 2-lanes as
originally designed. Earlier this year, a shoring system was designed for the end span girders of the
bridge in order to prolong the life of the bridge until a replacement bridge could be constructed. This
shoring installation was completed approximately April 1, 2005 and the bridge was re-opened to two
lanes of traffic on April 6, 2005. It is NOAA's intent to extend the life of the current bridge to allow time
for design-build criteria documents to be produced and a design-build contractor to provide final design
and ultimately construct the new bridge.
Design Criteria - It is the design intent that the replacement bridge will be durable, easily maintained,
and will have a service life in excess of 50 years. In order to reduce the amount of splash on the
underside of the bridge structure, the bridge profile will be raised approximately two feet from its current
profile.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
The new bridge will be a 2-lane concrete structure similar in appearance to the existing bridge, utilizing
North Carolina DOT standard prestressed girders supporting a cast-in-place concrete deck. Girders will be
supported by cast-in-place concrete pile caps bearing on either concrete or jacketed steel piles. A 6 feet
wide sidewalk will be located on the east side of the bridge. The new bridge will have a structural steel
sampling platform on the east side of the bridge that will be accessed from the sidewalk. This sampling
platform is used by the NOAA laboratory to obtain biological samples from the channel during tidal
movement. (The current bridge had a sampling platform at one time, but it was destroyed during a
hurricane within the last 5 years and has not been replaced.)
The design of the new Pivers Island Bridge will meet the requirements and standards of North Carolina
DOT and will be in accordance with the North Carolina DOT Roadway Design Manual and all
referenced AASHTO requirements. The bridge will be designed as a 2-lane bridge. Lane widths will be
11 feet. The bridge will be designed using " HS20-44" design truck loading which is the standard used
throughout the U.S. for bridge design. The bridge will be designed for hurricane force winds and tidal
surge effects.
Bridge Location- Two possible locations were studied for the new bridge: East of the existing bridge
and west of the existing bridge. The two options were compared to determine which alignment would be
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative. A discussion of the two options follows:
Option 1: "East Alignment" - For this option, the existing bridge would be left in use until the
new bridge is operational at which time the existing bridge would then be demolished. The
NOAA and Duke labs were opposed to this option because of the considerable disruption it
would cause with existing improvements, traffic flow to and on the island, and general lab
operations. Since operations at the labs are ongoing, access to all NOAA and Duke facilities
would have to be maintained which could impact sequencing of construction and result in higher
construction costs. The NOAA lab recently constructed a new floating dock and concrete boat
ramp east of the existing bridge that would have to be removed so the new bridge could be
constructed. This ramp would have to be relocated to another site and could possibly require the
construction of a new access road as well as a new environmental impact study to be conducted
relative to the new facility. No site was identified as a possible location for a relocated ramp.
Construction of a new ramp would be potentially more disruptive to the environment than leaving
the existing ramp in place. The proposed bridge will have five spans while the existing bridge
has six spans. The new bridge will be founded using concrete piles that will be driven in the
Channel. The proposed bridge will therefore have one less line of piles in the channel than the
existing bridge and will be less disruptive to the environment of the Channel than the current
bridge. The attached bridge plan and profile in Exhibit E shows the proposed arrangement of pile
supports for the bridge. The overhead power lines and associated easement on the east side of the
existing bridge would have to be relocated as well for this option, or special bridge detailing and
construction techniques, such as the use of spliced piles and low height cranes, would be required
for construction. Relocation of the power lines, in addition to being expensive, would also be
disruptive environmentally, requiring new support structure in the vicinity of the channel. These
special construction measures would increase the cost of the bridge. Another possible problem
with this scenario concerns the location of the property line north of the existing bridge. Based
on conversations with the team surveyor, Bob Jones of Robert H. Goslee Surveying, there exists
conflicting information on where NOAA's eastern property line is located. Depending on where
the property line is located according to the surveyor's research, it may be difficult to locate the
north approach slab in this area. For this option, the existing bridge would be left in operation
until the new bridge is operational and would then be demolished. The contractor will be
required to demolish the bridge in a manner that will not introduce any bridge remnants or debris
into the existing channel. All demolished materials will be required to be removed and disposed
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 2
Design-Build Replacement of NOAAINOA Pivers Island Bridge
of in an approved landfill or construction waste area. Existing concrete bridge piles will be
removed approximately to the mud line of the channel, except the northernmost piles. These
piles are located in a shellfish sampling area and removal of these piles could be disruptive to the
shellfish habitat.
Option 2: "West Alignment" - The NOAA and Duke laboratory personnel are in favor of this
option. The majority of construction on the island side will be limited to the area west of the
existing bridge approaches so disruption to traffic serving the facilities would be minimized. The
new boat ramp would be unaffected and the overhead electrical lines could be left in place. This
Option would require realignment of the bridge approaches on the island and mainland. Both
approaches would require a gentle reverse curve in the roadway to access the bridge (see attached
bridge plan). It is the design intent for this alignment to locate the new bridge as close to the
existing bridge as possible while still allowing reasonable construction access. This would help
to minimize impacts on the natural areas immediately west of the existing bridge and west of the
approach roadway. Some small trees and bushes (predominantly wax myrtles or various sizes)
would have to be removed on both the mainland and island so the new approaches and associated
shoulders could be constructed. The Final Environmental Assessment by Stokes Environmental
states that these areas of wax myrtles are possible habitat for the painted bunting. The alignment
would also require the removal of some native grasses on the beach area west of the existing
bridge. There will also be some fill required in the wetlands area west of the north approach to
the bridge. The area of wetlands that will have to be filled is estimated at 0.042 acres on the
delineated wetlands and the proposed bridge alignment and shoulder geometry. (Wetlands were
staked by Mr. Larry Baldwin of Land Management group.) The area of the beach adjacent to the
north abutment that will receive fill is 0.049 acres. The new bridge will require the extension of
the existing concrete bulkheads on the island to create an area of land of approximately 2,265
square feet, or approximately 0.053 acres, for the south abutment and realigned Pivers Island
Road. The westward extension of the bulkhead under the existing bridge and the northward
extension of the west bulkhead of the island could encroach on existing shellfish beds. Any
shellfish beds that are impacted by the new bulkheads will be relocated to locations approved by
NOAA and governing agencies. The attached bridge plan shows the area of land to be created to
accommodate the south abutment of the bridge and the realigned Pivers Island Road. Like the
East Alignment Option, the existing bridge would be left in operation and demolished when the
new bridge is complete. The bridge design would be identical for either alignment and would be
equally as disruptive to the channel environment.
Based on this comparison of locations, the West Alignment was determined as being the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative. A more thorough discussion of the impacts on
aquatic resources follows:
2. Areas of Environmental Concern
As defined in the North Caroline Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 7, Subchapter H, this project is
located in an "Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC). This project falls under the definition of
"Estuarine and Ocean Systems Categories," ( in particular, estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, and public
trust areas). This project is consistent with the enforceable policies of Subchapter 7H as noted in the
sections below.
15A NCAC 07H.0205 establishes management objectives to conserve and manage coastal wetlands to
help "safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic values." The approach roadway
alignment has been established to minimize the impact to the existing wetlands. Exhibits C and D show
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
the anticipated fill required in the existing wetland west of the north approach roadway, fill on the beach
area by the north abutment, and fill required for extending the bulkheads on the island. This estimated
area of wetland to be filled is 0.042 acres, the fill on the beach area is 0.049 acres, and the fill in the
bulkhead area on the island is 0.053 acres. Other than the creation of the roadbed and shoulders in the
existing wetlands area north of the proposed bridge, there will be no discharge of dredged or fill material
into the wetlands. The more stringent provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation
"Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water
Best Management Practices " (BMPs) will be specified for construction of the project. Project
specifications require that site-specific stormwater management shall be designed to remove 85% of total
suspended solids (TSS) in accordance with the DWQ's BMPs. The project specifications also require that
a stormwater management plan be developed by the successful design-build contractor and submitted to
the DWQ for their records. The stormwater management plan will include provisions to control runoff
from construction areas into the wetlands area. It is the intent of the Owner (NOAA) to provide
compensatory mitigation for all impacts on wetlands that are associated with this project. A mitigation
plan will be developed by the Owner and submitted to DCM for their review and approval prior to
installation.
15A NCAC 0X3.0206 establishes policies to "conserve and manage the important features of estuarine
waters so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social, aesthetic, and economic values." The
proposed bridge project has been designed to have one less line of pile supports in the channel than the
existing bridge. Additionally, the proposed bridge profile will be approximately two feet higher than the
existing bridge. The greater vertical clearance to structure and the fewer support piles will result in fewer
impediments for watercraft and reduce splash on the structure and resulting deterioration. The project
specifications will require that the channel be open to watercraft traffic throughout construction. The
specifications for design-build construction of the Pivers Island Bridge will require that, "to the greatest
extent practicable," all construction activities authorized by the RGP will be conducted "in the dry." The
specifications will require that barriers be installed between work areas and the aquatic habitat to protect
the habitat from cement and other pollutants. The contractor will be required to prevent fresh or uncured
concrete from coming into contact with waters of the State until the concrete has cured. The contractor
will be required to demolish the bridge in a manner that will not introduce any bridge remnants or debris
into the existing channel. All demolished materials will be required to be removed and disposed of in an
approved construction/demolition landfill or construction waste area. Existing concrete bridge piles will
be removed approximately to the mud line of the channel. As described in 7H.0205 above, the more
stringent provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation "Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water Best Management Practices "
(BMPs) will be specified for construction of the project and to control any runoff into Old Channel.
Based on information supplied by the NCDMF and Wildlife Resources Commission, this project is not
located in an area designated as a "primary nursery area," and it is our understanding that it is not
required to contact the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries or the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission for coordination. However, it is the intent of the applicant to issue a notice to
proceed to the successful design-build contractor in October, 2005 and to require that construction of the
piles, bulkheads, and other activities occur in the winter months in a period of low biological activity. It
is our understanding, based on information supplied by the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, that the
site has no anadromous fish. Also, the NMFS indicates that mammals and turtles do not consistently use
this area during any month. Based on this information, it was determined that the proposed construction
activities will not result in substantial permanent disruption of movement of indigenous species of aquatic
life. Additionally, the existing Pivers Island Bridge will be demolished after the completion of the new
bridge. The piles for the existing bridge will be removed to the mudline. The existing north abutment
will be left in place in order not to destabilize the bulkhead at that location.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 4
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
15A NCAC 07H .0207 establishes policies to "protect public rights for navigation and recreation and to
conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic,
and aesthetic value. This project will not impede the public's ability to navigate through Old Channel.
Although this bridge will have a sampling platform that will reduce the navigable way under a portion of
the bridge, the higher bridge deck elevation and fewer lines of support piles should provide equal or better
navigation than what is experienced currently or was experienced when the existing bridge had a
sampling platform.
15A NCAC 0711.0208 establishes use standards for projects in an Area of Environmental Concern.
(a) General Use Standards (applicable sections)
1. A bridge is defined as a project type that is water dependent.
2. The applicant has complied with the following standards:
(A) The proposed location, design and need for development have been established in the
introductory sections of this document.
(B) The permit letting authority for this project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, has been given a Preconstruction Notification for Confirmation of
Compliance with Regional General Permit 1982000031 (RGP), concurrent with this
Consistency Determination.. It is discussed and demonstrated in this Consistency
Determination and the RGP that there exists no suitable alternative site or location
outside of the AEC for this bridge.
(C) This project will not violate water and air quality standards. The more restrictive of
provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation "Best Management
Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water Best
Management Practices " (BMPs) will be specified for construction of the project and to
control any runoff into Old Channel or adjacent wetlands.
(D) Based on the conclusions of the Final Environmental Assessment by Stokes
Environmental, dated August 22, 2003, there is no anticipated damage to archaeological
resources as a result of the project.
(E) It will be a requirement in the project specifications that the contractor follow the BMPs
of the DWQ and NCDoT to control siltation.
(F) This project will not create any stagnant bodies of water. All newly developed areas will
be graded to drain by gravity to surrounding wetlands or estuarine waters.
(G) The project will be scheduled to minimize impact on the life cycles of estuarine and
ocean resources. The discussion in section 15A NCAC 07H.0206 above expands on
this item.
(H) This project will not impede navigation through Old Channel. See further discussion in
15A NCAC 07H.0206 above.
3. NOAA will provide compensatory mitigation for any wetlands that are impacted as a result of
this project. A mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner and submitted to DCM for their
review and forwarded to the relevant State agencies for approval prior to installation.
4. Based on information supplied by the NCDMF and Wildlife Resources Commission, this project
is not located in an area designated as a "primary nursery area."
5. Based on information supplied by DCM, this project is located in an area of Outstanding
Resource Waters. This project is a replacement of an existing bridge and is consistent with the
standards adopted by the CRC, EMC, and Marine Fisheries Commission for estuarine waters and
coastal wetlands. Best Management Practices of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 5
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
and the North Carolina Department of Transportation will be required on this project so as not to
degrade the water quality of outstanding resource values.
6. This project will not be constructed in areas having submerged aquatic vegetation in the public
trust and estuarine waters.
(b) Specific Use Standards (applicable sections)
7. (A) Bulkheads or extensions of existing bulkheads are planned at each end of the bridge and
will be aligned to approximate the mean high water level.
(B) Bulkheads will not be constructed near marshland or marshland fringes.
(C) The project specifications will require the successful design-build contractor to obtain
any fill material from an approved upland source.
(D) Not applicable. Bulkheads will be constructed to mean high water level.
(E) Not applicable.
15A NCAC 07H.0209 establishes management policies to "ensure that shoreline development is
compatible with both the dynamic nature of coastal shorelines as well as the management objectives of
the estuarine and ocean system." Other objectives are "to conserve and manage the important natural
features of the estuarine and ocean system so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social,
aesthetic, and economic values." The proposed alignment of the new bridge will require the construction
of the north abutment and associated bulkhead on the beach area immediately west of the existing bridge
north abutment. This beach area is owned by the U.S. Government. It is the intent of the proposed plan
to limit the impact on this beach area as much as practicable by locating the proposed bridge as close to
the existing bridge as possible. Any new bulkhead will extend to the west of the proposed abutment to
help stabilize the beach area and to resist erosion.
(d) Use Standards
3. As part of the specifications for this project, the design-build contractor will be required to
comply with the mandatory standards of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
of 1973, including: creation of a buffer zone along the channel to confine siltation; limitation of
grade slopes allowing vegetation to act as the primary erosion control; and planting of ground
cover in uncovered areas within 30 days of completion of final grading.
4. This project will alter coastal wetlands because of the required alignment of the north approach
roadway. NOAA has agreed to provide compensatory mitigation for any affected wetlands area
on Pivers Island. Also, any shellfish beds that are impacted by the construction of new bulkheads
on Pivers Island will be moved as part of the project in coordination with the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries. Project specifications will require that no spoils will be deposited
waterward of normal water level or normal high water, or will cause the degradation of any
shellfish beds.
This development will not interfere with the public's access to navigable waters or public
resources.
6. N.A.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
7. Based on the conclusions of the Final Environmental Assessment by Stokes Environmental, dated
August 22, 2003, there is no anticipated damage to archaeological resources as a result of the
project.
8. The public's rights to access to public trust lands and waters will not be impacted by this project.
9. This project use is consistent with the general use standards of 15A NCAC 07H .0208 as
discussed above. The contractor will be required to comply with the more restrictive of
provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation "Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water Best Management
Practices" (BMPs) and the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, to
control any runoff into Old Channel or adjacent wetlands.
10. N.A. Construction of the bridge (or of any bridge) cannot be located a distance of 30 feet
landward of normal water level or normal high water level. The bridge is a water dependent use.
15A NCAC 07H.0601 establishes the policy that "no development shall be allowed in any AEC which
would result in a contravention or violation of any rules, regulations, or laws of the State of North
Carolina or of local Government in which the development takes place." This policy will be explicitly
stated in the project specifications. Additionally, a copy of this Consistency Determination and the
Regional General Permit 31 Confirmation of Compliance has been submitted to Carteret County
simultaneous with this submission for review for compliance with the County's Land Use Plan.
15A NCAC 07H .0602 establishes the policy that no development shall be allowed that has a substantial
likelihood of causing pollution in waters where shellfishing takes place. It is the intent of this project to
protect and relocate any affected shellfish beds. Additionally, the northernmost line of piles of the
existing bridge and the north abutment will be left so as not to disturb the existing shellfish sampling area
in the vicinity.
15A NCAC 07M .0301 establishes management objectives to ensure public access to public beaches and
waters. There are no public beaches in the vicinity of this project.
15A NCAC 07M.0700 establishes policies for mitigation should a project have adverse impacts. While
the project has been designed to avoid adverse impacts to the greatest extent practicable, the project will
have adverse impacts on three specific areas; the wetlands area west of the north approach roadway; the
beach area immediately west of the existing bridge north abutment; and the shellfish beds located in the
area where new bulkheads will be constructed on Pivers Island. It is the intent of the Owner (NOAA) to
provide compensatory mitigation for any impacts on wetlands that are associated with this project. The
shellfish beds that would be disturbed by the construction of the new bulkheads will be moved as part of
the project requirements. Additionally, as part of the project specifications, the wax myrtles that will be
affected in order to accommodate the realigned approach roadways will be salvaged and replanted. If it is
impossible to save these mature plants, the project specifications will require that the contractor replace
the plants with plants of the same caliper or largest caliper commercially available in an arrangement to
be approved by the NOAA and Duke Laboratories. A mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner
and submitted to DCM and forwarded to relevant State agencies for their review and approval prior to
construction.
15A NCAC 07111.0800 establishes management objectives for waters of the coastal area that have
traditionally been used for commercial and recreational fishing, swimming, hunting, recreational boating
and commerce. This project does occur adjacent to and over estuarine waters ("Old Channel") and
project specifications will require that the project will not degrade the water quality so as to impair
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 7
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
traditional uses. Specifications will establish requirements for stormwater runoff, control of siltation, and
turbidity.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
Preconstruction Notification
for
Confirmation of Compliance
with
Regional General Permit No. 198200031
Submittal To: District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Applicant (Owner): NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research
Contact: Mr. Mike Randall
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Eastern Region
CAO/RPFLO/Project Planning Management Division
601 East 12th Street, Room 1749
Kansas City, MO 64106-2877
e-mail: [e-mail]
Applicant's Engineer, Contact: TranSystems Corporation
Mr. Jeff Reeder
TranSystems Corporation
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Project Name: Design-Build Replacement of the NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge
Submittal Date: April 29, 2005
The following attachments accompany and support this Confirmation of Compliance Document:
• Exhibit A - Location and Vicinity Maps
• Exhibit B - Existing Survey
• Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan
• Exhibit D - Partial Site Layout Plans
• Exhibit E - Bridge Plan and Elevation
• Exhibit F - Sections and Details
• Final Environmental Assessment (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• FONSI letter from Department of Commerce (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• Copy of Consistency Determination submitted to NC Division of Coastal Management (PDF
version on accompanying CD)
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
1. Special Conditions
a. Written Confirmation - This document shall serve as written confirmation that the work
proposed for the referenced project complies with the Regional General Permit (RGP) No.
198200031 that is currently in effect. The RGP is for work "in or affecting navigable waters of
the United States" and authorizes "the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the
United States, including wetlands, associated with the construction, maintenance and repair of
bridges.... as part of work conducted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) or other State, Federal or governmental entity, in the State of North Carolina."
(1) Project Location - The project is located in Beaufort, North Carolina, and is titled
as the "Design-Build Replacement of the NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge." The
bridge will replace the existing bridge that spans Old Channel and will link the
mainland with Pivers Island. The island is currently home to NOAA National Ocean
Service Laboratory and the Duke University Marine Laboratory. A map of the
project location is shown on Exhibit A attached. Exhibit B shows the topographical
survey of the project location. Exhibits C & D show graphically the encroachment
of the north approach roadway into adjacent wetlands area and Exhibits E and F
show the preliminary construction plans for the proposed bridge. Wetlands were
delineated for this project by the Land Management Group.
(2) Project Plans -Plans for the proposed replacement bridge have been developed to
approximately the 35% completion level in accordance with the Engineer's scope of
services and what is customary for inclusion in design-build criteria documents.
These plans and details, in 11" x 17" format, are attached to this document as
Exhibits E and F. The plans show a new two-lane concrete bridge to be constructed
immediately west of the existing Pivers Island Bridge. The plans show the existing
bridge (to be demolished) the preferred bridge plan alignment and dimensions, the
preferred bridge profile, selected typical bridge details and anticipated fill that will
be required in any existing wetland areas to accommodate the bridge and/or
approach roadways. Plans also show anticipated quantities of materials, locations of
all pertinent structures, and the normal high water elevation contour in impacted
areas.
(3) Affected Aquatic Resources - An alternatives analysis was performed to
determine the best location for the proposed Pivers Island Bridge. In studying
bridge location alternatives, the Applicant's primary criterion was to avoid project
impacts on the environment to the greatest extent practicable. We have attempted to
minimize the extent of any unavoidable impacts. It is understood that all
unavoidable impacts will be mitigated through compensatory actions and in
accordance with the Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The proposed Pivers Island Bridge will be served by Pivers Island
Road on the mainland and island sides of the bridge. It was practical to locate the
proposed bridge as close to the existing bridge as possible to make use of the
existing access roadways and to minimize the impact on existing natural areas. Two
options were studied for the proposed bridge location: immediately east of the
existing bridge and immediately west of the existing bridge. A description of the
proposed alignments follows along with a discussion of the impact on
environmental resources.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 2
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
Option 1: "East Alignment" - For this option, the existing bridge would be
left in operation until the proposed new bridge is operational at which time the
existing bridge would then be demolished. The NOAA and Duke labs were
opposed to this option because of the disruption it would cause with existing
improvements and traffic flow on the site. Access to all NOAA and Duke
facilities would have to be maintained which could impact sequencing of
construction and result in additional construction costs. The lab recently
constructed a new dock and boat ramp east of the existing bridge that would
have to be removed so the new bridge could be constructed. This ramp would
have to be relocated to another site and could possibly require the construction
of a new access road as well as new environmental documentation to be
conducted relative to the new facility. No site was identified as a possible
location for a new dock and boat ramp. Construction of a new ramp would be
potentially more disruptive to the environment than leaving the existing ramp in
place. The proposed bridge would have five spans while the existing bridge has
six spans. The new bridge would be founded using concrete piles that will be
driven in the Channel. The proposed bridge would therefore have one less line
of piles in the channel than the existing bridge and would be less disruptive to
the environment of the Channel than the current bridge. The attached bridge
plan and profile in Exhibit E shows the proposed arrangement of pile supports
for the bridge. The overhead power lines and associated easement on the east
side of the existing bridge would have to be relocated as well for this option, or
special bridge detailing, such as the use of spliced piles and low height cranes,
would be required for construction. Relocation of the power lines, in addition to
being expensive, would also be environmentally disruptive, requiring new
support structure in the vicinity of the channel. These special construction
measures would increase the cost of the bridge. Another possible problem with
this scenario concerns the location of the property line north of the existing
bridge. Based on conversations with the team surveyor, Bob Jones of Robert H.
Goslee Surveying, there exists conflicting information on where NOAA's
eastern property line is located. Depending on where the property line is located
according to the surveyor's research, it may be difficult to locate the north
approach slab in this area. For this option, the existing bridge would be left in
operation until the new bridge is operational and would then be demolished.
The contractor would be required to demolish the bridge in a manner that would
not introduce any bridge remnants or debris into the existing channel. All
demolished materials would be required to be removed and disposed of in an
approved landfill or construction/demolition landfill. Existing concrete bridge
piles would be removed approximately to the mud line of the channel.
Option 2: "West Alignment" - The NOAA and Duke personnel are in favor of
this option. The majority of construction on the island side would be limited to
the area west of the existing bridge approaches so disruption to traffic would be
less than Option 1. The new boat ramp would be unaffected and the overhead
electrical lines could be left in place. This Option would require realignment of
the bridge approaches on the island and mainland. Both approaches would
require a gentle reverse curve in the roadway to access the bridge (see attached
bridge plan). Some small trees and bushes and native grasses would have to be
removed on both the mainland and island so the new approaches and associated
shoulders could be constructed. There would also be some fill placement
required in the wetlands area west of the north approach to the bridge. The new
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 3
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
bridge would require the extension of the existing concrete bulkheads on the
island to create an area of land of approximately 2,265 (0.053 acres) square feet
for the south abutment and realigned Pivers Island Road. The westward
extension of the bulkhead under the existing bridge and the northward extension
of the west bulkhead of the island could encroach on existing shellfish beds.
Any shellfish beds that are impacted by the new bulkheads would be relocated to
locations approved by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The
attached bridge plan shows the area of land to be created to accommodate the
south abutment of the bridge and the realigned Pivers Island Road. Like the
East Alignment Option, the existing bridge would be left in operation and
demolished when the new bridge is complete. The bridge design would be
identical for either option and would have similar impact to the channel
environment.
Based on this comparison of locations, the Option 2 West Alignment was
determined as being the least environmentally damaging practical alternative A
more thorough discussion of the impacts on aquatic resources follows:
Impact in Channel - The proposed bridge will have five spans while the
existing bridge has six spans. The new bridge will be founded using
concrete piles that would be driven in the Channel. The proposed bridge
would therefore have one less line of piles in the channel than the existing
bridge and will be less disruptive to the environment of the Channel than the
current bridge. The attached bridge plan and profile on Exhibit E shows the
proposed arrangement of pile supports for the bridge.
Impact of Bulkhead Extensions on Island - The new bridge would require
the extension of the existing concrete bulkheads on the island to create an
area of land of approximately 2.265 (0.053 acres) square feet for the south
abutment and realigned Pivers Island Road. The westward extension of the
bulkhead under the existing bridge and the northward extension of the west
bulkhead of the island could encroach on existing shellfish beds. Any
shellfish beds that are impacted by the new bulkheads would be relocated to
locations approved by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The
attached bridge plan shows the area of land to be created to accommodate
the south abutment of the bridge and the realigned Pivers Island Road.
Realignment of Pivers Island Road, North of Bridge - This option would
require that Pivers Island Road be realigned on the mainland side of the
Channel to accommodate the proposed bridge location. This realignment
would require the removal of some existing vegetation on the west side of
the road and will also require some fill in the existing wetlands immediately
west of the road in order to create the new roadbed and shoulder and side
slope. Exhibits C and D show the estimated impact on the existing wetlands
area. It is estimated that the area of wetlands that will be impacted is 0.042
acres, the area of sandy beach that would be impacted is 0.049 acres.
• Demolition of Existing Bridge - The existing Pivers Island Bridge would
be demolished after the completion of the new bridge. The contractor would
be required to demolish the bridge in a manner that would not introduce any
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 4
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
bridge remnants or debris into the existing channel. All demolished
materials would be required to be removed and disposed in an approved
construction/demolition landfill. Existing concrete bridge piles will be
removed approximately to the mud line of the channel. Demolition will be
in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
including the Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Storm [Vater Best Management Practices.
It is the design intent that all piles would be removed as part of the demolition of the
existing bridge. The abutment on the north side of the existing bridge would be left
in place so as not to destabilized the existing bulkhead at that location. There would
be no environmental impact by leaving the abutment in place because there is no
emergent seagrass at this location.
(4) Approximate Commencement and Completion Dates - We anticipate that
construction on the project will begin in January 1, 2006 and will be completed by
March 31, 2007.
(5) Methods to be Employed to Minimize Impact on Aquatic Resources- All
construction activities, including demolition, shall be performed in accordance with
the Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities, as
published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, August 2003.
(6) Techniques for Construction, Stabilization, and Removal of Unavoidable
Temporary Fills - All construction activities, including demolition, shall be
performed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities, as published by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, August 2003. Competent Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research (CCFHR) staff will monitor compliance with these BMPs.
(7) Adjoining Property Owners -The south end of the proposed bridge will be
located on Pivers Island. Pivers Island is surrounded by estuaries of the Newport
River, namely "Back Sound" on the west and "Beaufort Channel" or "Gallants
Channel" on the east and south. The north side of the island in bounded by a narrow
channel named "Old Channel," which is approximately 300 feet wide. The
proposed bridge will span Old Channel. This channel is noted as "Thoroughfare" on
the attached survey and will be referred to hereafter as "the Channel." All channels
mentioned are public waters. On the north side of the bridge, the U.S. Government
owns all land on which any construction will take place. The property immediately
to the east of the Government property is deeded to Rodney P. Hoell. The
government property abuts the right of way for Old Causeway Road on the north
(also known as "County Road 1205" or "Old Morehead Road" on some local
databases.) The State of North Carolina owns a small irregularly shaped parcel of
approximately one-half acre west of Pivers Island Road north of the bridge. This
parcel is surrounded by U.S. Government property.
b. Fill Areas and Impacts on Aquatic Resources - Based on the preferred approach roadway
and bridge alignment, the total area of fill anticipated for the project is 0.144 acres. This total
fill area includes fill required in the wetlands area on the north approach roadway (0.042
acres) and the fill area behind the proposed bulkhead on the northwest corner of Pivers Island
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
(0.052 acres), and fill on the beach area at the north abutment (0.049 acres). The bulkhead is
being extended on Pivers Island in order to accommodate the construction of the bridge
abutment and adjacent approach roadway alignment.
It is our understanding that the Corps of Engineers' Project Manager will make a wetlands
determination, after visiting the site and reviewing the attached plans, if the impact on aquatic
resources warrants a review by Federal and State agencies. It is our understanding that the
Division of Coastal Management will distribute plans and associated materials to these and
other State agencies, if required:
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
It is also our understanding that if the Corps of Engineers' Project Manager determines that
the impacts of the project are minimal (or can be made minimal by changes agreed to by the
applicant) a letter of authorization to proceed will be provided.
c. Forwarding of Plans to Selected Agencies, for Fills Greater Than One Acre - Since the
calculated area of fills for the project is less than one acre, the forwarding of plans to the
agencies listed under item b. above will be performed only if requested by the Corps of
Engineers' Project Manager.
d. Location of Work - The proposed work is in Carteret County. Because this is one of the
coastal counties as defined by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, a copy of
this Preconstruction Notification has been forwarded to:
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Attention: Mr. Ron Sechler
It is the Applicant's understanding that Carteret County currently has a Land Use Plan in
effect. A copy of this Preconstruction Notification has been forwarded to Katrina Marshall at
the County for review and comment to assure compliance with the Land Use Plan.
e. State Authorizations - It is our understanding that State authorizations are required before
the Wilmington District Engineer will issue any approval for this project. A Consistency
Determination has been filed with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
concurrent with this RGP Confirmation of Compliance.
f. Notice to Proceed - It is understood that no work will proceed on this project until the
applicant receives written notice to proceed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District Engineer.
g. Removal of Temporary Fills and Site Restoration - All temporary fills used for
construction of the proposed Pivers Island Bridge or realigned roadways will be completely
removed from the site. It is not anticipated at this time that any temporary fills will be
required that will impact wetland areas.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 6
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
li. Soil and Erosion Control Measures - All construction activities, including demolition, shall
be performed in accordance with the Best Management Practices of the North Carolina
Division of Land Resources.
i. Alignment of Approaches and Existing Approach Fills - The existing roadbed north of the
proposed bridge is not located in a designated wetland area. Areas where the existing
roadway will be removed will be regarded and new plants introduced at areas not required for
access to the property to the east.
Discharges of Fill Materials, Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation - Discharges of fill
dredged or fill material will be minimized on this project. If, after review by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Engineer, it is determined that the construction
activities will result in more than "minimal adverse environmental affects," compensatory
mitigation will be provided on the project. Any compensatory mitigation will comply with
the Corps-wide mitigation guidelines.
k. Activities in North Carolina "Mountain Trout Waters" - Provisions of the RGP related
to work occurring in designated "Mountain Trout Waters" do not apply to this project.
1. Activities in Mountain Counties of North Carolina - Provisions of the RGP related to
work occurring in designated "Mountain Counties" or North Carolina do not apply to this
project.
m. Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas and Use of Culverts - Provisions of the RGP related to
installation of culverts in areas designated as "anadromous fish" spawning areas do not apply
to this project.
n. Discharges into Waters Designated as Anadromous Fish Spawning or Primary Nursery
Areas- Based on information supplied by the NCDMF and Wildlife Resources Commission,
this project is not located in an area designated as a "primary nursery area," and it is our
understanding that it is not required to contact the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for coordination. Although
not required, it is the intent of the applicant to issue a notice to proceed to the successful
design-build contractor in October, 2005 and to require that construction of the piles,
bulkheads, and other activities occur in the winter months in a period of low biological
activity.
o. Disruption of Movement of Indigenous Species of Aquatic Life - It is our understanding,
based on information supplied by the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, that the site has
no anadromous fish. Also, the NMFS indicates that mammals and turtles do not consistently
use this area during any month. In the Final Environmental Assessment, it was noted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that there is a "slight chance that the West Indian manatee
may occupy waters in the vicinity of Pivers Island." The Fish and Wildlife Service included
in their report a set of guidelines for construction in possible areas where manatees could be
found. This document is titled "Precautions for General Construction in Areas Which May
Be Used by the [Vest Indian Manatee in North Carolina." The design-build contractor will be
required in the specifications to conduct all construction activities in accordance with this
document. Based on this information, it was determined that the proposed construction
activities will not result in substantial permanent disruption of movement of indigenous
species of aquatic life.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
p. Installation of Culverts Greater Than 100' in Length - Provisions of the RGP related to
installation of culverts do not apply to this project.
q. Pipe Culverts in CA11MA designated counties - Provisions of the RGP related to installation
of culverts do not apply to this project.
r. Construction Activities Adjacent to Aquatic Habitat - The specifications for design-build
construction of the Pivers Island Bridge will require that, "to the greatest extent practicable,"
all construction activities authorized by the RGP will be conducted "in the dry." The
specifications will require that barriers be installed between work areas and the aquatic
habitat to protect the habitat from cement and other pollutants. The contractor will be
required to prevent fresh or uncured concrete from coming into contact with waters of the
State until the concrete has cured.
s. Determination of Consistency with North Carolina Division of Coastal Management -
It is our understanding that projects authorized by this RGP require a Determination of
Consistency from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management in accordance with the
Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA). Carteret County is located within the
twenty counties of North Carolina designated as coastal counties by the CAMA. A
Consistency Determination has been submitted to Ms. Terre Barrett of the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City office, concurrent with submission of this
RGP Confirmation Compliance. This project occurs within a designated Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC) therefore subchapter 7H of Chapter 7 of Title 15A of North
Carolina's Administrative Code, State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern, will
apply. Additionally, Subchapter 7M of the Code, General Policy Guidelines for the Costal
Area, will apply.
t. Authorization of Work and Consultation with NOAA -Based on the project location, the
following Essential Fish Habitats (EFH) will be impacted:
Inter-tidal Marsh - Fill areas on the west side of the re-aligned Pivers Island Road
north of the proposed bridge will impact the existing wetlands area. The area of
wetlands that will be impacted is 0.042 acres.
Oyster Beds - The proposed bulkhead extension on Pivers Island will impact existing
oyster beds located on rocks adjacent to the existing concrete bulkhead. All live
oysters will be removed and relocated to an area designated by the NCDENR. The
rocky area that will be impacted is 0.053 acres.
Sandy Beach Area - The new bridge will impact 0.049 acres of sandy beach at the
north abutment.
Impacted areas are shown on Exhibits C and D.
Based on coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation
Division, a determination has been made that the impact to EFH will be minimal.
Therefore, no EFH assessment has been prepared.
u. Requirements of NCDWQ Water Quality Certification No. 3404 - All work will for this
project will comply with North Carolina Division of Water Quality Certification No. 3404.
Applicable sections of the Certification and a discussion of how this project is in compliance
follows:
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE g
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
1.) Enumerating and Reporting of Impacts:
• Streams - Provisions are not applicable.
• Wetlands - Impacts to wetlands are shown graphically on the attached
Project Plan (Exhibits C and D). The fill area in the wetlands north of the
bridge is 0.42 acres.
• Lakes and Ponds - Not applicable.
2.) Proposed Fill or Substantial Modification of Wetlands - A Consistency
Determination for the project has been submitted for review by North Carolina
DCM. DCM is forwarding copies of the Consistency Determination document to
the appropriate State agencies, including the Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
for their review and concurrence.
3.) Single Family Lot Application - Not applicable.
4.) Impacts to Streams in Neuse, Tar-Pamilico or Randleman River Basins -
Not applicable.
5.) Impacts to Perennial Waters - This project does have an impact on Perennial
Waters since the bridge will cross Old Channel and will require written approval
from the DWQ. This project will have a slight increase in impervious area
because of the realignment of Pivers Island Road north and south of the bridge.
The increase will be approximately 0.012 acres in aggregate (no increase on
Pivers Island and 0.012acres on the mainland.)
6.) Site Specific Storm Water Management - The more stringent provisions of
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Best Management Practices
for Construction and Maintenance Activities and DWQ's Storm TYater Best
Management Practices (BMPs) will be required for construction of the project.
Project specifications require that site-specific stormwater management shall be
designed to remove 85% of total suspended solids (TSS) in accordance with the
DWQ's BMPs. The project specifications also require that a stormwater
management plan be developed by the successful design-build contractor and
submitted to the DWQ for their records.
7.) Compensatory Stream Mitigation - Not applicable.
8.) 401 Water Quality Certification - Not applicable as verified with the
NCDENR and the NC Department of Water Quality.
9.) Compensatory Mitigation - It is the intent of the Owner (NOAA) to provide
compensatory mitigation for any impacts to wetlands that are associated with this
projectA mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner and submitted to DCM
for their review and approval prior to installation.
10.) Realignment of Streams -Not applicable.
11.) Placement of Culverts - Not applicable.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 9
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
12.)Sediment and Erosion Control Practices - The more stringent provisions of
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Best Managentent Practices
for Construction and Maintenance Activities, and the North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual will be in effect for the
construction of this project.
13.)Removal of Sediment and Erosion Control Illeasures - As a requirement of
the project specifications, the Contractor shall remove all erosion control
measures and original grades restored within two months after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project.
14.)Additional Site-Specific Conditions - It is understood that the DWQ may add
additional site specific conditions to this project in order to ensure compliance
with all applicable water quality and effluent standards.
15.) Casting of Concrete Adjacent to Waters of the State - As a requirement of the
project specifications, the contractor will be required to prevent fresh or uncured
concrete from coming into contact with waters of the State until the concrete has
cured.
16.)Environmental Documentation - A Final Environmental Assessment has been
conducted for this and associated projects at Pivers Island by Stokes
Environmental Associates, Norfolk, Virginia, dated 22 August 2003. A copy of
this document is located on the compact disk accompanying this report. A
FONSI has been issued by the United States Department of Commerce/NOAA
by Dr. Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, Silver
Spring Maryland. A copy of the Final Environmental Assessment and FONSI
are attached to the Confirmation of Compliance.
17.)Access of Building Sites and Additional Fill - The RGP Certification of
Compliance will be used to access the construction site for the proposed bridge.
No additional fill, beyond what is indicated on the attached preliminary plan and
profile and what is described in this document, is allowed as part of this project.
18.) Certification of Completion - NOAA will use the most recent version of the
Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in the
RGP is complete.
19.) Certification Period - The applicant understands that any certification from the
DWQ shall expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on
the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding RGP, whichever is
sooner.
v. The proposed Pivers Island Bridge will be constructed just west of and as close as practicable
to the existing bridge. The new bridge will have one less set of pier supports in the Old
Channel than the current bridge and will have no adverse impact on preconstruction
downstream flow rates or capacity. Construction of the bridge will not permanently restrict
or impede the passage of normal or high flows. The structure and any shoulders, built-up
areas or subbase material that accommodates the new alignment of Pivers Island road will be
designed to withstand expected high flows. Discharge of dredged materials will not be
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 10
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
allowed (by project specifications) into any of the waterways or wetlands associated with this
project.
2. General Conditions
a. Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material - Other than the creation of the roadbed and
shoulders in the existing wetlands area north of the proposed bridge, there will be no
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with this
project.
b. Interference with Navigation or Right of Public to Riparian Access - As a
requirement of the project specifications, there will be no interference with navigation or
riparian access as a result of this project. The contractor will maintain watercraft access
through Old Channel for the duration of construction activities. Plans will be submitted
to the United States Coast Guard for review for verification.
c. Permittee Compliance with RGP - As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor upon written notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington
District Engineer of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this RGP, will
within 60 days, without expense to the U.S. Government, and in such manner as the
Wilmington District Engineer may direct, affect compliance with the terms and
conditions or return the worksite to a pre-work condition
d. Impact on Fish, Wildlife, and Natural Environment-As a requirement of the project
specifications, the contractor will make every reasonable effort to minimize the impact on
fish, wildlife, and the natural environment in conducting the work of the construction
contract.
e. Degradation of Water Quality - As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor will conduct work of the construction contract in a manner to minimize any
degradation of water quality. Construction activities will be conducted in such a manner
as to prevent a significant increase in turbidity (25 NTU's (Natural Turbidity Units)) or
less in all saltwater classes) outside the area of construction or construction related
discharge.
f. Corps of Engineers' Inspections - As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor will permit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Engineer
or his representative to make periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order
to assure that the activity is performed or maintained in strict accordance with the Special
and General Conditions of this permit.
g. Non-Conveyance of Special Rights - The project specifications will state that "this
RGP does not convey any rights, either in real estate or material, or any exclusive
privileges; and it does not authorize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the
requirement to obtain State or local assent required by law for the activity authorized
herein. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to, a Dredge and/or Fill Permit
(N.C.G.S. 113-229), a CAMA Permit (N.C.G.S. 113A-118), an Easement to Fill
(N.C.G.S. 146-12) and a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act."
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 11
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
li. Modification or Revocation of this RGP - It is understood by the applicant, and will be
a part of the project specifications, that the authorization provided by this RGP may be
modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Engineer, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, determines
that such an action would be in the best public interest. Unless subject to modification,
suspension, or revocation, it is understood that the term of this RGP shall be five years. It
is further understood that any modification, suspension, or revocation of this
authorization will not be the basis for any claim for damages against the U.S.
Government.
i. Interference With Federal Projects - It is understood that this RGP does not authorize
the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project and that permittee will not
be entitled to compensation for damages or injury to the structures or work authorized
herein which may be caused by or results from existing or future operations undertaken
by the United States in the public interest.
j. Adverse Affect on Human Environment - It is understood that this RGP will not be
applicable to the proposed construction when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Engineer determines, after necessary investigations, that the
proposed activity would significantly affect the quality of the human environment and
determines that an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. The applicant
does not anticipate that the District Engineer will take this position in light of the
supporting data, including the Final Environmental Assessment and resulting FONSI,
which are attached to this Confirmation of Compliance.
k. Adverse Affect on Other Areas of Public Importance - It is understood that this RGP
will not be applicable to the proposed construction when the Wilmington District
Engineer determines after necessary investigations, that the proposed activity would
adversely affect areas that possess historic, cultural, scenic, conservation, or recreational
values. Application of this exemption applies to:
historic, cultural or archaeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places;
Critical habitat for threatened or endangered species;
NOAA designated marine sanctuaries;
1. National Flood Insurance Program - This project will not result in any increase in the
base flood elevation and therefore will not be subject to the National Flood Insurance
Program.
m. Appropriateness of RGP - It is understood that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Engineer, at his discretion, may determine that this RGP will not be
applicable to this specific construction proposal. In such case, it is understood that the
procedure for processing an individual permit in accordance with 33 CFR 325 will be
available.
n. Successors to the Permittee - The project specifications will state that "the permittee or
permittce's successors will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in
conformance with the terms and conditions of the RGP."
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 12
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
o. Content of Dredged or Fill Material to be Discharged - The project specifications will
state that "the discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free
from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts."
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 13
X10/
UNrMO OTATUD OEpARTMENT OF COMMERCE=

/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PROGRAM PLANNING AND INTEGRATION
+rft d Sliver Spring. Merytand 20910
ROD' - 3 2004
To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups:
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has conducted an environmental review of the following action:
TITLE: National Ocean Service (NOS) Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research (CCFHR) Expansion and Improvements
LOCATION: Beaufort, North Carolina
SUMMARY: Expansion and improvements to the CCFHR facility by the construction of a
two-story 17,700 square foot main laboratory and administration building,
emplacement of a small interpretive kiosk, replacement of an existing vehicle
access bridge, and upgrades to existing turtle pens, sea water system, and
boat ramp and docks
RESPONSIBLE Richard W. Spinrad, Ph.D.
OFFICIAL: Assistant Administrator
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation
SSMC4, Room 13632
1305 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Phone: [phone]
The environmental review process led us to conclude that this action will not have a significant
impact on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement was not prepared. A
copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact, including the environmental assessment, is
enclosed for your information. Please send one copy of any comments to the responsible official
listed above and one copy to me at the NOAA Strategic Planning Office, PPI/SP, SSMC3 Rm
15603, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
j
Z
Susan A. Keened
Acting NEPA Coordinator
Enclosures
Printed on Recycled Paper
? d
'# 01 w `?
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
?'+•a'? NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
JAN 2 9 M4
MEMORANDUM FOR: Susan A. Kennedy
Deputy Director
Strategic Planning Office
FROM: Richard W. Spinrad, Ph.D.
Assistant Administrator
SUBJECT: Proposed Beaufort Laboratory Expansion
NOS, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
Pivers Island, North Carolina-DECISION MEMORANDUM
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) Center for Coastal Fisheries
and Habitat Research located at NOAA's NOS complex at 101 Pivers Island Road in Beaufort, North
Carolina. The EA conforms to regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508 issued
by the Council on Environmental Quality, and with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6,
Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. The
Final EA, dated 22 August 2003, analyzes the potential for significant effects on the environment
resulting from the proposed construction, including individual and cumulative effects.
Based on a careful review of the information and findings contained in the Final EA, I find that
implementation of the proposed action would not result in significant impacts on the environment.
The following information supports this finding:
The Final EA includes a comprehensive analysis of the potential for environmental effects
and neither individual nor cumulative environmental impacts would be significant.
Based on consultation with federal and state agencies, implementation of the proposed action
will trot significantly affect species protected under either federal or state law.
Based on consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), resources listed
or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will not be adversely
affected.

Page 2
Based on careful review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, as confirmed by onsite analysis by appropriate scientists,
no significant adverse effects will result to wetlands and water resources at the property in
compliance with Executive Orders (EOs) 11988, Floodplain Management, and 11990,
Protection of Wetlands.
The National Ocean Service (NOS) will have funds available in Fiscal Year 2004 (FY-04) to initiate
the proposed project. Based on the subject environmental assessment, Fhave determined that no
significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed action. I request your concurrence
of the attached Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSD by signing below. Please return this
memorandum for our files.
104? l
Concur We
Do Not Concur Date
Attachment
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY &
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR
THE PROPOSED
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service
CENTER EXPANSION FOR COASTAL FISHERIES AND HABITAT RESEARCH
101 PIVERS ISLAND IN BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NOS, within NOAH, provides habitat research, laboratory management and administration operations
at the Beaufort Laboratory, located on Pivers Island in Beaufort, North Carolina. The proposed laboratory
expansion project is part of the Beaufort Laboratory improvements, which will modemize the
infrastructure and enhance the NOS's ability to support marine fisheries research.
The proposed main laboratory and administration building will enable reclamation of laboratory space for
scientific research in the NOS laboratory building that is currently being used as office space. The NOS
library and administrative functions will. be relocated to the new building. Current North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve '(NCNERR) spaces will also be relocated to the new facility and
much needed space for public functions serving the missions of both organizations will be provided.
NCNERR personnel are currently located in a non-contiguous location at the Duke University Marine
Laboratory and are housed in inadequate, non-government facilities.
Current overcrowded conditions require NOS research staff to use functioning laboratory spaces as their
office. This provides inadequate office facilities and is detrimental to controlled laboratory environments.
Existing conference space is not adequate for current electronic training needs and conferencing systems.
Current NCNERR office spaces are inadequate. Space for laboratory and training are currently not
available nor are the spaces necessary to meet NCNERR public meeting requirements.
The collocation of NOS and NCNERR will strengthen the partnership between the agencies through
shared resources and collaboration. The NCNERR educational staff will help communicate NOS results,
directives and missions to various public and management groups. It will enhance partnerships with
researchers from academic institutions and other federal laboratories. Other portions of this proposed
project are planned as part of the overall modernization of the Beaufort Laboratory operation.
The site for the proposed emplacement of a small interpretive kiosk, which will be a small display area
and not an occupied building, was chosen for its view of the Rachel Carson NCNERR, proximity to
existing structures and based on future plans with regard to educational functions. This structure will
provide both informational and educational displays regarding NOS and NCNERR programs.
The current vehicle access bridge has served the island for over 35 years and proposed replacement will
enable continued road access to the NOAA and Duke Laboratories for another 35 years or more.
The proposed upgrade of the existing turtle pen complex, which will be a tidal research area, and
connected free flowing, tidally influenced seawater supply system will facilitate tidal research in support
of NOS programs. No pumping system will be used with the seawater supply system.
The proposed upgrade of a boat ramp and docks will improve safety and extend the useful life of these
assets, and provide permanent space for the NCNERR boats.
Completion of this proposed project is critical to the continued support of NOAA's NOS Center for
Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research (CCFHR), which is one of four national research facilities in the
NOS's National Center for Coastal Ocean Science. The Beaufort Laboratory has continually advanced the
scientific frontiers within its various specific areas of endeavor, and as such, modernization of the
laboratory complex will enable the CCFHR to continue providing the highest standard of scientific
research in the future.
The NOAA has prepared this Final Environmental Assessment (EA) document in conformance with
requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (1999). This EA analyzes project-related impacts and the potential for
significant environmental impacts to occur to the human environment for the preferred action and the
alternative of taking no action. The human environment is defined broadly as the natural and physical-
environment, and the relationship of people within that environment.
NOAA evaluated all feasible alternative locations on the Island, regarding the proposed facility locations,
including the no action alternative. The project has not been a source of controversy on any matter and no
negative comments were received from federal or state agencies or the public (the 30-day comment period
ran from 20 June 2003 through 22 July 2003). NOAA prepared a Draft EA for review by interested
members of the public and government agencies and accepted written comments on the content of the
Draft EA during a 30-day comment period from 20 June 2003 to 22 July 2003. Agency and public
comments were incorporated into the Preliminary Final EA, and all reviewer comments were incorporated
in the Final EA. The Final EA includes all research, and comments obtained from agency queries and
interviews. No negative comments were recorded.
Based on the research and analysis conducted during this EA, it is concluded that implementation of the
proposed action(s), would not result in significant individual or cumulative environmental effects and
requires no further environmental analyses. A Finding of No Significant Impact is recommended.
II. PROPOSED ACTION
The scope of the proposed undertaking is to design and construct a two-story 17,700 square foot main
laboratory and administration building with a footprint of approximately 10,000 square feet. A paved
parking area associated with this building will cover an area of approximately 33,000 square feet. The
area of land disturbance for this project is estimated to be approximately 55,000 square feet of previously
disturbed land. The area to be occupied by the new main laboratory and administration building and
paved parking area will be approximately 41,218 square feet. The remaining area, approximately 2,000
square feet will be landscaped. Approximately 800 square feet of this area will be located on what is the
island's original boundary, while the remaining square footage will be emplaced on man-made land.
Selection of a specific footprint for this facility was driven by the desire to optimize use of previously
disturbed land, reduce impacts to the surrounding area, and increase security.
The scope of work also calls for the emplacement of a small interpretive kiosk with a footprint of no more
than 40-foot by 40-foot, which will be located about 30 feet landward of the mean high tide mark along
the eastern shoreline of NOAA's property facing Beaufort Channel. This kiosk will be emplaced within
the immediate vicinity of existing structures adjacent to NOAA's building complex. This is the only
portion of NOAA's property, adjacent to the NCNERR boat docks, where the Rachel Carson NCNERR
may be viewed. For educational purposes, being able to view the reserve is of utmost importance.
Also included is replacement of an existing vehicle access bridge. The new bridge will be emplaced
immediately to the west of the existing bridge and will be parallel to the existing bridge. This portion of
the project will have similar footprint and features as the current structure, which was constructed in the
mid-1960s, replacing the wooden bridge built in the early 1930s. This bridge spans the body of water
known as Old Channel, which connects NOAA's property on the northern half of Pivers Island and the
causeway to between Old Channel and State Route 1205, also known as Old US 70. The existing bridge
will be dismantled upon completion of the replacement bridge.
Included within the scope are smaller projects, which include upgrade of existing boat ramps and docks.
A proposed component of these upgrades involve replacement of the retaining walls and piping system of
the existing turtle pen complex to include the seawater supply system. This portion of the project will
remain within the same footprint as the current structure that was emplaced in this area in the late 1920s.
The.existing turtle pens are located on the northern shoreline of NOAA's property facing Old Channel.
No seawater intake system is planned and no pumps will be utilized. The seawater supply will be free
flowing and tidally influenced.
As part of this proposed project, an upgrade of the northeastern, main dock will involve removal of two
fixed, piling-type finger docks and installation of floating-type docks in their stead. This portion of the
project will remain within the same footprint as the current structure that was first emplaced onsite in the
late 1930s. This project area is located on the northwestern shoreline of NOAA's property, adjacent to the
southern bridgehead, facing Old Channel.
Included within the scope of the proposed project is an upgrade of the northeastern boat ramp and two
docks, which includes widening and regarding the ramp and replacing the adjacent sea wall. The two
fixed, piling-type docks will be replaced with floating-type docks. This portion of the project will remain
within the same footprint as the current structure built in the 1970s. This project area is located on the
northwestern shoreline of the NOAA's property, facing Old Channel. Careful consideration was given to
upgrading and improving the existing boat ramp and docks. Minimal disturbance of the shoreline, tidal
areas and submerged areas will occur as a result in these project areas. Analysis of project impacts at the
site and its vicinity, to include cumulative impacts, indicated that no significant environmental effects
would occur.
4
The schedule for the proposed new building project is to begin construction by February 2005 and
complete construction by May 2006. The other items, which are currently unfunded, will begin following
receipt of appropriated funds. The estimated completion date is May 2006.
Development at this site meets applicable federal and state regulatory guidelines and local ordinance
requirements for federally funded projects. Analysis of project impacts at the site and its vicinity, to
include cumulative impacts, indicated that no significant environmental effects would occur.
III. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Implementation of the proposed action has been designed to cause minimal physical change to the
environment. During construction, all contractors and employees entering the proposed project area will
be subject to applicable federal, state and local regulations governing environmental safety and health
statutes and codes.
This proposed project is designed in order to minimize disturbance of previously undisturbed land:
• The- entirety of the new laboratory and administration building will be constructed on previously
disturbed land. The parking area will be emplaced upon man-made land (dredge material), which
resulted from dredge and fill operations conducted in the early 1900s and the late 1960s. Entry
into the parking area will be from the existing road, Pivers Island Road.
• The new interpretive kiosk will be constructed on previously disturbed land. Access to this
structure will be via an existing unimproved gravel lane.
The new vehicle access bridge will be constructed adjacent to the existing bridge. The
emplacement of the northern bridgehead will be within man-made land (dredge material), which
resulted from dredge and fill operations conducted in the early 1900s and the late 1960s. The
southern bridgehead will be emplaced on previously disturbed land. The bridge will span the Old
Channel, which was previously disturbed during construction of the present bridge, built in the
mid-1960s, which replaced the bridge that was constructed in the early 1930s. It appears that this
area was also dredged in the early 1900s. This area has been disturbed three times in the in the
past 100 years.
The existing turtle pens, with sea water system, and boat tamp and docks will be upgraded;
however, these will remain within the same footprint as the existing structures. Therefore,
activities within these areas will occur on previously disturbed land.
• Non-point source pollution will be controlled during construction by appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls.
• Vegetative buffer zones will be established, via landscaping designed to be in keeping with the
North Carolina Coastal Plain. The buffer zones are also designed to minimize sheet runoff from
the subject site after the construction phase.
• Natural areas on NOAA's property, such as the beach area located on the eastern portion of the
island, the cedar grove in the center of the island, and the swath of land between Pivers Island
Road and Bulkhead Channel, will be preserved.
Pivers Island is not located within the vicinity of degraded or impaired air or watersheds, land areas,
surface water bodies, geologic formations, or groundwater aquifers
All site plans for the proposed project, to include the new main laboratory and administration building;
new kiosk, new bridge, turtle pen and seawater supply system upgrades, and boat ramp and dock upgrades,
must be reviewed by the NCDWQ for permitting. Based upon the Civil Design Engineer's consultation
with the NCDWQ, the proposed project appears to qualify for the low-density option, as governed by state
stormwater regulations, and, therefore, this project is not considered to pose an adverse affect to the
environment with regard to non-ppint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff. Based on an onsite
meeting with both the NCDWQ and NCDCM, this proposed project is not expected to cause detrimental
effects to adjacent water bodies.
Pivers Island is within the North Carolina's coastal zones, and as such falls under the enforceable polices
of the program, which includes fisheries management, wetlands management, dunes management, non-
point source pollution control, point source pollution control, shoreline sanitation, air pollution control,
and coastal lands management. The new laboratory and administration building is consistent with
NCDCM's requirements. NCDCM issued a federal consistency determination dated 2.1 August 2003.
The wetlands delineation report, dated, 8 July 2003, confirmed the existence of wetlands to the northwest
of the proposed northern bridgehead of the new vehicle access bridge. Based on this delineation, it appears
that the bridge will not directly affect identified wetlands. This delineation also found possible wetlands
within the confines of the existing turtle pens. Because this is a man-made structure that has been
naturalized into a tidal wetland, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) must make the final
determination of the existence of wetlands at this portion of the site. The COE must review the above-
mentioned delineation in order to determine the extent of jurisdictional wetlands within areas of the
proposed project. The impact upon wetlands is expected to be low. However, based upon the COE's
decision, wetlands permitting may be required. It is anticipated that any such permitting will be performed
using Nationwide permits for minor impacts.
The dominant source of flooding within the immediate area of the proposed project site is wind driven
surge generated in the Atlantic Ocean by tropical storms and hurricanes. The finished floor elevation of
the new building will be above the 100-year floodplain. Other considerations will be undertaken as per the
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) Administrative Order DAO 216-11, Floodplain Management and
Protection of Wetlands (1979). Design plans will be provided to both Carteret County and Town of
Beaufort for review.
The proposed project will not affect endangered and threatened terrestrial species, designated critical
habitats, or other natural resources within the vicinity of the proposed project area. No endangered and
threatened species or designated critical habitats are known to occur either at the site or within the vicinity
of the proposed project area. However, sightings of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), the
leatherback sea turtle (Dermocyls coriacea) and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) have been reported
within the estuary west of Radio Island and south of the Rachel Carson NCNERR. Lighting and
acoustical effects of activities around the bridgeheads and boat ramps and docks are not to be materially
altered and there will be no impacting changes resulting from this proposed project. According to
NOAA's Protected Species Division, there are no designated critical habitats located within state waters.
NOAA's Strategic Planning Office recommended further consultation concerning the Magnuson-Stevens
Act of 1996. As a result of that consultation, the set of pilings nearest the shoreline will be retained and
would enable retention of the original oyster population, which is sampled for trend analysis.
The proposed project will not adversely impact endangered or threatened species, or designated critical
habitats. The proposed project will not directly affect seagrass beds. Also, it is understood that based on
the presence of intertidal shellfish (oyster) beds adjacent to the proposed vehicle access bridge,
construction plans for the bridge replacement and demolition plans for the existing bridge require review
and comment by the NCDMF.
Based on review of appropriate databases, maps and land deeds, coupled with both federal and state
agency review, and interviews it appears that the proposed project is not located in an officially designated
wilderness or natural area preserve, wildlife preserve or wildlife refuge, national estuarine reserve or
coastal reserve, aquiculture protection area or agricultural reserve area, national seashore or wild and
scenic river, national or state natural landmark, significant landscape, natural areas or open spaces, or
other conservation areas. As such, no further investigation regarding the above-mentioned natural
resources is warranted at this time.
The proposed project will not adversely affect the historic or cultural resources, either on land or under
water. The proposed project is not located in an officially designated national or state historic landscape,
battlefield, or other historic or cultural resource. Review of regulatory databases did not indicate adverse
environmental conditions at the subject site or its immediate vicinity.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NOAA's assessment of the proposed project is consistent with guidance provided by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), Considering Cumulative Effects (1997). This assessment considered
alternative actions for the proposed project, which are described below.
NOAA analyzed five alternatives regarding the new main laboratory and administration building. The
complete expansion, plus the outlying project components were analyzed individually and then from the
overall cumulative perspective.
7
The first option would have emplaced the building to the west of the existing parking area and over 96 feet
to the southwest of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because: 1) the structure
would have been placed in a low-lying area of the island and well within the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would have been placed within a few feet of the existing utility easement, which would limit
future utility upgrades; 3) the structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory
structure, which would have caused loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the
increased safety and security provided by the proximity factor, and-4) the structure would have been out of
harmony with the layout of the complex.
The second option would have emplaced the building to the north of the existing parking area and
approximately 14 feet to the west of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because:
1) approximately one-half of the structure would have extended into the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would have been placed within a few feet of the existing utility easement; and 3) the structure
would have been out of harmony with the layout of the complex.
The third option would have emplaced the building to the south of the existing parking area and over 208
feet to the south of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because: 1) the structure
would have been placed in a low-lying area of the island and well within the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory structure, which would have caused
loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the increased safety and security
provided by the proximity factor, and 3) the structure would have been out of harmony with the layout of
the complex.
The fourth option would have emplaced the building to the south of the existing parking area and over 336
feet to the south of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because: 1) the structure
would have been placed in a low-lying area of the island and well within the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would have been placed within a few feet of the existing utility easement, which would limit
future utility upgrades; 3) the structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory
structure, which would have caused loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the
increased safety and security provided by the proximity factor; and 4) the structure would have been out of
harmony with the layout of the complex.
The fifth option would have emplaced the building within the footprint of the existing parking area and
approximately 44 feet to the southwest of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected
because: 1) the structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory structure, which
would have caused loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the increased safety
and security provided by the proximity factor; and 2) the structure would have been out of harmony with
the layout of the complex.
The alternative action for replacing the vehicle access bridge would be to repair the existing bridge. In
order to repair the bridge, the deck would need to be removed and the girders and abutments would need
to be replaced. During this period of repair, there would be no vehicle access to either the NOAA
laboratory or the Duke Marine Laboratory for several months, unless a temporary bridge is also installed.
A temporary bridge would require a significant structure in the water for lateral bracing due to the strong
currents in the Old Channel. The bridge girders have already been repaired and.reinforced in 1995;
however, due to the severe effects of the marine environment, the structure is again experiencing major
problems resulting from corrosion. The life of a repaired bridge would also be limited by the life of the
existing concrete piles, some of which are already experiencing longitudinal cracks. The existing bridge is
40 years old. Bridge repair would hinder NOAA's ability to fulfill its purpose and missions during the
period of repair, and would result in a structure that would again need to be replaced when the existing
cracked piles begin to fail. The alternative action considered during the course of this investigation was to
emplace the vehicle access bridge immediately to the east of the existing bridge, where the circa 1934
wood trestle bridge once stood. However, this is not an option because the area is now part of a utility
easement. No other alternative actions are available for the emplacement of the vehicle access bridge.
No alternative action options were available for the small interpretivd kiosk, or upgrade of the existing
turtle pens (tidal research area) and boat ramps and docks.
The alternative action considered during the course of this investigation is to incorporate the required
NCNERR boat slips slated for the eastern dock facility into the upgrade of the northeastern dock facility.
This option is under review by NOAA.
In addition -to the preferred action and alternative actions, NOAA considered the alternative actions of
taking no action, which would be . not to proceed with any repairs or construction of the new main
laboratory and administration building, emplacement of the small interpretive kiosk, replacement of the
existing vehicle access bridge, or upgrade of the existing the turtle pens (tidal research area) and boat ramp
and docks. The no-action alternative would hinder NOAA's ability to fulfill its purpose with regard to
federal acts regarding coastal zones, estuaries, fisheries, protected species, etc. Therefore, NOAA rejected
the no-action alternative.
V. CONCLUSION
Review of all available information indicates that the proposed action at the site location considered above
will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
i ., or
ate Richard W. Spinrad, .
Assistant Administrator
National Ocean Service
4?K
G.
r0
?A
a
g `,,_4
z
O
? u
OU a
J a
ro
U " o
w u
O o
a
z
e
a
Q
Z
U
0
a
z
O
a
U
O
0
?U
H
ao
2
X
W
w
U
W
cn
dZ
U
O
Q
Z
O
z z
' J
2E 0
O w
~ U
U) ~
zZ
°¢
U O
MLL-
w
2 CLm
U O LLi
> M C9
¢ Z m
¢
o
? V OQ
Q Z ?
U p
O
_j C-3 :z
¢ O ;? to
z Cn
m O w
z a.
b BI,y
rw
{'
Y
S5 ? w p
9
.tr V ?
•9

33114 .!y
'1dU A16
.8?, 3j?•r

2
+ +e 9
c
n

tJ,' t
'? +yA ti1P,. t
It d +S rt.k
I s
N} • N .fb #
a c>'?!a r
•
? a
} 31
r #
x
o
r I` X
q;

?
x 07
3bb?H???HpH1 x
•° p` O ??• x H d o ?? x ?'?• X
#
?1
F•t }
t

p\.
M

X
ap

?
}
0` p\'
C X

d L` k
} M
ore", lov,

't?I
?\ t

A
16, ef
#W4
g+lq'M
48 S
X

r+

}
l
y
b ,?yl?4??? ••1'X •`?p ' 4? Ht't ?t.x
-
\ 1F s
Ir 3,0WI[ lab%,
77 9(B
Ald ? C330

1° '~ S 4 •

?..•
7/i ol? +[aaoly
31 pyr Lp rM
•?+v 7
1A1
Lx??
c s y

r1j17,1rp? yl6 [ C•?
r
4f R 1+ Yl CIA X
t
3[gylA. ~
F__1

3IyL7 y31d7 17 1K
a[ N t#
kVpf
M03 6
18N? •'x ?t
S31Y g30 ' 7Wa?l a ''pN„ S
1W Mall
m
mo
hU
"ANI
%
0
N
w
W w
O
VJ
3yyyH?noaoH1 U)
Z
'X1V) O
0
W O
LO II
U e
O N
Le.9•cs s
/?0b7s s'y aYi:
YlA1M
9211
e W B,
7[? Y ? npW
P
I?
LU
U
LU
CAI)
t-i W
Q
m
Z V O
z ?
O
C?
m O W
Z
cl C)
89 w
t y^ ' 's 1? ?Y, 1 F 7 *, ;Y o
wF `, r"' Pr03J.B l..c +' I ., 003, ° m
a°''`°!?? 3."J>p ,'aa '?•Bl.3f.? ? I t I 9 'I Ti?U h ? ? V °
'$ ?.• ml JL m4l ?KWy F L?
1 ?? ?'( F?3]. y N o 0 w
r x?
y$?q a
bl V
3. z
Z
gm Q
y4 q 4 4 z G
\ y. ri $4 Z w
} \ YW ' ..'>ac Y w I' I'
u.FF a ?:fdi o .? I
,?"I 4I IC `?
.•F'?.. 'Ol? I," 0L NSF[
.Li ' I'w rr ` yWp
`..r
k ? °u ?.; ?.3? I r S N W
Ida I ??i Z
3b4 yN?no yoH ? y,.. ? y r x I ` ? ??? !d e dJ tr °
1 A -- LLI
e U
cn ,g,'1? I ° `• a, O
V. 41 Uj
i;
°" W F U
03J O'bN3h' ^ Nt 'bj 9r , I ':, O
J
Agd?>Ny bpNb 'o
74 blc M y dypa J 6of ?16 '[f t5i7 p0 ..1 °i dal, ll.l Q
031 /N X34 5 A6 ?FL)5
bf O
>0 3y1j31 ?d0
d
1bJOl alb y?dOdd >0 '.. ,
?dddr YYj / M : •• y _fl (.? - I/.i: )1 :) O o
Wit` R A y.. 't t" ...Kt ;.N-w?•) _
_j ?V I I _r t?N "'? U
rr 3nr rr Jay ?: °/I z aeaz_/T - ,)..n?? '^
{N BNO >IOOg 03 4r.,-// LL S' \ S .Cl(Y'? l ..n N ?J w I
' 3NOpb 30 ,`Ny??r re +"'?i?{ ?Y/1?,.? ??F
y •?'w In Z
iz%
_'IIT j U O
LL-
LLJ
" L?'3?bd rOJy
R I ?{
bb 31yNJYObdm `{ I _.___ a IMi '{ rl yd 13V0?[0nr 0&) 3d3 eq
,L; T d0 `0 01 0 ldr; Z
53V/) V/ d?'?/ y J O LILT
- 4
'r•' A V i.L,i.11• I..L
Cl ca
? i wT' d
JI
I1 ( ??- ? OS -a ?ZpJD ? 0 J ??y
>? ''lt in 3Nf N3:.3p °? Z LL
1N Nb30 Z Z Z ?J,J
X13 d31da )) ?I V" •4 ?l s `?:? " ?> _ cn 4Z
MJ1N ?N/ Nr I 1>? I ?? ? 4 J
Lij
3NJ w ?ady"3rorei v.?"? ?; •. ?I „Il'e°i.r_$yi '1 ~ 4 Q,` 4 U Q ?
o i u Q, 9 FL
?
Z
03 030N yy ?d a I '' ; 11 ?,
S31 bJS 0rZJO'Oj 16b7r .6 rsnpny V I,% I rp 3ic I I ...
ds" Y z a
//.I
11N03yN?t0>0 ?N!?S
mm b,. j

\\

??• m2

\ N g °

? °

= w
w

,
o

?

o
m
d

0 W
I? ti ??
I ? g
?

si .g ? c k

i O w
(n V
-ins
i 5c, W I t 2.k
@9
?2, Q
w

i ??9
'•0 k
?" \
Q o U

ge
?B bf l a D
D

I s
Al

ab03J ?s?

?1 [n

D
C,,
O
b0 _
"' b
? J bJ G' ?
o \ m
J
LL
I ??
fag 1 b - ? ['t..
t I ?

I SQNb?d? '?
Z
6 '[..^N
W
'

:? -- -

4 s

-1 U
cr_

m ? `S •a IJ Z

O
r?S ?_ 6MHW
o
.
g
tl m
°,
?
Q
? g Q
I,= an d Z Z
??
I24? I
0 a J
Z O
s

N

? ?? m
.mk
I 1 I k
g

a a
=
x O Q
? U
_? ?
Z
` Fig a / Z

k` o? '
a g L) O

m
["
I
fl
b ??
x
O
LU
QQ
LJJ
t'

6 k
g
co
k 3 I I
2 2 I
z °

w
g o

V

[z
d N

N
O c m

O W

(D
m w
CL g a o
[
' H
D ?i ~
cn F? m
Z
?? ?, k I Ik= 0 N 2 Q C) QQ
I O W mg U Z
*
I
I o /
?? I
? I
/ Z F-
blot ? o
J o

g g
aN .• ?
?d m n•a
?
? m
D O

Q Cn
?

1? CC) U7 /p[ Q M
S? it
4 u
s
7 W
0
= Z Cn
LL

o
< W Z d
I I L
C

I
I
I
I
I I
I
1
I M i! yl
1 1

X 1
? ? k
dS 3
Cr-
I
I
I
I
'00.Z2
0'l 0'l
I
I
_
I
I
I

w
Qf
U
U
L
N?
z
W UI
I Im W
ca
co
a
J z
U a
Q ?
w
O m
af J
J U
U -
? LL
r
z N
W
m
U
N
C
g^l
N LL ?
7! Q
z
W
m o
U v II
o
Q N ?
N
Q
3
0
a
O
J elp
U
z
J r
W
m
J
U
A
z
Wtn
? W
r
ma
a
?
U 1

Wm O
M J O
ma >>vi
a p J W O
Uz 4 W?
U- Of
o
? OL-u
r a- of
z 0m
W
m
u
C /
r
N
N
J
Wv
O
In
>?N
? W O
z Wv
W
m
u
?a
W\\?
O \
co
N >(/l
W O
z Wv
W
m
U

r
z
W
m
J
U
_J
a
W?
OW O
? O
r aW o
Oa
tn
sm ^>?
r W W O
D Wu
a
0
U Q
m
m
O U
O
. ? v
Z N
O
F-
5
w
J °
W
0
N
m II
0
u
o0 N
N
W
U
W
Cf)
O c
Q
W s
J
W
Z
Q
QZ J L
CL c
c
W ,
m ?
X= F
W ,
z
w
X V)
5U
amU
o =
Q O J
0
gvi3Om
s
,
e'
No K_ w Z
?UD Q w
° U C
LU Z.1 a: LJ
a8 a z_cn D
J ?QW' m °
,il d. LLJ Q Z
mZ(nWQ u
0ER w w
am N
z
w
U
L,O>
gJ?
a Z w
,n
n_
Z
Q J
O
z J
J ] J
U ? } Q
°3 3 z
I
Na 3
N
z

m
3
z
0
n
w
J
U
N
MI = MI
Q
J
O
I W

a
°? j F
°o U
w O
a
J ?
'
Q

J J
}
Q
N Q Q V) N a
N of O N
z
O
U
F-
z
O
U
' w
Z
J
0

_ ? m m
t
Z L

O

W
U
cn
cn w
J
cn
ol
w V)
170
I

?
J
W
<
N
o W

U
co
C L

00 o

z
O
B Q
Z Z
O
U
?--

S m

Z ?
Z O
z
W Q Q
?°

?c=n
F

W U

W
U
U)
cn

w

a

J

Q U O
LL.
W =
=
Ll. m

z
o

of

O W O
LL
CD
z
W C)
a °z
a Q m
om
3
co
Z
0
Q
0
a O
U Z
O
U- JQ U)

m Z Cn
O UJ
x W
Z
W n

TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS Page 1 of 1
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
USGS 2 km W of Beaufort, North Carolina, United States 01 Jul 1?9?8`3?
r i8ietldr'
N

i
f
?i
0' '.5Km 0' '.25Mi it Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/Printlmage.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=18&X=433&Y=4803&... 10/24/2005
X1.90ti
I ST
'v
L

TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page I of I
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
P? 1 qo?
ZUSGS 2 km !Ae rrf Fep fo--t. North Carolina, United States 0,7
t z4
r'ts6af
r „ € s[3 tJ "bpi Alt s?C ` e` A f?f •..
?+tjt?wti r'VS h ?v r,` 3 t -9 ?a b° -„
x`.44. ,.,tf . A.'`.?.?.sr?:.?.1?+A??. .Sx. U±..?•. ?. ... `-------- ........ +'`'*' ?"•?F.; n

0% M
it It

N N

Y n V

t i

h
Z??? 3

A
r'
V
h
b
?
C Yf V

0' 'loom 0' ' 100y d
1rnage courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
c 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
??T J
04? I
http://www.terraserver.?nici-osoft.corn/Pi-intlmac,e.aspx?T= I &S= I 0&Z= 18&X=1733&Y=... 10/24/2005
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
2 0 0 5 2 1 7 0
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
L Processing -
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: (COE) 3404
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details) check here:
C 6_r?_`l LLRQdH p
II. Applicant Information
DEC 9 2005
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/Center for Costal Fisheries and HabitaIWArER QUAU1Y
r v or K 'RAfiCFi
Mailing Address: Mr: Mike Randall
National Oceanoqraphic and Atmospheric Administration Eastern Region
CAO/RPFLO/Proiect Planning Management Division
601 East 12th Street, Room 1749, Kansas City, MO 64106-2877
Telephone Number: 816-426-7815 Fax Number: 816-426-7532
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Jeff Reeder
Company Affiliation: TranSystems Corporation
Mailing Address: 2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone Number: 816-329-8600 Fax Number: 816-329-8602
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): Tax Exempt No: 19030214
4. Location
County: Carteret Nearest Town: Beaufort
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): NA
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The existing and pro-
posed bridges are located approximately 114mile south of state highway 70
immediately west of Beaufort and east of Moorehead City, North Carolina.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): - -76.67203 °N 34.72120 °W (pt. `A" on
attached Exhibit J), and -76.67421 °N 34.7217 °W (pt. "B" on attached Exhibit J.)
6. Property size (acres): Pivers Island is approximately 25 acres in area. The area
owned by the NOAH laboratory north of Old Channel is approximately 6 acres.
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Old Channel ("Thoroughfare")
8. River Basin: White Oak
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Pivers Island houses the NOAH National Ocean Service
Page 2 of 10
Laboratory and the Duke University Marine Laboratory. The sole means of land
access to the island is by the Pivers Island Bridge. South of the bridge, the island is
developed with several laboratory and support buildings. The area north of the
bridge contains Pivers Island Road and existing beach and wetland areas. A small
marina, operated by the adjacent property owner, is located immediately east of the
north abutment of the existin bridge.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: This
project is the removal and replacement of the existinq Pivers Island Bridge. The
current bridge is approximately 40 years old, is severely deteriorated and must be
replaced to ensure safe vehicular access to the Island. The new two-lane bridge
be located immediately west of the existing bridge and will be slightly higher above
the water of Old Channel and will feature a sidewalk and fish sampling platform on
the west side of the bridge. The new bridge will be of concrete construction and will
be five spans of approximately 60 feet each. The project will require construction of
a new abutment and bulkheads on the island to create a landing area for the south
end of the bridge and will require construction of a new abutment on the north side.
The bridge will be founded on lines of concrete piles in the channel. The existinq
Pivers Island Road north of the bridge will have to be re-aligned to accommodate the
location of the new bridge. Some realignment of the drives on the island will have to
be performed as well. After the new bridge is operational, the old bridge will be
demolished and removed from the site. This proiect is a design-build project. NOAH,
with assistance from TranSystems Corporation, has produced a public solicitation in
the form of "Design-Build Criteria Documents" that describe the project in detail for
bidding by prospective design-build teams. A copy of the design-build criteria plans
for the new bridge is attached to this application for your review. (See attached
Exhibits E & F)
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:The bridge will replace the existing,
deteriorating bridge that spans Old Channel and will link the mainland with Pivers
Island.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. A Consistency Determination has been filed with the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management (submitted to Ms. Terre Barrett on April 29,
2005. Additionally, a Preconstruction Notification for Confirmation of Compliance with
Regional General Permit 198200031 has been submitted to Mr. Henry Wicker of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington NC. It is our understanding that Mr. Wicker
Page 3 of 10
will issue his final approval of the Confirmation of Compliance after the 401 Water
Quality Permit is issued by the Division of Water Quality. A letter stating that this
project is consistent with the policies of the Division of Coastal Manaqement was
received from Mr. Steven Reinnes and is attached for your convenience. Additionally,
this project was part of a multi-project program at Pivers Island that was the subject of
an environmental assessment performed byStokes Environmental of Norfolk, VA.
Based on the results of this environmental assessment, a FONSI was issued by NOAH
for the proposed program, including the replacement of the Pivers Island Bridge. A
copy of the FONSI letter is attached for your convenience and review.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No additional permits other than the Corps of Engineers Permit and the Determination
of Consistency is anticipated at this time.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
- Wetlands - Impacts to wetlands on the north side of the proposed bridge are shown
graphically on the attached Project Plan (Exhibits C and D). The fill area in the
wetlands north of the bridge is 0.042 acres.
- Perennial Waters (open water impact) - Approximately 0.053 acres of rocks in a
shallow tidal area at the south abutment will be impacted. Rocks with oysters will be
relocated from this area to accommodate the new bridge.
-Sandy Beach Area - area north of proposed bridge (see Exhibits C & D)- approx.
0.049 acres will be covered by new bridge abutment and wing wall structures.
Page 4 of 10
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of (e.g., forested, 100-year
Nearest Stream Impact
indicate on map)
( p) Impact marsh, herbaceous, Floodplain
(linear feet) (acres)
bog, etc.) (yes/no)
West side of the re-aligned Immed.
Pivers Island Road north of Fill Inter-tidal Yes Adjacent to 042
0
the proposed bridge Marsh Old .
Channel

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.042
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 5.1 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Before Impact (linear feet) (acres)
No impact 0

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody

(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

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

(acres)
Thoroughfare Old Channel Fill channel 0.053

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.053
Page 5 of 10
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): (Includes Sand Beach) 0.091
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.053
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.144
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation NA
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts: All construction activities,
including demolition, shall be performed in accordance with the Best Management
Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities and requirements of the Division
of Water Quality, as published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Au_qust 2003. The Contract documents for design and construction of the bridge include
this language. The proposed bridge would have one less line of piles in the channel
than the existing bridge and will be less disruptive to the environment of the Channel
than the current bridge. The proposed bridge will be located as close to the existing
bridge as possible to make use of the existinq access roadways and to minimize the
impact on existinq natural areas. The approach roadway alignment has been
established to minimize the impact to the existing wetlands. Any shellfish beds that are
irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
Page 6 of 10
impacted by the new bulkheads would be relocated to locations approved by the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor will make every reasonable effort to minimize the impact on fish, wildlife, and
the natural environment in conducting the work of the construction contract and
minimize degradation of water quality.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm.gide.htm].
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed. It is the intent of the Owner (NOAA) to provide
compensatory mitigation for all impacts on wetlands that are associated with this
project. A mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner (NOAA) and submitted to
Division of Coastal Management for their review and approval prior to installation.
Also, any shellfish beds that are impacted by the construction of new bulkheads on
Pivers Island will be moved as part of the protect in coordination with the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Proiect specifications will require that no spoils
Page 7 of 10
will be deposited waterward of normal water level or normal high water, or will cause
the degradation of any shellfish beds.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call tile SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ® A Field Environmental Assessment encompassing this
project has been developed and a FONSI for the proposed work has been issued by
NOAA. A copy of the Environmental Assessment and FONSI are attached for your
convenience.
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 8 of 10
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 0 1.5
Total 0
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260. Not required
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
This project will have a slight increase in impervious area because of the realignment of
Pivers Island Road north and south of the bridge. The increase will be approximately
0.012 acres in aggregate (no increase on Pivers Island and 0.012 acres on the
mainland.) Total site area is approximately 25 acres.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No sewage disposal
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 10
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
This project delivery method for this project will be through a design-build contractor. The final
design has vet to be completed. The final design will be performed in accordance with Corps of
Engineers and State of North Carolina (Division of Coastal Management and Division of Water
Quality)
0_r
1X6plicSn A * nt s Signature hate'
is signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
Consistency Determination
for NOAA/NOS Center for Coastal Fisheries & Habitat Research
Design-Build Replacement
of the
NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge
The following attachments accompany and support this Consistency Determination:
• Exhibit A - Location and Vicinity Maps (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit B - Existing Survey (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit D - Partial Site Layout Plans (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit E - Bridge Plan and Elevation (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Exhibit F - Sections and Details (attached as hard copy and PDF on accompanying CD)
• Final Environmental Assessment (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• FONSI letter from Department of Commerce (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• Copy of RGP-31 Confirmation submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(PDF version on accompanying CD)
1. Project Background
TranSystems Corporation, as a sub-consultant to Helix Architects under an indefinite delivery contract
(IDIQ) with NOAA, has been contracted to produce the Design-Build Criteria Documents for the removal
and replacement of the existing Pivers Island Bridge in Beaufort, North Carolina. The Criteria
Documents will be issued to prospective contractors as an official "Request for Proposal". This project is
being administered through NOAA's Central Administrative Support Center (CASC) in Kansas City.
The existing 2-lane Pivers Island Bridge is the sole means of access between the mainland and the island
and spans approximately 300 feet across what is known locally as "Old Channel." The island currently
serves as the home for the NOAAINOS Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research and the Duke
University Marine Laboratory. The bridge was constructed in the late 1960's and is a 2-lane, 6-span
prestressed I-girder structure. Girders are supported by reinforced concrete pile caps at 50-feet on center
within the channel and concrete abutments at the north and south ends. The bridge is founded on square
concrete piles. The existing bridge girders have experienced significant deterioration over their life.
Until three weeks ago, the bridge had been limited to one lane of traffic instead of the 2-lanes as
originally designed. Earlier this year, a shoring system was designed for the end span girders of the
bridge in order to prolong the life of the bridge until a replacement bridge could be constructed. This
shoring installation was completed approximately April 1, 2005 and the bridge was re-opened to two
lanes of traffic on April 6, 2005. It is NOAA's intent to extend the life of the current bridge to allow time
for design-build criteria documents to be produced and a design-build contractor to provide final design
and ultimately construct the new bridge.
Design Criteria - It is the design intent that the replacement bridge will be durable, easily maintained,
and will have a service life in excess of 50 years. In order to reduce the amount of splash on the
underside of the bridge structure, the bridge profile will be raised approximately two feet from its current
profile.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
The new bridge will be a 2-lane concrete structure similar in appearance to the existing bridge, utilizing
North Carolina DOT standard prestressed girders supporting a cast-in-place concrete deck. Girders will be
supported by cast-in-place concrete pile caps bearing on either concrete or jacketed steel piles. A 6 feet
wide sidewalk will be located on the east side of the bridge. The new bridge will have a structural steel
sampling platform on the east side of the bridge that will be accessed from the sidewalk. This sampling
platform is used by the NOAA laboratory to obtain biological samples from the channel during tidal
movement. (The current bridge had a sampling platform at one time, but it was destroyed during a
hurricane within the last 5 years and has not been replaced.)
The design of the new Pivers Island Bridge will meet the requirements and standards of North Carolina
DOT and will be in accordance with the North Carolina DOT Roadway Design Manual and all
referenced AASHTO requirements. The bridge will be designed as a 2-lane bridge. Lane widths will be
11 feet. The bridge will be designed using "HS20-44" design truck loading which is the standard used
throughout the U.S. for bridge design. The bridge will be designed for hurricane force winds and tidal
surge effects.
Bridge Location- Two possible locations were studied for the new bridge: East of the existing bridge
and west of the existing bridge. The two options were compared to determine which alignment would be
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative. A discussion of the two options follows:
Option 1: "East Alignment" - For this option, the existing bridge would be left in use until the
new bridge is operational at which time the existing bridge would then be demolished. The
NOAA and Duke labs were opposed to this option because of the considerable disruption it
would cause with existing improvements, traffic flow to and on the island, and general lab
operations. Since operations at the labs are ongoing, access to all NOAA and Duke facilities
would have to be maintained which could impact sequencing of construction and result in higher
construction costs. The NOAA lab recently constructed a new floating dock and concrete boat
ramp east of the existing bridge that would have to be removed so the new bridge could be
constructed. This ramp would have to be relocated to another site and could possibly require the
construction of a new access road as well as a new environmental impact study to be conducted
relative to the new facility. No site was identified as a possible location for a relocated ramp.
Construction of a new ramp would be potentially more disruptive to the environment than leaving
the existing ramp in place. The proposed bridge will have five spans while the existing bridge
has six spans. The new bridge will be founded using concrete piles that will be driven in the
Channel. The proposed bridge will therefore have one less line of piles in the channel than the
existing bridge and will be less disruptive to the environment of the Channel than the current
bridge. The attached bridge plan and profile in Exhibit E shows the proposed arrangement of pile
supports for the bridge. The overhead power lines and associated easement on the east side of the
existing bridge would have to be relocated as well for this option, or special bridge detailing and
construction techniques, such as the use of spliced piles and low height cranes, would be required
for construction. Relocation of the power lines, in addition to being expensive, would also be
disruptive environmentally, requiring new support structure in the vicinity of the channel. These
special construction measures would increase the cost of the bridge. Another possible problem
with this scenario concerns the location of the property line north of the existing bridge. Based
on conversations with the team surveyor, Bob Jones of Robert H. Goslee Surveying, there exists
conflicting information on where NOAA's eastern property line is located. Depending on where
the property line is located according to the surveyor's research, it may be difficult to locate the
north approach slab in this area. For this option, the existing bridge would be left in operation
until the new bridge is operational and would then be demolished. The contractor will be
required to demolish the bridge in a manner that will not introduce any bridge remnants or debris
into the existing channel. All demolished materials will be required to be removed and disposed
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 2
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
of in an approved landfill or construction waste area. Existing concrete bridge piles will be
removed approximately to the mud line of the channel, except the northernmost piles. These
piles are located in a shellfish sampling area and removal of these piles could be disruptive to the
shellfish habitat.
Option 2: "West Alignment" - The NOAA and Duke laboratory personnel are in favor of this
option. The majority of construction on the island side will be limited to the area west of the
existing bridge approaches so disruption to traffic serving the facilities would be minimized. The
new boat ramp would be unaffected and the overhead electrical lines could be left in place. This
Option would require realignment of the bridge approaches on the island and mainland. Both
approaches would require a gentle reverse curve in the roadway to access the bridge (see attached
bridge plan). It is the design intent for this alignment to locate the new bridge as close to the
existing bridge as possible while still allowing reasonable construction access. This would help
to minimize impacts on the natural areas immediately west of the existing bridge and west of the
approach roadway. Some small trees and bushes (predominantly wax myrtles or various sizes)
would have to be removed on both the mainland and island so the new approaches and associated
shoulders could be constructed. The Final Environmental Assessment by Stokes Environmental
states that these areas of wax myrtles are possible habitat for the painted bunting. The alignment
would also require the removal of some native grasses on the beach area west of the existing
bridge. There will also be some fill required in the wetlands area west of the north approach to
the bridge. The area of wetlands that will have to be filled is estimated at 0.042 acres on the
delineated wetlands and the proposed bridge alignment and shoulder geometry. (Wetlands were
staked by Mr. Larry Baldwin of Land Management group.) The area of the beach adjacent to the
north abutment that will receive fill is 0.049 acres. The new bridge will require the extension of
the existing concrete bulkheads on the island to create an area of land of approximately 2,265
square feet, or approximately 0.053 acres, for the south abutment and realigned Pivers Island
Road. The westward extension of the bulkhead under the existing bridge and the northward
extension of the west bulkhead of the island could encroach on existing shellfish beds. Any
shellfish beds that are impacted by the new bulkheads will be relocated to locations approved by
NOAA and governing agencies. The attached bridge plan shows the area of land to be created to
accommodate the south abutment of the bridge and the realigned Pivers Island Road. Like the
East Alignment Option, the existing bridge would be left in operation and demolished when the
new bridge is complete. The bridge design would be identical for either alignment and would be
equally as disruptive to the channel environment.
Based on this comparison of locations, the West Alignment was determined as being the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative. A more thorough discussion of the impacts on
aquatic resources follows:
2. Areas of Environmental Concern
As defined in the North Caroline Administrative Code, Title 15A, Chapter 7, Subchapter H, this project is
located in an "Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC). This project falls under the definition of
"Estuarine and Ocean Systems Categories," ( in particular, estuarine waters, coastal wetlands, and public
trust areas). This project is consistent with the enforceable policies of Subchapter 7H as noted in the
sections below.
15A NCAC 07H.0205 establishes management objectives to conserve and manage coastal wetlands to
help "safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic and aesthetic values." The approach roadway
alignment has been established to minimize the impact to the existing wetlands. Exhibits C and D show
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 3
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
the anticipated fill required in the existing wetland west of the north approach roadway, fill on the beach
area by the north abutment, and fill required for extending the bulkheads on the island. This estimated
area of wetland to be filled is 0.042 acres, the fill on the beach area is 0.049 acres, and the fill in the
bulkhead area on the island is 0.053 acres. Other than the creation of the roadbed and shoulders in the
existing wetlands area north of the proposed bridge, there will be no discharge of dredged or fill material
into the wetlands. The more stringent provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation
"Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water
Best Management Practices " (BMPs) will be specified for construction of the project. Project
specifications require that site-specific stormwater management shall be designed to remove 85% of total
suspended solids (TSS) in accordance with the DWQ's BMPs. The project specifications also require that
a stormwater management plan be developed by the successful design-build contractor and submitted to
the DWQ for their records. The stormwater management plan will include provisions to control runoff
from construction areas into the wetlands area. It is the intent of the Owner (NOAA) to provide
compensatory mitigation for all impacts on wetlands that are associated with this project. A mitigation
plan will be developed by the Owner and submitted to DCM for their review and approval prior to
installation.
15A NCAC 07H .0206 establishes policies to "conserve and manage the important features of estuarine
waters so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social, aesthetic, and economic values." The
proposed bridge project has been designed to have one less line of pile supports in the channel than the
existing bridge. Additionally, the proposed bridge profile will be approximately two feet higher than the
existing bridge. The greater vertical clearance to structure and the fewer support piles will result in fewer
impediments for watercraft and reduce splash on the structure and resulting deterioration. The project
specifications will require that the channel be open to watercraft traffic throughout construction. The
specifications for design-build construction of the Pivers Island Bridge will require that, "to the greatest
extent practicable," all construction activities authorized by the RGP will be conducted "in the dry." The
specifications will require that barriers be installed between work areas and the aquatic habitat to protect
the habitat from cement and other pollutants. The contractor will be required to prevent fresh or uncured
concrete from coming into contact with waters of the State until the concrete has cured. The contractor
will be required to demolish the bridge in a manner that will not introduce any bridge remnants or debris
into the existing channel. All demolished materials will be required to be removed and disposed of in an
approved construction/demolition landfill or construction waste area. Existing concrete bridge piles will
be removed approximately to the mud line of the channel. As described in 7H.0205 above, the more
stringent provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation "Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water Best Management Practices "
(BMPs) will be specified for construction of the project and to control any runoff into Old Channel.
Based on information supplied by the NCDMF and Wildlife Resources Commission, this project is not
located in an area designated as a "primary nursery area," and it is our understanding that it is not
required to contact the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries or the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission for coordination. However, it is the intent of the applicant to issue a notice to
proceed to the successful design-build contractor in October, 2005 and to require that construction of the
piles, bulkheads, and other activities occur in the winter months in a period of low biological activity. It
is our understanding, based on information supplied by the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, that the
site has no anadromous fish. Also, the NMFS indicates that mammals and turtles do not consistently use
this area during any month. Based on this information, it was determined that the proposed construction
activities will not result in substantial permanent disruption of movement of indigenous species of aquatic
life. Additionally, the existing Pivers Island Bridge will be demolished after the completion of the new
bridge. The piles for the existing bridge will be removed to the mudline. The existing north abutment
will be left in place in order not to destabilize the bulkhead at that location.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 4
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
15A NCAC 07H .0207 establishes policies to "protect public rights for navigation and recreation and to
conserve and manage the public trust areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic,
and aesthetic value. This project will not impede the public's ability to navigate through Old Channel.
Although this bridge will have a sampling platform that will reduce the navigable way under a portion of
the bridge, the higher bridge deck elevation and fewer lines of support piles should provide equal or better
navigation than what is experienced currently or was experienced when the existing bridge had a
sampling platform.
15A NCAC 07H.0208 establishes use standards for projects in an Area of Environmental Concern.
(a) General Use Standards (applicable sections)
1. A bridge is defined as a project type that is water dependent.
2. The applicant has complied with the following standards:
(A) The proposed location, design and need for development have been established in the
introductory sections of this document.
(B) The permit letting authority for this project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, has been given a Preconstruction Notification for Confirmation of
Compliance with Regional General Permit 1982000031 (RGP), concurrent with this
Consistency Determination. It is discussed and demonstrated in this Consistency
Determination and the RGP that there exists no suitable alternative site or location
outside of the AEC for this bridge.
(C) This project will not violate water and air quality standards. The more restrictive of
provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation "Best Management
Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water Best
Management Practices " (BMPs) will be specified for construction of the project and to
control any runoff into Old Channel or adjacent wetlands.
(D) Based on the conclusions of the Final Environmental Assessment by Stokes
Environmental, dated August 22, 2003, there is no anticipated damage to archaeological
resources as a result of the project.
(E) It will be a requirement in the project specifications that the contractor follow the BMPs
of the DWQ and NCDoT to control siltation.
(F) This project will not create any stagnant bodies of water. All newly developed areas will
be graded to drain by gravity to surrounding wetlands or estuarine waters.
(G) The project will be scheduled to minimize impact on the life cycles of estuarine and
ocean resources. The discussion in section 15A NCAC 07H .0206 above expands on
this item.
(H) This project will not impede navigation through Old Channel. See further discussion in
15A NCAC 07H.0206 above.
3. NOAA will provide compensatory mitigation for any wetlands that are impacted as a result of
this project. A mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner and submitted to DCM for their
review and forwarded to the relevant State agencies for approval prior to installation.
4. Based on information supplied by the NCDMF and Wildlife Resources Commission, this project
is not located in an area designated as a "primary nursery area."
5. Based on information supplied by DCM, this project is located in an area of Outstanding
Resource Waters. This project is a replacement of an existing bridge and is consistent with the
standards adopted by the CRC, EMC, and Marine Fisheries Commission for estuarine waters and
coastal wetlands. Best Management Practices of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 5
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
and the North Carolina Department of Transportation will be required on this project so as not to
degrade the water quality of outstanding resource values.
6. This project will not be constructed in areas having submerged aquatic vegetation in the public
trust and estuarine waters.
(b) Specific Use Standards (applicable sections)
(A) Bulkheads or extensions of existing bulkheads are planned at each end of the bridge and
will be aligned to approximate the mean high water level.
(B) Bulkheads will not be constructed near marshland or marshland fringes.
(C) The project specifications will require the successful design-build contractor to obtain
any fill material from an approved upland source.
(D) Not applicable. Bulkheads will be constructed to mean high water level.
(E) Not applicable.
15A NCAC 07H.0209 establishes management policies to "ensure that shoreline development is
compatible with both the dynamic nature of coastal shorelines as well as the management objectives of
the estuarine and ocean system." Other objectives are "to conserve and manage the important natural
features of the estuarine and ocean system so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, social,
aesthetic, and economic values." The proposed alignment of the new bridge will require the construction
of the north abutment and associated bulkhead on the beach area immediately west of the existing bridge
north abutment. This beach area is owned by the U.S. Government. It is the intent of the proposed plan
to limit the impact on this beach area as much as practicable by locating the proposed bridge as close to
the existing bridge as possible. Any new bulkhead will extend to the west of the proposed abutment to
help stabilize the beach area and to resist erosion.
(d) Use Standards
3. As part of the specifications for this project, the design-build contractor will be required to
comply with the mandatory standards of the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
of 1973, including: creation of a buffer zone along the channel to confine siltation; limitation of
grade slopes allowing vegetation to act as the primary erosion control; and planting of ground
cover in uncovered areas within 30 days of completion of final grading.
4. This project will alter coastal wetlands because of the required alignment of the north approach
roadway. NOAA has agreed to provide compensatory mitigation for any affected wetlands area
on Pivers Island. Also, any shellfish beds that are impacted by the construction of new bulkheads
on Pivers Island will be moved as part of the project in coordination with the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries. Project specifications will require that no spoils will be deposited
waterward of normal water level or normal high water, or will cause the degradation of any
shellfish beds.
This development will not interfere with the public's access to navigable waters or public
resources.
6. N.A.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 6
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
7. Based on the conclusions of the Final Environmental Assessment by Stokes Environmental, dated
August 22, 2003, there is no anticipated damage to archaeological resources as a result of the
project.
8. The public's rights to access to public trust lands and waters will not be impacted by this project.
9. This project use is consistent with the general use standards of 15A NCAC 07H .0208 as
discussed above. The contractor will be required to comply with the more restrictive of
provisions of The North Carolina Department of Transportation "Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities" and DWQ's "Storm Water Best Management
Practices" (BMPs) and the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, to
control any runoff into Old Channel or adjacent wetlands.
10. N.A. Construction of the bridge (or of any bridge) cannot be located a distance of 30 feet
landward of normal water level or normal high water level. The bridge is a water dependent use.
15A NCAC 07H.0601 establishes the policy that "no development shall be allowed in any AEC which
would result in a contravention or violation of any rules, regulations, or laws of the State of North
Carolina or of local Government in which the development takes place." This policy will be explicitly
stated in the project specifications. Additionally, a copy of this Consistency Determination and the
Regional General Permit 31 Confirmation of Compliance has been submitted to Carteret County
simultaneous with this submission for review for compliance with the County's Land Use Plan.
15A NCAC 07H.0602 establishes the policy that no development shall be allowed that has a substantial
likelihood of causing pollution in waters where shellfishing takes place. It is the intent of this project to
protect and relocate any affected shellfish beds. Additionally, the northernmost line of piles of the
existing bridge and the north abutment will be left so as not to disturb the existing shellfish sampling area
in the vicinity.
15A NCAC 07M .0301 establishes management objectives to ensure public access to public beaches and
waters. There are no public beaches in the vicinity of this project.
15A NCAC 07M.0700 establishes policies for mitigation should a project have adverse impacts. While
the project has been designed to avoid adverse impacts to the greatest extent practicable, the project will
have adverse impacts on three specific areas; the wetlands area west of the north approach roadway; the
beach area immediately west of the existing bridge north abutment; and the shellfish beds located in the
area where new bulkheads will be constructed on Pivers Island. It is the intent of the Owner (NOAA) to
provide compensatory mitigation for any impacts on wetlands that are associated with this project. The
shellfish beds that would be disturbed by the construction of the new bulkheads will be moved as part of
the project requirements. Additionally, as part of the project specifications, the wax myrtles that will be
affected in order to accommodate the realigned approach roadways will be salvaged and replanted. If it is
impossible to save these mature plants, the project specifications will require that the contractor replace
the plants with plants of the same caliper or largest caliper commercially available in an arrangement to
be approved by the NOAA and Duke Laboratories. A mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner
and submitted to DCM and forwarded to relevant State agencies for their review and approval prior to
construction.
15A NCAC 07A1.0800 establishes management objectives for waters of the coastal area that have
traditionally been used for commercial and recreational fishing, swimming, hunting, recreational boating
and commerce. This project does occur adjacent to and over estuarine waters ("Old Channel") and
project specifications will require that the project will not degrade the water quality so as to impair
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
traditional uses. Specifications will establish requirements for stormwater runoff, control of siltation, and
turbidity.
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
Preconstruction Notification
for
Confirmation of Compliance
with
Regional General Permit No. 198200031
Submittal To: District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Applicant (Owner): NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research
Contact: Mr. Mike Randall
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Eastern Region
CAO/RPFLO/Project Planning Management Division
601 East 12'' Street, Room 1749
Kansas City, MO 64106-2877
e-mail: [e-mail]
Applicant's Engineer, Contact: TranSystems Corporation
Mr. Jeff Reeder
TranSystems Corporation
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 400
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]
Project Name: Design-Build Replacement of the NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge
Submittal Date: April 29, 2005
The following attachments accompany and support this Confirmation of Compliance Document:
• Exhibit A - Location and Vicinity Maps
• Exhibit B - Existing Survey
• Exhibit C - Site Layout Plan
• Exhibit D - Partial Site Layout Plans
• Exhibit E - Bridge Plan and Elevation
• Exhibit F - Sections and Details
• Final Environmental Assessment (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• FONSI letter from Department of Commerce (PDF version on accompanying CD)
• Copy of Consistency Determination submitted to NC Division of Coastal Management (PDF
version on accompanying CD)
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
1. Special Conditions
a. Written Confirmation - This document shall serve as written confirmation that the work
proposed for the referenced project complies with the Regional General Permit (RGP) No.
198200031 that is currently in effect. The RGP is for work "in or affecting navigable waters of
the United States" and authorizes "the discharge of dredged or fill niaterial inn waters of the
United States, including wetlands, associated with the construction, maintenance and repair of
bridges.... as part of work conducted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) or other State, Federal or governmental entity, inn the State of North Carolina."
(1) Project Location - The project is located in Beaufort, North Carolina, and is titled
as the "Design-Build Replacement of the NOAA/NOS Pivers Island Bridge." The
bridge will replace the existing bridge that spans Old Channel and will link the
mainland with Pivers Island. The island is currently home to NOAA National Ocean
Service Laboratory and the Duke University Marine Laboratory. A map of the
project location is shown on Exhibit A attached. Exhibit B shows the topographical
survey of the project location. Exhibits C & D show graphically the encroachment
of the north approach roadway into adjacent wetlands area and Exhibits E and F
show the preliminary construction plans for the proposed bridge. Wetlands were
delineated for this project by the Land Management Group.
(2) Project Plans -Plans for the proposed replacement bridge have been developed to
approximately the 35% completion level in accordance with the Engineer's scope of
services and what is customary for inclusion in design-build criteria documents.
These plans and details, in 11" x 17" format, are attached to this document as
Exhibits E and F. The plans show a new two-lane concrete bridge to be constructed
immediately west of the existing Pivers Island Bridge. The plans show the existing
bridge (to be demolished) the preferred bridge plan alignment and dimensions, the
preferred bridge profile, selected typical bridge details and anticipated fill that will
be required in any existing wetland areas to accommodate the bridge and/or
approach roadways. Plans also show anticipated quantities of materials, locations of
all pertinent structures, and the normal high water elevation contour in impacted
areas.
(3) Affected Aquatic Resources - An alternatives analysis was performed to
determine the best location for the proposed Pivers Island Bridge. In studying
bridge location alternatives, the Applicant's primary criterion was to avoid project
impacts on the environment to the greatest extent practicable. We have attempted to
minimize the extent of any unavoidable impacts. It is understood that all
unavoidable impacts will be mitigated through compensatory actions and in
accordance with the Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The proposed Pivers Island Bridge will be served by Pivers Island
Road on the mainland and island sides of the bridge. It was practical to locate the
proposed bridge as close to the existing bridge as possible to make use of the
existing access roadways and to minimize the impact on existing natural areas. Two
options were studied for the proposed bridge location: immediately east of the
existing bridge and immediately west of the existing bridge. A description of the
proposed alignments follows along with a discussion of the impact on
environmental resources.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 2
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
Option 1: "East Alignment" - For this option, the existing bridge would be
left in operation until the proposed new bridge is operational at which time the
existing bridge would then be demolished. The NOAA and Duke labs were
opposed to this option because of the disruption it would cause with existing
improvements and traffic flow on the site. Access to all NOAA and Duke
facilities would have to be maintained which could impact sequencing of
construction and result in additional construction costs. The lab recently
constructed a new dock and boat ramp east of the existing bridge that would
have to be removed so the new bridge could be constructed. This ramp would
have to be relocated to another site and could possibly require the construction
of a new access road as well as new environmental documentation to be
conducted relative to the new facility. No site was identified as a possible
location for a new dock and boat ramp. Construction of a new ramp would be
potentially more disruptive to the environment than leaving the existing ramp in
place. The proposed bridge would have five spans while the existing bridge has
six spans. The new bridge would be founded using concrete piles that will be
driven in the Channel. The proposed bridge would therefore have one less line
of piles in the channel than the existing bridge and would be less disruptive to
the environment of the Channel than the current bridge. The attached bridge
plan and profile in Exhibit E shows the proposed arrangement of pile supports
for the bridge. The overhead power lines and associated easement on the east
side of the existing bridge would have to be relocated as well for this option, or
special bridge detailing, such as the use of spliced piles and low height cranes,
would be required for construction. Relocation of the power lines, in addition to
being expensive, would also be environmentally disruptive, requiring new
support structure in the vicinity of the channel. These special construction
measures would increase the cost of the bridge. Another possible problem with
this scenario concerns the location of the property line north of the existing
bridge. Based on conversations with the team surveyor, Bob Jones of Robert H.
Goslee Surveying, there exists conflicting information on where NOAA's
eastern property line is located. Depending on where the property line is located
according to the surveyor's research, it may be difficult to locate the north
approach slab in this area. For this option, the existing bridge would be left in
operation until the new bridge is operational and would then be demolished.
The contractor would be required to demolish the bridge in a manner that would
not introduce any bridge remnants or debris into the existing channel. All
demolished materials would be required to be removed and disposed of in an
approved landfill or construction/demolition landfill. Existing concrete bridge
piles would be removed approximately to the mud line of the channel.
Option 2: "Nest Alignment" - The NOAA and Duke personnel are in favor of
this option. The majority of construction on the island side would be limited to
the area west of the existing bridge approaches so disruption to traffic would be
less than Option 1. The new boat ramp would be unaffected and the overhead
electrical lines could be left in place. This Option would require realignment of
the bridge approaches on the island and mainland. Both approaches would
require a gentle reverse curve in the roadway to access the bridge (see attached
bridge plan). Some small trees and bushes and native grasses would have to be
removed on both the mainland and island so the new approaches and associated
shoulders could be constructed. There would also be some fill placement
required in the wetlands area west of the north approach to the bridge. The new
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
bridge would require the extension of the existing concrete bulkheads on the
island to create an area of land of approximately 2,265 (0.053 acres) square feet
for the south abutment and realigned Pivers Island Road. The westward
extension of the bulkhead under the existing bridge and the northward extension
of the west bulkhead of the island could encroach on existing shellfish beds.
Any shellfish beds that are impacted by the new bulkheads would be relocated to
locations approved by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The
attached bridge plan shows the area of land to be created to accommodate the
south abutment of the bridge and the realigned Pivers Island Road. Like the
East Alignment Option, the existing bridge would be left in operation and
demolished when the new bridge is complete. The bridge design would be
identical for either option and would have similar impact to the channel
environment.
Based on this comparison of locations, the Option 2 West Alignment was
determined as being the least environmentally damaging practical alternative A
more thorough discussion of the impacts on aquatic resources follows:
Impact in Channel - The proposed bridge will have five spans while the
existing bridge has six spans. The new bridge will be founded using
concrete piles that would be driven in the Channel. The proposed bridge
would therefore have one less line of piles in the channel than the existing
bridge and will be less disruptive to the environment of the Channel than the
current bridge. The attached bridge plan and profile on Exhibit E shows the
proposed arrangement of pile supports for the bridge.
Impact of Bulkhead Extensions on Island - The new bridge would require
the extension of the existing concrete bulkheads on the island to create an
area of land of approximately 2,265 (0.053 acres) square feet for the south
abutment and realigned Pivers Island Road. The westward extension of the
bulkhead under the existing bridge and the northward extension of the west
bulkhead of the island could encroach on existing shellfish beds. Any
shellfish beds that are impacted by the new bulkheads would be relocated to
locations approved by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. The
attached bridge plan shows the area of land to be created to accommodate
the south abutment of the bridge and the realigned Pivers Island Road.
Realignment of Pivers Island Road, North of Bridge - This option would
require that Pivers Island Road be realigned on the mainland side of the
Channel to accommodate the proposed bridge location. This realignment
would require the removal of some existing vegetation on the west side of
the road and will also require some fill in the existing wetlands immediately
west of the road in order to create the new roadbed and shoulder and side
slope. Exhibits C and D show the estimated impact on the existing wetlands
area. It is estimated that the area of wetlands that will be impacted is 0.042
acres, the area of sandy beach that would be impacted is 0.049 acres.
• Demolition of Existing Bridge - The existing Pivers Island Bridge would
be demolished after the completion of the new bridge. The contractor would
be required to demolish the bridge in a manner that would not introduce any
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 4
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
bridge remnants or debris into the existing channel. All demolished
materials would be required to be removed and disposed in an approved
construction/demolition landfill. Existing concrete bridge piles will be
removed approximately to the mud line of the channel. Demolition will be
in accordance with North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
including the Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Storm il'ater Best Management Practices.
It is the design intent that all piles would be removed as part of the demolition of the
existing bridge. The abutment on the north side of the existing bridge would be left
in place so as not to destabilized the existing bulkhead at that location. There would
be no environmental impact by leaving the abutment in place because there is no
emergent seagrass at this location.
(4) Approximate Commencement and Completion Dates - We anticipate that
construction on the project will begin in January 1, 2006 and will be completed by
March 31, 2007.
(5) Methods to be Employed to Minimize Impact on Aquatic Resources- All
construction activities, including demolition, shall be performed in accordance with
the Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities, as
published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, August 2003.
(6) Techniques for Construction, Stabilization, and Removal of Unavoidable
Temporary Fills - All construction activities, including demolition, shall be
performed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Construction and
Aaintenance Activities, as published by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, August 2003. Competent Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research (CCFHR) staff will monitor compliance with these BMPs.
(7) Adjoining Property Owners - The south end of the proposed bridge will be
located on Pivers Island. Pivers Island is surrounded by estuaries of the Newport
River, namely "Back Sound" on the west and "Beaufort Channel" or "Gallants
Channel" on the east and south. The north side of the island in bounded by a narrow
channel named "Old Channel," which is approximately 300 feet wide. The
proposed bridge will span Old Channel. This channel is noted as "Thoroughfare" on
the attached survey and will be referred to hereafter as "the Channel." All channels
mentioned are public waters. On the north side of the bridge, the U.S. Government
owns all land on which any construction will take place. The property immediately
to the east of the Government property is deeded to Rodney P. Hoell. The
government property abuts the right of way for Old Causeway Road on the north
(also known as "County Road 1205" or "Old Morehead Road" on some local
databases.) The State of North Carolina owns a small irregularly shaped parcel of
approximately one-half acre west of Pivers Island Road north of the bridge. This
parcel is surrounded by U.S. Government property.
b. Fill Areas and Impacts on Aquatic Resources - Based on the preferred approach roadway
and bridge alignment, the total area of fill anticipated for the project is 0.144 acres. This total
fill area includes fill required in the wetlands area on the north approach roadway (0.042
acres) and the fill area behind the proposed bulkhead on the northwest corner of Pivers Island
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
(0.052 acres), and fill on the beach area at the north abutment (0.049 acres). The bulkhead is
being extended on Pivers Island in order to accommodate the construction of the bridge
abutment and adjacent approach roadway alignment.
It is our understanding that the Corps of Engineers' Project Manager will make a wetlands
determination, after visiting the site and reviewing the attached plans, if the impact on aquatic
resources warrants a review by Federal and State agencies. It is our understanding that the
Division of Coastal Management will distribute plans and associated materials to these and
other State agencies, if required:
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
It is also our understanding that if the Corps of Engineers' Project Manager determines that
the impacts of the project are minimal (or can be made minimal by changes agreed to by the
applicant) a letter of authorization to proceed will be provided.
c. Forwarding of Plans to Selected Agencies, for Fills Greater Than One Acre - Since the
calculated area of fills for the project is less than one acre, the forwarding of plans to the
agencies listed under item b. above will be performed only if requested by the Corps of
Engineers' Project Manager.
d. Location of Work - The proposed work is in Carteret County. Because this is one of the
coastal counties as defined by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, a copy of
this Preconstruction Notification has been forwarded to:
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Attention: Mr. Ron Sechler
It is the Applicant's understanding that Carteret County currently has a Land Use Plan in
effect. A copy of this Preconstruction Notification has been forwarded to Katrina Marshall at
the County for review and comment to assure compliance with the Land Use Plan.
e. State Authorizations - It is our understanding that State authorizations are required before
the Wilmington District Engineer will issue any approval for this project. A Consistency
Determination has been filed with the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
concurrent with this RGP Confirmation of Compliance.
f. Notice to Proceed - It is understood that no work will proceed on this project until the
applicant receives written notice to proceed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District Engineer.
g. Removal of Temporary Fills and Site Restoration - All temporary fills used for
construction of the proposed Pivers Island Bridge or realigned roadways will be completely
removed from the site. It is not anticipated at this time that any temporary fills will be
required that will impact wetland areas.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 6
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
li. Soil and Erosion Control Measures - All construction activities, including demolition, shall
be performed in accordance with the Best Management Practices of the North Carolina
Division of Land Resources.
i. Alignment of Approaches and Existing Approach Fills - The existing roadbed north of the
proposed bridge is not located in a designated wetland area. Areas where the existing
roadway will be removed will be regarded and new plants introduced at areas not required for
access to the property to the east.
j. Discharges of Fill Materials, Impacts, and Proposed Mitigation - Discharges of fill
dredged or fill material will be minimized on this project. If, after review by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Engineer, it is determined that the construction
activities will result in more than "minimal adverse environmental affects," compensatory
mitigation will be provided on the project. Any compensatory mitigation will comply with
the Corps-wide mitigation guidelines.
k. Activities in North Carolina "Mountain Trout Waters" - Provisions of the RGP related
to work occurring in designated "Mountain Trout Waters" do not apply to this project.
1. Activities in Mountain Counties of North Carolina - Provisions of the RGP related to
work occurring in designated "Mountain Counties" or North Carolina do not apply to this
project.
m. Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas and Use of Culverts - Provisions of the RGP related to
installation of culverts in areas designated as "anadromous fish" spawning areas do not apply
to this project.
n. Discharges into Waters Designated as Anadromous Fish Spawning or Primary Nursery
Areas- Based on information supplied by the NCDMF and Wildlife Resources Commission,
this project is not located in an area designated as a "primary nursery area," and it is our
understanding that it is not required to contact the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries or the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for coordination. Although
not required, it is the intent of the applicant to issue a notice to proceed to the successful
design-build contractor in October, 2005 and to require that construction of the piles,
bulkheads, and other activities occur in the winter months in a period of low biological
activity.
o. Disruption of Movement of Indigenous Species of Aquatic Life - It is our understanding,
based on information supplied by the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, that the site has
no anadromous fish. Also, the NMFS indicates that mammals and turtles do not consistently
use this area during any month. In the Final Environmental Assessment, it was noted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that there is a "slight chance that the West Indian manatee
may occupy waters in the vicinity of Pivers Island." The Fish and Wildlife Service included
in their report a set of guidelines for construction in possible areas where manatees could be
found. This document is titled "Precautions for General Construction in Areas TT'hich May
Be Used by the Mest Indian Manatee in North Carolina." The design-build contractor will be
required in the specifications to conduct all construction activities in accordance with this
document. Based on this information, it was determined that the proposed construction
activities will not result in substantial permanent disruption of movement of indigenous
species of aquatic life.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 7
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
p. Installation of Culverts Greater Than 100' in Length -Provisions of the RGP related to
installation of culverts do not apply to this project.
q. Pipe Culverts in CAMA designated counties - Provisions of the RGP related to installation
of culverts do not apply to this project.
r. Construction Activities Adjacent to Aquatic Habitat - The specifications for design-build
construction of the Pivers Island Bridge will require that, "to the greatest extent practicable,"
all construction activities authorized by the RGP will be conducted "in the dry." The
specifications will require that barriers be installed between work areas and the aquatic
habitat to protect the habitat from cement and other pollutants. The contractor will be
required to prevent fresh or uncured concrete from coming into contact with waters of the
State until the concrete has cured.
s. Determination of Consistency with North Carolina Division of Coastal Management -
It is our understanding that projects authorized by this RGP require a Determination of
Consistency from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management in accordance with the
Coastal Area Management Act of 1974 (CAMA). Carteret County is located within the
iwenty counties of North Carolina designated as coastal counties by the LAMA. A
Consistency Determination has been submitted to Ms. Terre Barrett of the North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City office, concurrent with submission of this
RGP Confirmation Compliance. This project occurs within a designated Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC) therefore subchapter 7H of Chapter 7 of Title 15A of North
Carolina's Administrative Code, State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern, will
apply. Additionally, Subchapter 7M of the Code, General Policy Guidelines for the Costal
Area, will apply.
t. Authorization of Work and Consultation with NOAA - Based on the project location, the
following Essential Fish Habitats (EFH) will be impacted:
Inter-tidal Marsh - Fill areas on the west side of the re-aligned Pivers Island Road
north of the proposed bridge will impact the existing wetlands area. The area of
wetlands that will be impacted is 0.042 acres.
Oyster Beds - The proposed bulkhead extension on Pivers Island will impact existing
oyster beds located on rocks adjacent to the existing concrete bulkhead. All live
oysters will be removed and relocated to an area designated by the NCDENR. The
rocky area that will be impacted is 0.053 acres.
Sandy Beach Area - The new bridge will impact 0.049 acres of sandy beach at the
north abutment.
Impacted areas are shown on Exhibits C and D.
Based on coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation
Division, a determination has been made that the impact to EFH will be minimal.
Therefore, no EFH assessment has been prepared.
u. Requirements of NCDWQ Water Quality Certification No. 3404 - All work will for this
project will comply with North Carolina Division of Water Quality Certification No. 3404.
Applicable sections of the Certification and a discussion of how this project is in compliance
follows:
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
1.) Enumerating and Reporting of Impacts:
• Streams - Provisions are not applicable.
• Wetlands - Impacts to wetlands are shown graphically on the attached
Project Plan (Exhibits C and D). The fill area in the wetlands north of the
bridge is 0.42 acres.
• Lakes and Ponds - Not applicable.
2.) Proposed Fill or Substantial Modification of Wetlands - A Consistency
Determination for the project has been submitted for review by North Carolina
DCM. DCM is forwarding copies of the Consistency Determination document to
the appropriate State agencies, including the Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
for their review and concurrence.
3.) Single Family Lot Application - Not applicable.
4.) Impacts to Streams in Neuse, Tar-Pamilico or Randleman River Basins -
Not applicable.
5.) Impacts to Perennial Waters - This project does have an impact on Perennial
Waters since the bridge will cross Old Channel and will require written approval
from the DWQ. This project will have a slight increase in impervious area
because of the realignment of Pivers Island Road north and south of the bridge.
The increase will be approximately 0.012 acres in aggregate (no increase on
Pivers Island and 0.012acres on the mainland.)
G.) Site Specific Storm Water Management - The more stringent provisions of
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Best Management Practices
for Construction and Maintenance Activities and DWQ's Storm [Vater Best
Afanagentent Practices (BMPs) will be required for construction of the project.
Project specifications require that site-specific stormwater management shall be
designed to remove 85% of total suspended solids (TSS) in accordance with the
DWQ's BMPs. The project specifications also require that a stormwater
management plan be developed by the successful design-build contractor and
submitted to the DWQ for their records.
7.) Compensatory Stream Mitigation - Not applicable.
8.) 401 Water Quality Certification - Not applicable as verified with the
NCDENR and the NC Department of Water Quality.
9.) Compensatory Mitigation - It is the intent of the Owner (NOAA) to provide
compensatory mitigation for any impacts to wetlands that are associated with this
projectA mitigation plan will be developed by the Owner and submitted to DCM
for their review and approval prior to installation.
10.) Realignment of Streams - Not applicable.
11.) Placement of Culverts - Not applicable.
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 9
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
12.)Sediment and Erosion Control Practices - The more stringent provisions of
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Best Management Practices
for Construction and Maintenance Activities, and the North Carolina Sediment
and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual will be in effect for the
construction of this project.
13.)Removal of Sediment and Erosion Control Measures - As a requirement of
the project specifications, the Contractor shall remove all erosion control
measures and original grades restored within two months after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project.
14.)Additional Site-Specific Conditions - It is understood that the DWQ may add
additional site specific conditions to this project in order to ensure compliance
with all applicable water quality and effluent standards.
15.)Casting of Concrete Adjacent to Waters of the State - As a requirement of the
project specifications, the contractor will be required to prevent fresh or uncured
concrete from coming into contact with waters of the State until the concrete has
cured.
16.)Environmental Documentation - A Final Environmental Assessment has been
conducted for this and associated projects at Pivers Island by Stokes
Environmental Associates, Norfolk, Virginia, dated 22 August 2003. A copy of
this document is located on the compact disk accompanying this report. A
FONSI has been issued by the United States Department of Commerce/NOAA
by Dr. Richard Spinrad, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, Silver
Spring Maryland. A copy of the Final Environmental Assessment and FONSI
are attached to the Confirmation of Compliance.
17.)Access of Building Sites and Additional Fill - The RGP Certification of
Compliance will be used to access the construction site for the proposed bridge.
No additional fill, beyond what is indicated on the attached preliminary plan and
profile and what is described in this document, is allowed as part of this project.
18.) Certification of Completion - NOAA will use the most recent version of the
Certification of Completion form to notify DWQ when all work included in the
RGP is complete.
19.)Certification Period - The applicant understands that any certification from the
DWQ shall expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on
the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding RGP, whichever is
sooner.
v. The proposed Pivers Island Bridge will be constructed just west of and as close as practicable
to the existing bridge. The new bridge will have one less set of pier supports in the Old
Channel than the current bridge and will have no adverse impact on preconstruction
downstream flow rates or capacity. Construction of the bridge will not permanently restrict
or impede the passage of normal or high flows. The structure and any shoulders, built-up
areas or subbase material that accommodates the new alignment of Pivers Island road will be
designed to withstand expected high flows. Discharge of dredged materials will not be
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 10
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
allowed (by project specifications) into any of the waterways or wetlands associated with this
project.
2. General Conditions
a. Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material - Other than the creation of the roadbed and
shoulders in the existing wetlands area north of the proposed bridge, there will be no
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with this
project.
b. Interference with Navigation or Right of Public to Riparian Access - As a
requirement of the project specifications, there will be no interference with navigation or
riparian access as a result of this project. The contractor will maintain watercraft access
through Old Channel for the duration of construction activities. Plans will be submitted
to the United States Coast Guard for review for verification.
c. Permittee Compliance with RGP - As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor upon written notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington
District Engineer of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this RGP, will
within 60 days, without expense to the U.S. Government, and in such manner as the
Wilmington District Engineer may direct, affect compliance with the terms and
conditions or return the worksite to a pre-work condition
d. Impact on Fish, Wildlife, and Natural Environment-As a requirement of the project
specifications, the contractor will make every reasonable effort to minimize the impact on
fish, wildlife, and the natural environment in conducting the work of the construction
contract.
e. Degradation of Water Quality - As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor will conduct work of the construction contract in a manner to minimize any
degradation of water quality. Construction activities will be conducted in such a manner
as to prevent a significant increase in turbidity (25 NTU's (Natural Turbidity Units)) or
less in all saltwater classes) outside the area of construction or construction related
discharge.
f. Corps of Engineers' Inspections - As a requirement of the project specifications, the
contractor will permit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Engineer
or his representative to make periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order
to assure that the activity is performed or maintained in strict accordance with the Special
and General Conditions of this permit.
g. Non-Conveyance of Special Rights - The project specifications will state that "this
RGP does not convey any rights, either in real estate or material, or any exclusive
privileges; and it does not authorize any injury to property or invasion of rights or any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate the
requirement to obtain State or local assent required by law for the activity authorized
herein. These may include, but are not necessarily limited to, a Dredge and/or Fill Permit
(N.C.G.S. 113-229), a CAMA Permit (N.C.G.S. 113A-118), an Easement to Fill
(N.C.G.S. 146-12) and a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act."
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 11
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
h. Modification or Revocation of this RGP - It is understood by the applicant, and will be
a part of the project specifications, that the authorization provided by this RGP may be
modified, suspended or revoked in whole or in part if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Engineer, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, determines
that such an action would be in the best public interest. Unless subject to modification,
suspension, or revocation, it is understood that the term of this RGP shall be five years. It
is further understood that any modification, suspension, or revocation of this
authorization will not be the basis for any claim for damages against the U.S.
Government.
i. Interference With Federal Projects - It is understood that this RGP does not authorize
the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project and that permittee will not
be entitled to compensation for damages or injury to the structures or work authorized
herein which may be caused by or results from existing or future operations undertaken
by the United States in the public interest.
j. Adverse Affect on Human Environment - It is understood that this RGP will not be
applicable to the proposed construction when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Engineer determines, after necessary investigations, that the
proposed activity would significantly affect the quality of the human environment and
determines that an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. The applicant
does not anticipate that the District Engineer will take this position in light of the
supporting data, including the Final Environmental Assessment and resulting FONSI,
which are attached to this Confirmation of Compliance.
k. Adverse Affect on Other Areas of Public Importance - It is understood that this RGP
will not be applicable to the proposed construction when the Wilmington District
Engineer determines after necessary investigations, that the proposed activity would
adversely affect areas that possess historic, cultural, scenic, conservation, or recreational
values. Application of this exemption applies to:
historic, cultural or archaeological resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places;
Critical habitat for threatened or endangered species;
NOAA designated marine sanctuaries;
1. National Flood Insurance Program - This project will not result in any increase in the
base flood elevation and therefore will not be subject to the National Flood Insurance
Program.
m. Appropriateness of RGP - It is understood that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Engineer, at his discretion, may determine that this RGP will not be
applicable to this specific construction proposal. In such case, it is understood that the
procedure for processing an individual permit in accordance with 33 CFR 325 will be
available.
n. Successors to the Permittee - The project specifications will state that "the permittee or
permittee's successors will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in
conformance with the terms and conditions of the RGP."
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 12
Design-Build Replacement of NOAA/NOA Pivers Island Bridge
o. Content of Dredged or Fill Material to be Discharged - The project specifications will
state that "the discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free
from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts."
CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE 13
I of
UNrMO 13TAT00 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE=
\,I# Natlonal Ooaanla and Atmospheric: Adminlotration
PROGRAM PLANNING AND INTEGRATION
/ SI ver Spring. Maryland 20910
(*
4ris
- 3 2004
FRE3 To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups:

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has conducted an environmental review of the following action:
TITLE: National Ocean Service (NOS) Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research (CCFHR) Expansion and Improvements
LOCATION: Beaufort, North Carolina
SUMMARY: Expansion and improvements to the CCFHR facility by the construction of a
two-story 17,700 square foot main laboratory and administration building,
emplacement of a small interpretive kiosk, replacement of an existing vehicle
access bridge, and upgrades to existing turtle pens, sea water system, and
boat ramp and docks
RESPONSIBLE Richard W. Spinrad, Ph.D.
OFFICIAL: Assistant Administrator
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation
SSMC4, Room 13632
1305 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Phone: [phone]
The environmental review process led us to conclude that this action will not have a significant
impact on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement was not prepared. A
copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact, including the environmental assessment, is
enclosed for your information. Please send one copy of any comments to the responsible official
listed above and one copy to me at the NOAA Strategic Planning Office, PPI/SP, SSMC3 Rm
15603, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
rel
Since
Susan A. Keened
Acting NEPA Coordinator
Enclosures
Printed on Recycled Paper

-a7 UNITED 13TATEG DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
•? ?+J{ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
?•''+.no'?` NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
JAN 2 9 2404
MEMORANDUM FOR: Susan A. Kennedy
Deputy Director
Strategic Planning Office
FROM: Richard W. Spinrad, Ph.D.
Assistant Administrator
e4 SUBJECT: Proposed Beaufort Laboratory Expansion
NOS, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research
Pivers Island, North Carolina-DECISION MEMORANDUM
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS) Center for Coastal Fisheries
and Habitat Research located at NOAA's NOS complex at 101 Pivers Island Road in Beaufort, North
Carolina. The EA conforms to regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508 issued
by the Council on Environmental Quality, and with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6,
Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. The
Final EA, dated 22 August 2003, analyzes the potential for significant effects on the environment
resulting from the proposed construction, including individual and cumulative effects.
Based on a careful review of the information and findings contained in the Final EA, 1 find that
implementation of the proposed action would not result in significant impacts on the environment.
The following information supports this finding:
The Final EA includes a comprehensive analysis of the potential for environmental effects
and neither individual nor cumulative environmental impacts would be significant.
Based on consultation with federal and state agencies, implementation of the proposed action
will riot significantly affect species protected under either federal or state law.
Based on consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), resources listed
or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will not be adversely
affected.

Page 2
Based on careful review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, as confirmed by onsite analysis by appropriate scientists,
no significant adverse effects will result to wetlands and water resources at the property in
compliance with Executive Orders (EOs) 11988, Floodplain Management, and 11990,
Protection of Wetlands.
The National Ocean Service (NOS) will have funds available in Fiscal Year 2004 (FY-04) to initiate
the proposed project. Based on the subject environmental assessment, Fhave determined that no
significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed action. I request your concurrence
of the attached Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) by signing below. Please return this
memorandum for our files.
v'7
Concur We
Do Not Concur Date
Attachment
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY &
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR
THE PROPOSED
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service
CENTER EXPANSION FOR COASTAL FISHERIES AND HABITAT RESEARCH
101 PIVERS ISLAND IN BEAUFORT, NORTH CAROLINA
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NOS, within NOAA, provides habitat research, laboratory management and administration operations
at the Beaufort Laboratory, located on Pivers Island in Beaufort, North Carolina. The proposed laboratory
expansion project is part of the Beaufort Laboratory improvements, which will modernize the
infrastructure and enhance the NOS's ability to support marine fisheries research.
The proposed main laboratory and administration building will enable reclamation of laboratory space for
scientific research in the NOS laboratory building that is currently being used as office space. The NOS
library and administrative functions will. be relocated to the new building. Current North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve (NCNERR) spaces will also be relocated to the new facility and
much needed space for public functions serving the missions of both organizations will be provided.
NCNERR personnel are currently located in a non-contiguous location at the Duke University Marine
Laboratory and are housed in inadequate, non-government facilities.
Current overcrowded conditions require NOS research staff to usa functioning laboratory spaces as their
office. This provides inadequate office facilities and is detrimental to controlled laboratory environments.
Existing conference space is not adequate for current electronic training needs and conferencing systems.
Current NCNERR office spaces are inadequate. Space for laboratory and training are currently not
available nor are the spaces necessary to meet NCNERR public meeting requirements.
The collocation of NOS and NCNERR will strengthen the partnership between the agencies through
shared resources and collaboration. The NCNERR educational staff will help communicate NOS results,
directives and missions to various public and management groups. It will enhance partnerships with
researchers from academic institutions and other federal laboratories. Other portions of this proposed
project are planned as part of the overall modernization of the Beaufort Laboratory operation.
The site for the proposed emplacement of a small interpretive kiosk, which will be a small display area
and not an occupied building, was chosen for its view of the Rachel Carson NCNERR, proximity to
existing structures and based on future plans with regard to educational functions. This structure will
provide both informational and educational displays regarding NOS and NCNERR programs.
The current vehicle access bridge has served the island for over 35 years and proposed replacement will
enable continued road access to the NOAA and Duke Laboratories for another 35 years or more.
The proposed upgrade of the existing turtle pen complex, which will be a tidal research area, and
connected free flowing, tidally influenced seawater supply system will facilitate tidal research in support
of NOS programs. No pumping system will be used with the seawater supply system.
The proposed upgrade of a boat ramp and docks will improve safety and extend the useful life of these
assets, and provide permanent space for the NCNERR boats.
Completion of this proposed project is critical tc
Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research (CCFHR),
NOS's National Center for Coastal Ocean Science.
scientific frontiers within its various specific ar
laboratory complex will enable the CCFHR to
research in the future.
the continued support of NOAA's NOS Center for
which is one of four national research facilities in the
The Beaufort Laboratory has continually advanced the
.as of endeavor, and as such, modernization of the
;ontinue providing the highest standard of scientific
The NOAA has prepared this Final Environmental Assessment (EA) document in conformance with
requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (1999). This EA analyzes project-related impacts and the potential for
significant environmental impacts to occur to the human environment for the preferred action and the
alternative of taking no action. The human environment is defined broadly as the natural and physical-
environment, and the relationship of people within that environment.
NOAA evaluated all feasible alternative locations on the Island, regarding the proposed facility locations,
including the no action alternative. The project has not been a source of controversy on any matter and no
negative comments were received from federal or state agencies or the public (the 30-day comment period
ran from 20 June 2003 through 22 July 2003). NOAA prepared a Draft EA for review by interested
members of the public and government agencies and accepted written comments on the content of the
Draft EA during a 30-day comment period from 20 June 2003 to 22 July 2003. Agency and public
comments were incorporated into the Preliminary Final EA, and all reviewer comments were incorporated
in the Final EA. The Final EA includes all research, and comments obtained from agency queries and
interviews. No negative comments were recorded.
Based on the research and analysis conducted during this EA, it is concluded that implementation of the
proposed action(s), would not result in significant individual or cumulative environmental effects and
requires no further environmental analyses. A Finding of No Significant Impact is recommended.
U. PROPOSED ACTION
The scope of the proposed undertaking is to design and construct a two-story 17,700 square foot main
laboratory and administration building with a footprint of approximately 10,000 square feet. A paved
parking area associated with this building will cover an area of approximately 33,000 square feet. The
area of land disturbance for this project is estimated to be approximately 55,000 square feet of previously
disturbed land. The area to be occupied by the new main laboratory and administration building and
paved parking area will be approximately 41,218 square feet. The remaining area, approximately 2,000
square feet will be landscaped. Approximately 800 square feet of this area will be located on what is the
island's original boundary, while the remaining square footage will be emplaced on man-made land.
Selection of a specific footprint for this facility was driven by the desire to optimize use of previously
disturbed land, reduce impacts to the surrounding area, and increase security.
The scope of work also calls for the emplacement of a small interpretive kiosk with a footprint of no more
than 40-foot by 40-foot, which will be located about 30 feet landward of the mean high tide mark along
the eastern shoreline of NOAA's property facing Beaufort Channel. This kiosk will be emplaced within
the immediate vicinity of existing structures adjacent to NOAA's building complex. This is the only
portion of NOAA's property, adjacent to the NCNERR boat docks, where the Rachel Carson NCNERR
may be viewed. For educational purposes, being able to view the reserve is of utmost importance.
Also included is replacement of an existing vehicle access bridge. The new bridge will be emplaced
immediately to the west of the existing bridge and will be parallel to the existing bridge. This portion of
the project will have similar footprint and features as the current structure, which was constructed in the
mid-1960s, replacing the wooden bridge built in the early 1930s. This bridge spans the body of water
known as Old Channel, which connects NOAA's property on the northern half of Pivers Island and the
causeway to between Old Channel and State Route 1205, also known as Old US 70. The existing bridge
will be dismantled upon completion of the replacement bridge.
Included within the scope are smaller projects, which include upgrade of existing boat ramps and docks.
A proposed component of these upgrades involve replacement of the retaining walls and piping system of
the existing tulle pen complex to include the seawater supply system. This portion of the project will
remain within the same footprint as the current structure that was emplaced in this area in the late 1920s.
The.existing turtle pens are located on the northern shoreline of NOAA's property facing Old Channel.
No seawater intake system is planned and no pumps will be utilized. The seawater supply will be free
flowing and tidally influenced.
As part of this proposed project, an upgrade of the northeastern, main dock will involve removal of two
fixed, piling-type finger docks and installation of floating-type docks in their stead. This portion of the
project will remain within the same footprint as the current structure that was first emplaced onsite in the
late 1930s. This project area is located on the northwestern shoreline of NOAA's property, adjacent to the
southern bridgehead, facing Old Channel.
Included within the scope of the proposed project is an upgrade of the northeastern boat ramp and two
docks, which includes widening and regarding the ramp and replacing the adjacent sea wall. The two
fixed, piling-type docks will be replaced with floating-type docks. This portion of the project will remain
within the same footprint as the current structure built in the 1970s. This project area is located on the
northwestern shoreline of the NOAA's property, facing Old Channel. Careful consideration was given to
upgrading and improving the existing boat ramp and docks. Minimal disturbance of the shoreline, tidal
areas and submerged areas will occur as a result in these project areas. Analysis of project impacts at the
site and its vicinity, to include cumulative impacts, indicated that no significant environmental effects
would occur.
4
The schedule for the proposed new building project is to begin construction by February 2005 and
complete construction by May 2006. The other items, which are currently unfunded, will begin following
receipt of appropriated funds. The estimated completion date is May 2006.
Development at this site meets applicable federal and state regulatory guidelines and local ordinance
requirements for federally funded projects. Analysis of project impacts at the site and its.vicinity, to
include cumulative impacts, indicated that no significant environmental effects would occur.
III. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Implementation of the proposed action has been designed to cause minimal physical change to the
environment. During construction, all contractors and employees entering the proposed project area will
be subject to applicable federal, state and. local regulations governing environmental safety and health
statutes and codes.
This proposed project is designed in order to minimize disturbance of previously undisturbed land;
• The- entirety of the new laboratory and administration building will be constructed on previously
disturbed land. The parking area will be emplaced upon man-made land (dredge material), which
resulted from dredge and fill operations conducted in the early 1900s and the late 1960s. Entry
into the parking area will be from the existing road, Pivers Island Road.
• The new interpretive kiosk will be constructed on previously disturbed land. Access to this
structure will be via an existing unimproved gravel lane.
The new vehicle access bridge will be constructed adjacent to the existing bridge. The
emplacement of the northern bridgehead will be within man-made land (dredge material), which
resulted from dredge and fill operations conducted in the early 1900s and the late 1960s. The
southern bridgehead will be emplaced on previously disturbed land. The bridge will span the Old
Channel, which was previously disturbed during construction of the present bridge, built in the
mid-1960s, which replaced the bridge that was constructed in the early 1930s. It appears that this
area was also dredged in the early 1900s. This area has been disturbed three times in the in the
past 100 years.
The existing turtle pens, with sea water system, and boat tamp and docks will be upgraded;
however, these will remain within the same footprint as the existing structures. Therefore,
activities within these areas will occur on previously disturbed land.
• Non-point source pollution will be controlled during construction by appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls.
• Vegetative buffer zones will be established, via landscaping designed to be in keeping with the
North Carolina Coastal Plain. The buffer zones are also designed to minimize sheet runoff from
the subject site after the construction phase.
• Natural areas on NOAA's property, such as the beach area located on the eastern portion of the
island, the cedar grove in the center of the island, and the swath of land between Pivers Island
Road and Bulkhead Channel, will be preserved.
Pivers Island is not located within the vicinity of degraded or impaired air or watersheds, land areas,
surface water bodies, geologic formations, or groundwater aquifers
All site plans for the proposed project, to include the new main laboratory and administration building,
new kiosk, new bridge, turtle pen and seawater supply system upgrades, and boat ramp and dock upgrades,
must be reviewed by the NCDWQ for permitting. Based upon the Civil Design Engineer's consultation
with the NCDWQ, the proposed project appears to qualify for the low-density option, as governed by state
stormwater regulations, and, therefore, this project is not considered to pose an adverse affect to the
environment with regard to non-ppint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff. Based on an onsite
meeting with both the NCDWQ and NCDCM, this proposed project is not expected to cause detrimental
effects to adjacent water bodies.
Pivers Island is within the North Carolina's coastal zones, and as such falls under the enforceable polices
of the program, which includes fisheries management, wetlands management, dunes management, non-
point source pollution control, point source pollution control, shoreline sanitation, air pollution control;
and coastal lands management. The new laboratory and administration building is consistent with
NCDCM's requirements. NCDCM issued a federal consistency determination dated 2.1 August 2003.
The wetlands delineation report, dated, 8 July 2003, confirmed the existence of wetlands to the northwest
of the proposed northern bridgehead of the new vehicle access bridge. Based on this delineation, it appears
that the bridge will not directly affect identified wetlands. This delineation also found possible wetlands
within the confines of the existing turtle pens. Because this is a man-made structure that has been
naturalized into a tidal wetland, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) must make the final
determination of the existence of wetlands at this portion of the site. The COE must review the above-
mentioned delineation in order to determine the extent of jurisdictional wetlands within areas of the
proposed project. The impact upon wetlands is expected to be low. However, based upon the COE's
decision, wetlands permitting may be required. It is anticipated that any such permitting will be performed
using Nationwide permits for minor impacts.
The dominant source of flooding within the immediate area of the proposed project site is wind driven
surge generated in the Atlantic Ocean by tropical storms and hurricanes. The finished floor elevation of
the new building will be above the 100-year floodplain. Other considerations will be undertaken as per the
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) Administrative Order DAO 216-11, Floodplain Management and
Protection of Wetlands (1979). Design plans will be provided to both Carteret County and Town of
Beaufort for review.
The proposed project will not affect endangered and threatened terrestrial species, designated critical
habitats, or other natural resources within the vicinity of the proposed project area. No endangered and
threatened species or designated critical habitats are known to occur either at the site or within the vicinity
of the proposed project area. However, sightings of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), the
leatherback sea turtle (Dermocyls coriacea) and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) have been reported
within the estuary west of Radio Island and south of the Rachel Carson NCNERR. Lighting and
acoustical effects of activities around the bridgeheads and boat ramps and docks are not to be materially
altered and there will be no impacting changes resulting from this proposed project. According to
NOAA's Protected Species Division, there are no designated critical habitats located within state waters.
NOAA's Strategic Planning Office recommended further consultation concerning the Magnuson-Stevens
Act of 1996. As a result of that consultation, the set of pilings nearest the shoreline will be retained and
would enable retention of the original oyster population, which is sampled for trend analysis.
The proposed project will not adversely impact endangered or threatened species, or designated critical
habitats. The proposed project will not directly affect seagrass beds. Also, it is understood that based on
the presence of intertidal shellfish (oyster) beds adjacent to the proposed vehicle access bridge,
construction plans for the bridge replacement and demolition plans for the existing bridge require review
and comment by the NCDMF.
Based on review of appropriate databases, maps and land deeds, coupled with both federal and state
agency review, and interviews it appears that the proposed project is not located in an officially designated
wilderness or natural area preserve, wildlife preserve or wildlife refuge, national estuarine reserve or
coastal reserve, aquiculture protection area or agricultural reserve area, national seashore or wild and
scenic river, national or state natural landmark, significant landscape, natural areas or open spaces, or
other conservation areas. As such, no further investigation regarding the above-mentioned natural
resources is warranted at this time.
The proposed project will not adversely affect the historic or cultural resources, either on land or under
water. The proposed project is not located in an officially designated national or state historic landscape,
battlefield, or other historic or cultural resource. Review of regulatory databases.did not indicate adverse
environmental conditions at the subject site or its immediate vicinity.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NOAA's assessment of the proposed project is consistent with guidance provided by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), Considering Cumulative Effects (1997). This assessment considered
alternative actions for the proposed project, which are described below.
NOAA analyzed five alternatives regarding the new main laboratory and administration building. The
complete expansion, plus the outlying project components were analyzed individually and then from the
overall cumulative perspective.
7
The first option would have emplaced the building to the west of the existing parking area and over 96 feet
to the southwest of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because: 1) the structure
would have been placed in a low-lying area of the island and well within the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would have been placed within a few feet of the existing utility easement, which would limit
future utility upgrades; 3) the structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory
structure, which would have caused loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the
increased safety and security provided by the proximity factor, aand -4) the structure would have been out of
harmony with the layout of the complex.
The second option would have emplaced the building to the north of the existing parking area and
approximately 14 feet to the west of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because:
1) approximately one-half of the structure would have extended into the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would have been placed within a few feet of the existing utility easement; and 3) the structure
would have been out of harmony with the layout of the complex.
The third option would have emplaced the building to the south of the existing parking area and over 208
feet to the south of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because: 1) the structure
would have been placed in a low-lying area of the island and well within the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory structure, which would have caused
loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the increased safety and security
provided by the proximity factor; and 3) the structure would have been out of harmony with the layout of
the complex.
The fourth option would have emplaced the building to the south of the existing parking area and over 336
feet to the south of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected because: 1) the structure
would have been placed in a low-lying area of the island and well within the 100-year floodplain; 2) the
structure would have been placed within a few feet of the existing utility easement, which would limit
future utility upgrades; 3) the structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory
structure, which would have caused loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the
increased safety and security provided by the proximity factor; and 4) the structure would have been out of
harmony with the layout of the complex.
The fifth option would have emplaced the building within the footprint of the existing parking area and
approximately 44 feet to the southwest of the existing laboratory building. This option was rejected
because: 1) the structure would not have been contiguous with the existing laboratory structure, which
would have caused loss of the desired proximity to other operational areas and loss of the increased safety
and security provided by the proximity factor; and 2) the structure would have been out of harmony with
the layout of the complex.
The alternative action for replacing the vehicle access bridge would be to repair the existing bridge. In
order to repair the bridge, the deck would need to be removed and the girders and abutments would need
to be replaced. During this period of repair, there would be no vehicle access to either the NOAA
laboratory or the Duke Marine Laboratory for several months, unless a temporary bridge is also installed.
A temporary bridge would require a significant structure in the water for lateral bracing due to the strong
currents in the Old Channel. The bridge girders have already been repaired and reinforced in 1995;
however, due to the severe effects of the marine environment, the structure is again experiencing major
problems resulting from corrosion. The life of a repaired bridge would also be limited by the life of the
existing concrete piles, some of which are already experiencing longitudinal cracks. The existing bridge is
40 years old. Bridge repair would hinder NOAA's ability to fulfill its purpose and missions during the
period of repair, and would result in a structure that would again need to be replaced when the existing
cracked piles begin to fail. The alternative action considered during the course of this investigation was to
emplace the vehicle access bridge immediately to the east of the existing bridge, where the circa 1934
wood trestle bridge once stood. However, this is not an option because the area is now part of a utility
easement. No other alternative actions are available for the emplacement of the vehicle access bridge.
No alternative action options were available for the small interpretive kiosk, or upgrade of the existing
turtle pens (tidal research area) and boat ramps and docks.
The alternative action considered during the course of this investigation is to incorporate the required
NCNERR boat slips slated for the eastern dock facility into the upgrade of the northeastern dock facility.
This option is under review by NOAA.
In addition -to the preferred action and alternative actions, NOAA considered the alternative actions of
taking no action, which would be.not to proceed with any repairs or construction of the new main
laboratory and administration building, emplacement of the small interpretive kiosk, replacement of the
existing vehicle access bridge, or upgrade of the existing the turtle pens (tidal research area) and boat ramp
and docks. The no-action alternative would hinder NOAA's ability to fulfill its purpose with regard to
federal acts regarding coastal zones, estuaries, fisheries, protected species, etc. Therefore, NOAA rejected
the no-action alternative.
V. CONCLUSION
Review of all available information indicates that the proposed action at the site location considered above
will have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
"A.l0-
Date cHard W. Spinrad, .
Assistant Administrator
National Ocean Service
Z?K 'E
O
a
z
_U
1
as a
t? a
?c
3.
0
?a
a

Z
O

U
O c

U .
,
w u
O o
a
a

$ m ,z
0
C9J
c ?-
? Ni
W:
H
2:
i1
441 O
0
o
o
o
O
O J
Cif
20
E LL.
> CD
Ca
G
Z
Q
U
O
f
a F-
O
Y
m O I
QQ m ?
Q W W C7
W
h?
w
U
W
N
QZ
W
U
O
J
Z
O
z z
' J
O W
~ U
cn ~
U O
w
z c°n m
U O LLi
Z m
? -0
Ny
U °
O O
¢ :;? U7
? Z (!)
m O w
w
u? z a

LL'
A /.
??'a !o)
s s• .1••8.x/
N Ek1 e` 1Y ro ?B
4
.
SS .
((yy b•9
NNBY ?
?

9 q

b/y6f•L•y? •B/.
'p
LWlB BNB a
•tl
3J,8•
t
?,? 9 ; q
0 q
a
+ 1-
3.•e
N
ri `\ x W .tVa7

d'
p\.k
l9
+9\'k ?

dC
+
`.k
mss'
#
?\ Or
4a
A
k
9\'
4S a3nWe lS13yx, ? ?
/z 3oy?//&??
)bey ??tlpa03317
3Hy 3l y?,ix?
h
3Nl7 3(? ))aqy .i.,
NDLN 3/j Nf
bp! S')?q/ ,l!
3NlN•+d
J
2
m
m ?
hU
rtx
b
'k P9+
I+
.t
1t

a
o•. x
1 N a\'
#
+ ar; o
+ N w
\

e\.# x >
a ?' o W
U

p, q\" L\.x 3yy?HOnO?OH
Cn j
W
1
d°
O
r
\\'k !n U
0
W
+
?
I?
t.k
#
Q
? a•t O V1 ?
k ?
e` Z
O
Vi
m. ?
Eb'60l ?.LE .O•E9 s
i Z J
p .
N
E •hL S N b7-1 112-1
)?
O
!
plA1W YIAHM
s Q
qye
1 B2A LSA 9zA
?MqD lY3Nll i e U
T
c

/4 ?Y173J - ' O?LB n
L
O
# (2A
?i Y
•??11p? ? 22A ? _
C Z
C
p.'
zr
-vq ?81p8 A/•/ f'2A 12 Q H
`\# U O
.+

o;
?
LU 11.
?
W
rt orA #
.
m ft LblS( Q
= Lls
bAHN \ 7 )d ALA
I?yd! O
o3
!
f2 9 M m
O
tl
N
aL'
I\
\ / 3l drV ?Nddy w
Q
Q
L
! \ m
,
,m.+ (/nom

? 7e 1N,?y
a3j qy)
+ V
Z
?
U) Q

Z
?rN M,?e ffi Z
? ? O g
Lk Ix m
1 Q m

m 2-- cn

O of
bN (??,
3 T
i
! y!
"?'"?' S W Z d
1•l!A ? 3 rr>,rs ,may-?--? c : ?
QZ X
41 J.
g YE
O U 0 10
?ys].yr 1wl v ` ? ? 3
YYr b°on, - 1, ?• a
.20
Y,,"3"p+IT\? `.' 3"rkl .3?? 3 8r 'I ?3? y jl 8zv?I yK1 H o ¢u¢
BIYY bar a'1l ?' j Ni ZO m O
tior / t? 1 ? ? a
s7 y Sp }
\ ?L q,q t 2 w Z
_ \Y r-
l 'I W
•Pi. . 9 ..? I o4. 1 Z
? P•a
g
h` ? .I ?` SS
oP' O•0r' u aC'? O
di N H
P9 t gt' t dy t. xR? t" tl
3bryHJ/1 ?yOHI ? ct t ? I> X I 1 6' ry.?....` re ° - ?P o - - $ a g
^ ? Pr? t,, -; a o
Pr 9 ? t\ IId?{?jQj?J,, r a IvrtJ /I r. ? ?
Pa d^ P ^ Ids X^ : W
I rt P, Z r ? it l i i
?1`Y et..r dy?f('••I'i ?01..Nx O VJ
.pp 0r , 41.0\'Y I ? AI,
Nl' dy ?, pOp
?^^^ N 111 C.)
il\'Y IBC
IN 0
31b?30M NU op JV.` <r [si OP4t •0t ^ 10r ^ •I ?^ ?8` Z 1?- W
31 /rye NknHS "'tos Is,. ?b k N* 0q l u?i r Q Z
3Fr1 d0 3Nl?J ?dY
O
at yy0r-.bL 1A N (D
d91 C. Q Q
Il b?Il) tlb3dOb .. ,M t 0 t `1 _ ... ..? -?>
311Nr/YO d A '. i?' /?p{ ,` 1 ttlt h Z L
5 tl I Z73 l_ 1? m Z
,-/! '? J /J r1 ?: \' / ,IM N IM IW ? ?r 3: O Q
Al.
i 1Q'3pbdr/l.lbbl e.?l .,7n ..a n":r..e' n UY
t)y?rbpy'3NLba330 / /? u . ?m ?t+ lli,y._ ?IF „I co N?
No//r?rltlaaeo jy i? 8pw ?;J$ l? alkHN4<.wi? Q
I reel, a ao ],\ ( A-. d.% pia'.. r?"? rr, ?s • ¢
LL_
l°/twos m' s* k 7 f4 % I a w W
tlb 31 N1r/Y0_~? ?? N IH 1!)bd 1jYOObe A''009C1 1301 "/'2 •B v) m
•?I I / j0 g Ol p O 1 rLt 4Z OC ?/''??'?
}77 3NI l?IHy•O-?b0?1'
I: V:.vt OINJJH L1?
_ r ? II ? X(`bddtF
n I l O CID
/ LL P = C =
_ (I t???(+?pJO I O
14 ?n NL4' lNIN j
?` I !l3wipbN 171 z
/)y3oll Nj g 111 l?/,? "'I I N
u m
03jb???HbN'I„H & z U Z
s SF?
41 MJ1N 3?/ N?d? ?H 3,y °tvrr ?I III ?' I I Lij ? W W U O
It SIH \ -°y,l I' t^'' loo Itm O Y u u
;R co
,IV+ I Z m 0
03 b'N/ 0
t83l by ?N3Ny x661 v I t! I IbOryJ } w
NbdNpj Yb 6b l N
>
W N n !? Q
S b:r LLI
3/b/S p311Np)+0 Na0 ?'113Ab 6/ //c??,'1' ?? Hsb H5
S ? OS I I Z
3111 '? 3N. 1-J/ba ?3N0.1 I ? • I Y
mm b g ? 2
Z
3
?
u

w H
Z2
?x
I m? I 6 6 '
•9' =5$ k
m$ O W
(n
09 6 3 C p
,ne `cI
?
6 2- ? k J
? °
Q II
r
.
.
?j 219 ?
09 ??
lc' ?
a 7
}
Z • ?r t5
a

r
9 Q)
s
6. 6?c
r1
7SF1?tJ F
{y ?J/?
r

a
?I ® o
bbp €mx
3j ¢ b dpl? d?
O
t-0 -
"'YYY : g
J C.5
-?
?? • C5 _ LL'

S' b ?
SONb,dn
6?
L
t ^N
I • W
cl.
7

?/ b
Q'
`2 o m CO
d m ?' 6 \ k ? ?
_S?M
?M O
``S ?
-- 6MHW? m
° Q
- I /
°
??
v 90, -
d cv
? O
Q Q
Z Z

S
?, I
?
104Hr I
I
mx?/ an
a
?'
¢
= J
O Q?
Q
F U
J
W
01 I \? Q m H i=

-
r ?0 ¢ Z Z
k k Iz I °
w

?
9 w
° i?

o

1
0-300b )
j d c N
.
a N
t
k Z
a U O
w

w?
Z k
I -
I -
? Q
a W
U)

6 / co
; Zk 2 I i Z o
F-
LLJ

Z V N ti O 0 LL!
1 ? ?
?N

I a
1

?i

H Q°

!? m
r

I

? •??k 0 0
M
?k=''

N 2
J
Q Q Q

V?
I o;? I 46 H Z

#
I 0 w
Z
b
?•a
U g

n l
I Nl °
J b
qo 9 m2
W
Q
07 Q W M
U
?`-

1 3i
x
X O
Q
I I a° .
' V Z d
I

I
I
I

1
1
I

,
1 I
,
1
I
1
I
1
I

I 1
1 I
1
I II
I

I I
I I I
1
o07z =
'

1
d
S
3
?
I
I
I
00'N
0'l 0'l
I
I
I
I

w
U
J
U
L
N?
r
Z
W N
W
r
ca-
m a
Q 0
UQ
? a
a '6
p z
O m
of
J
J U
U -
M
a
Z N
W
r O
m
V
L
a a,
0
N
N ZI
1 -
'? o
z
m 0
V ? II
0
O N
N
a
3
0
0
J ?
U
J r
Z
m
UI+
1
r
z
w c,
?w
r
ma
Q
-jz
U Q
1
w? O
W O
m a >rn
o _J Wo
JZ Wv
UQ
W
a o?
r 0
z °m
w
m
J I?
V
o /
a r
N
>? N
W O
J
Wv
O
m
a
M1 >?> Ii
I10
z W?
W
m
U
?N
w O
w?
O
00
a
N In
a O
z LLI-
W
m
U

r
z
m
u
J_
Q
O W O
am
?^ o m >o cn
rW l.jp
J
ma w?
o
u Q
?m
Q m
U u1
W F
O U O
hU
O
a v
Z N
O
W O
J
W
0
N
? II
uu
O -
N
W
U
LU
c4
W
U
O
Q
Z
O
¢ ¢
Z Z
' J
Z O
O Q
U
H =
C5
20
C ZZ
¢ N
U O
W 4=
= ?JJ
O U) m
J ¢
uj o m
Z ¢ Q
Q U O
Z ?
? O g
W J ?
H Z CJ?
m 0 w
?>_
w Z d
F-
z
w
MQ
DUJ
mLj
0
z o
I
<F D
m J z
J
V)3:?
U
Q
O
? m
ag
a ?n
I
I?
}
3
D
O
U
O
I
l 1
A7
O w
LL, o°w
Llf L
Z
L, c?
F U
O Q W

U
G
G
dOU ?F- N
11 z
_
QQ
m
o (n W ?? II
O C7 H M
U.
N
m
a
z
lie
o U U
?O>
J Of dZ w
g
U)
o._
O
Q
O
J
z_
O -,
U O
z J

U ,
} 5
w J
3
l
Lo o 3 Z
C'4 5 - 3
INL I ?r
LLJ
Y
7
m
Z
O
I
II
N
W
J
U
N
MI - MF
Q
J
? ? O
w

o
o U
0
F'
T
o
0

)
L? W
??
} (n
3
( o

w )
<
°

Q
3

N _-
n
O
a N 7-
C)
O N a
0 3 z
U O
w
z j
z z
0
0
o
w M w U?
Q
Om > 3 O?
I?
cn D]
L_
m
m
W W
F
? U O
^V
L1
Y
mm
J W
N U
LLI
U U)
Q
Q O
0 Q
Z
O
Q Q
Z Z
J
°a
U
~
co U)
J Z O
Q Z Z
LLI C3
O Q ?
°
ooU (-) O
ov= W W
?w C
(n Q Q CL co
z O N u U)
W O LLJ
J N O 0
z U Z Q
g } ZQ D m
Q Q Q
3 O Z 0
Q U
Cn o g
LL.
F=- Z (n
m O w
W
>
W Z a
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of 1
Sena -c -o Terra Server Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to L andscaoe
Z USGS _ km W of Beaufort, North Carolina, United States 01 Jul 1983
- Plaint ? ?' ? _ •?'•r? J---_ `?,,..
<! Ph ill ip$
J _
Wand - `.
It,
iLr
I 1`,?'

j?

7 `? A
r

f
Plversr
I Islet?d ??,,

cLight
?
r:
' .,
L' zi..?own Marsh
?'8 'td 'IIdLi7'M
..

Al i
?

tl
o? 5Km o' '.25f-4i E - ' 1 l?[?N'1 )rr
Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey ?/
c Z , 64 ,'j icrosoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http-.Hterraserver.microsoft.com/PrintImage.aspx9T=2&S=12&Z=18&X=433&Y=4803&... 10/24/2005

n
O
c ? C
f t?N
A1?
J
a
?a
i ?
v
I

}rf*
TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS
Page 1 of I
Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Change to Landscape
USGS 2 km W of Beaufort, North Carolina, United States 07 Mar 1993
u.
z dF$)t r? SA x' 3 1 ?y w y r?
4 i y? Z v
N.

k'?irr till

J

_

y a *.
0' 'loom 0' '100yd
image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/PrintImage,aspx'IT=I &S=IO&Z=I8&X=1733&Y=... 10/24/2005