19930264 Ver 1_Complete File_19930401

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
APR ! i- -3
PJETLANDS GROUP
b'„1TER OUALITY SECTION _
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
March 29, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION:
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Regulatory Branch
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Wayne County, Replacement of Bridge No. 298 over
Stoney creek on SR 1920, Federal Aid Project BRM-
1920(1), State Project No. 8.2330601, TIP No.
B-2660.
Attached for your information are three copies of the
project planning report for the subject project. The project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
Ta

If you have any questions or needadditi73a19770.
information, please.call Mr. Doug Huggett at
Sincerely,
B. J. Quin , PE
Assistan ranch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lexson, COE-Washington
?/Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development,Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. C.A. Gardner, PE, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. J. Bissett, Planning and Environmental
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and

Wayne County
SR 1920
Bridge No. 298 over Stoney Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRM-5491(1)
State Project No. 8.2330601
T.I.P. No. B-2660
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
1 zl 93
D E J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
AT Nicholas raf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Fi ,i l
AP
!E 9 '
-t3
?'!'`TLANDS -i?i.?

Wayne County
SR 1920
Bridge No. 298 over Stoney Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRM-5491(1)
State Project No. 8.2330601
T.I.P. No. B-2660
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September 1992
Documentation Prepared By DSA GROUP of N.C., Inc.
'`. X141 i111 ffe"
Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
Project Manager - Transportation
0/ n.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
CY) 4z?t A?"
L. Gai rimes, .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
/A-.BI;Zssett, Jr., P.E.
Project Manager
e `Q
f., 9!
Wayne County
SR 1920
Bridge No. 298 over Stoney Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRM-5491(1)
State Project No. 8.2330601
T.I.P. No. B-2660
Bridge No. 298 is included in the current Transportation Improvement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion'.
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 298 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It should be
replaced with a new bridge having a bridge width of 44 feet from rail to rail and a length of 90
feet. The structure will provide a 36 foot travelway, two foot shoulders/gutters on each side,
and a four foot minimum width sidewalk on the north side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade
at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 40 foot face to face curb and gutter section on the
base approach and a 36 foot pavement with eight foot usable shoulders on the northwest
approach.
Traffic will be maintained on a temporary detour structure during construction of the
replacement bridge.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $447,000. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, is $1,122,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1920 (Slocumb Street) is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Slocumb Street is also a minor thoroughfare on the Goldsboro Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plan adopted on January 8, 1988. This minor arterial serves a suburban
area of Goldsboro and serves as the back entrance to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
(SJAFB) in Wayne County (see Figure 1). The land use is wooded immediately surrounding
r
the bridge, with the guard house to SJAFB located 100 feet north. Stoney Creek Is the military
reservation boundary for the base.
On the west approach to the bridge, SR 1920 has a 22 foot pavement width with nine foot
shoulders. The east approach is curb and gutter and flares out from the bridge so each
direction of traffic flows around the guard house of the SJAFB entrance (see Figure 2 & 3).
The vertical alignment is generally flat. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with
a 0°45' curve approximately 540 feet to the north. The roadway is situated about 15 feet
above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 6600 vehicles per day (VPD) for 1995 and 11900 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). However, SJAFB Engineering stated that in a few months the fuel distribution
for the base will begin coming in by truck instead of by rail as it has in the past.
Approximately 400,000 gallons of fuel per day will be trucked into the base over this bridge.
This will result in 55 to 60 trucks (TTSTs) crossing the bridge twice a day during normal work
hours. An increase in the traffic volume of an average of 115 TTST's per day will cross the
bridge. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH traveling north from the bridge, and all traffic is
required to come to a stop 100 feet south of the bridge.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was built in 1955. The superstructure consists of a
concrete floor on timber joists, and the substructure consists of bents constructed of timber
caps on timber piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 70 feet. Clear roadway width is 24.1 feet. The posted
weight limit is 22 tons for single vehicles and 28 tons for TTSTs.
Bridge No. 298 has a sufficiency rating of 34.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure.
One accident was reported on the bridge during the period from January 1, 1989 to December
31, 1991.
There are no school buses using the bridge.
The Mountains to Sea Trail crosses the north approach to the bridge paralleling the creek in
this area. The trail is on private property in the project area.
N. ALTERNATIVES
There is only one reasonable and feasible alternative for replacing Bridge No. 298. This
alternative is to provide an on-site detour on the north side of the existing bridge and to
replace the bridge in the same location. Access to SJAFB at this site is crucial. In addition,
SJAFB is widening and realigning the roadway approach on the base side.
SJAFB officials requested the bridge be widened to accommodate two lanes of traffic entering
the base. The two lane bridge causes a bottleneck at the guard house. Some vehicles can
be waved through while others need to stop and be checked. A three lane bridge and
2
i
approach will provide adequate storage for those vehicles being checked and a lane for those
that are allowed to continue through to the base.
A sidewalk was added to provide access for pedestrians who live off the base and walk each
day, or for those whose rides typically drop them off before the bridge because they don't
have an access pass onto the base.
The 'do-nothing' alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1920.
The Division Office concurs with the recommendation of an on-site detour during construction,
and with the SJAFB officials request for widening the bridge to provide two lanes entering the
base. One lane exiting the base is adequate.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follows:
Structural Removal $8,400
Structure 190,000
Roadway Approaches 35,600
Detour Structure and Approaches 71,800
Miscellaneous & Mobilization 59,200
Engineering & Contingencies 60,000
ROW/Construction Easements/Utilities 22,000
TOTAL $447,000
SJAFB was contacted about participating in the funding of this project because of the
additional lane they requested. They have no funds available at this time.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 298 will be replaced at its existing location with a new three lane structure having
a length of approximately 90 feet. Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be
necessary for a distance of about 100 feet on the SJAFB side, enough to tie to the existing
curb and gutter. On the west approach improvements will be made for a distance of
approximately 400 feet from the bridge. This includes widening for an additional lane on the
south side to accommodate two lanes entering the base. This widening will occur for
approximately 200 feet from the bridge and then taper back to the existing width in the next
200 feet. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternate.
A 40 foot face to face curb and gutter section will be provided on the base approach, and a
36 foot pavement with eight foot shoulders on the west approach. A 40 foot clear roadway
3
ti
width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT
Bridge Policy. This will provide a 36 foot travelway with two foot shoulders/gutters and a four
foot minimal width sidewalk on the north side of the structure. The three lane bridge will
provide two lanes entering the base and one lane exiting. The design speed is 50 MPH.
Based on preliminary studies, the Hydrographics Unit recommends a new structure length of
approximately 90 feet. It is anticipated the elevation of the new structure will be approximately
the same as the existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
An on-site detour structure will be provided and will require a 3 @ 84' CMP temporary culvert
located a minimum of 40 feet from the existing centerline to the detour centerline upstream
(north) of the existing bridge.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The project proposes to replace the bridge on SR 1920 spanning Stoney Creek in Wayne
County, NC with a three-lane structure in the same location. Biologists visited the site on July
2, 1992 to verify documented information and gather field data to evaluate present conditions
and assess potential impacts of the proposed activity. A subsequent visit to the site occurred
on July 22 to ascertain if red-cockaded woodpeckers inhabit surrounding pine stands.
From a northwest vantage point, the existing bridge crosses Stoney Creek at S 52 deg E,
roughly at a right angle to the creek and forming four quadrants. The land immediately
surrounding the current bridge in the project area is completely forested, except for the
roadsides and the guard post at the entrance to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. The
`Mountains to the Sea Trail' traverses this site alongside Stoney Creek, crossing SR 1920 just
north of the bridge.
This investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge on SR 1920
spanning Stoney Creek in Wayne County, NC, in order to (1) search for state and federally
protected plant and animal species, (2) identify unique or prime-quality communities, (3)
describe the current vegetation and associated habitats, (4) identify wetlands, and (5) provide
information to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement project.
Methods
The project area was a circular plot with a radius of 200 feet. Plot center was located in the
middle of the existing bridge. Plant communities within this plot were delineated from aerial
photographs and ground-checked on site. Community types follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990). Within each community, a list of member plant species and general site description
was developed on-site. Dominance (fe/ac) of woody vegetation layers was determined by the
variable plot method (Husch, Miller, and Beers 1972). Dominance (percent foliar cover) of
herbaceous layers or communities was determined by ocular estimation, using foliar cover
guides developed by Belanger and Anderson (1989). For communities dominated by trees,
tree age, stem diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (dbh), and total height were measured
for the largest trees. Age was determined from 2-mm increment borings; dbh and height were
4
measured using d-tape dendrometers and Abney-level hypsometers, respectively (Wilson
1976). Ground distances were determined by measurements taken on aerial photographs, but
all other measurements were developed from on-site reconnaissance.
Evidence of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was sought on-site through close observation of all
available signs. Habitats were characterized based on plant communities, and typical wildlife
communities associated with these habitats were determined. Special attention was given to
features indicative of habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, or special concern.
Aquatic system features were noted at three locations on the site: at the bridge and 100 ft
upstream and downstream of the existing structure. Available documentation of water quality
was reviewed. Wetland determinations followed procedures described by the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab. 1987).
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
One natural plant community occurs within the study area, Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwoods (Blackwater Subtype). Compared to forest community groupings of the Society of
American Foresters (1967), the Coastal Plain Bottomlands Hardwoods community is
comparable to Type 82, Loblolly Pine-Hardwood. In addition, two rooted-aquatic species,
ludwigia Ludwi is sp.) and bushy-pondweed Naas sp.), occur as scattered individuals in
Stoney Creek. Owing to their relatively low density, they are considered part of the
bank-to-bank wetland of the creek, and no separate aquatic community is recognized.
In the project area, the Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood community occurs on well-drained
to moderately well-drained soils. Water-level of the creek is generally about 3 feet below the
general surface of the bottomland, and most of the project area is therefore non-wetland.
The only exceptions are: (1) a small slough about 300 fe in area, located about 100 feet north
(upstream) of the current bridge; and (2) a 3 x 40-feet drainage ditch, located parallel to the
road about 10 feet north of the existing bridge, that empties into Stoney Creek. Both of these
areas are wetlands, but for convenience they are included within this community owing to their
small size
The upper canopy contains loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Uguidambar styraciflua),
red maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), ash Fraxinus sp.), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), river birch (Betula nigra), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). The largest
trees are loblolly pines, 50 years old, 28-inches dbh, and 85 feet tall. Basal area for canopy
species equals 130 ft2/acre; loblolly pines provide the most basal area, 70 ft2/acre. Red maple
provides 20 ft2/acre, the various oaks provide 10 fe/ac, and the remaining species provide the
remaining 30 ft2/acre. Stand quality is moderately high, especially north of the bridge.
The lower canopy contains American hombeam (Carpinus caroliniana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora),
and possumhaw (Ilex decidua). The shrub layer contains blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), pinxter (Rhododendron nudiflorum), and small-flowered
pawpaw (Asimina parviflora). The ground layer contains few species, mostly woody, poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle
5
(Lonicera iaponica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia and S. bona-nox , muscadine itis
rotundifolia), panic grass Panicum sp.), sedge Carex sp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus guinguefolia), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), St. Andrew's-cross (Hypericum hypericoides), giant cane (Arundinaria
i antea , and uniola grass (Uniola laxa). Foliar cover of the ground layer averages 30
percent, although it is somewhat greater north of the existing bridge. Poison ivy provides 30
percent of this total; greenbrier and giant cane, 20 percent each; Japanese honeysuckle, 10
percent; and the remaining ground-layer species more-or-less equally share the remaining 20
percent.
Wildlife (General)
The mixed hardwood and pine forest surrounding the project area provides a rich habitat for a
variety of Coastal Plain wildlife species, especially avian and terrestrial mammal populations.
Raccoon and deer tracks were noted in several locations throughout the bottomland
surrounding the project site. Numerous den trees and snags are scattered throughout the
forest. Hairy Woodpeckers Picoides villosus were observed foraging in the pine trees located
on the base, southwest of the bridge, and a number of common songbird species were
sighted and heard in the canopy.
A Barred Owl (Strix varia) was found dead on the roadside, reportedly hit by a vehicle the
evening before. This species is a good indicator of mature forest habitat, and its presence
suggests that ample small mammal prey species are available.
The aquatic resource is in relatively good condition as evidenced by mussels Corbicula
flumenia , which were found to be abundant in the creek's gravel and sand substrate at all
three sampling locations. Fish (unidentified) were observed upstream in Stoney Creek.
A Boy Scout wildlife observation trail with interpretive signs, benches, and picnic sites exists in
the southeast quadrant, where it accesses several different habitat types in a fairly compact
area.
Physical Resources
Soil
Geologically, the entire project lies on the Black Creek Formation, Cretaceous-aged sediments
of clay and fine-grained micaceous sand in the Coastal Plain physiographic region (Brown
1985). Topography in the vicinity of the project site ranges in elevation from a low of about 50
feet along the nearby Neuse River to a high of 112 feet.
Soil within the project area is mapped as Bibb sandy loam (Barnhill et al. 1974), which is
listed as a hydric soil. Field observations confirm that the soil on site is poorly drained and
experiences frequent flooding (See Wetland discussion).
6
Water
Stoney Creek arises northeast of Goldsboro in north central Wayne County, from whence it
flows southwest to join the Neuse River, approximately one mile downstream of this crossing.
At this location Stoney Creek flows through a mixed hardwood/pine forested palustrine habitat.
The creek meanders considerably across the floodplain and has apparently changed course
throughout history.
The water classification of Stoney Creek is C, suitable for fish propagation and agricultural
purposes, but not rated for human consumption (NCDEM 1989a). An abundance of mussels
Corbicula fluminea found in the streambed and fish observed in several sections of the
stream suggest that the condition of the water in Stoney Creek is fairly good. As noted in
Table 1, the water is clear, with a sand and gravel bottom.
No Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) site exists on Stoney Creek, and the
nearest site, located at the SR 1915 crossing of the Neuse River ('Good' rating) is upstream of
Stoney Creek's confluence with the Neuse (NCDEM 1989a, 1991).
Table 1. Stream Characteristics Observed At Stoney Creek Crossing. ---F Observation Point upstream Existing Downstream

Substrate Sand and gravel
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width (ft) 15.0 12.0 20.0
Bank Height (ft) 3.5 2.5 6.0
Water Depth (ft) .75 2.0+ 1.0
Water Color Clear
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None Yes None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwoods Weeds Hardwoods
Wetlands
Associated Sloughs to North Intermittent Drain None Observed
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
As noted above, the site is underlain by Bibb sandy loam, a poorly drained hydric soil subject
to frequent flooding. In fact, extensive areas upstream from the bridge and its approaches
show evidence of overland flow, ponding, and vegetation tolerant of extended periods of soil
saturation. River birch and other bottomland hardwood species dominate the forest canopy
except in drier spots where large diameter pines dominate.
7
An ephemeral seepage ditch occurs about 25 feet upstream of the bridge and runs parallel to
the existing road; rush, smartweed, and panic grass occupy this ditch, and the soil yielded a
Munsell Soil Color of 5Y 3/1.
Farther north of the bridge, slough-like depressions surrounded by large diameter trees occur
where it appears stream channel changes have historically occurred. Beyond the project
limits cane dominates areas of the shrub layer. Immediately downstream of the bridge, no
wetland conditions occur; however, at farther distances, sloughs and wet drainage
depressions were noted.
The proposed project will not permanently impact any wetlands. However, the temporary
detour will fill the upstream seepage ditch, previously described, during construction. The
wetland area temporarily filled is approximately 150 square feet. The ditch and wetlands will
be reconstructed when the detour is removed.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the
case of state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for
example, the USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not
jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal
actions, the USFWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise
jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource
agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws
are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in
decline.
Federally Listed Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified the federally listed species shown in Table 2.
Habitat requirements and available records concerning all of these species have been
reviewed, and conditions at the bridge site have been examined in light of species
requirements. More specifically, following Table 2, the investigators have evaluated whether
habitat exists in the project impact area for federally-listed species in this county and, if
existing, whether habitat is being used by the species.
Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Wayne County.
Species Status* Distribution
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E Eastern NC
*E= endangered; T= threatened; CH= critical habitat determined; P= proposed; SA=status
due to similarity of appearance to another species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Throughout southern and eastern North Carolina the potential exists for red-cockaded
woodpeckers Picoides borealis , an endangered species, to colonize pine stands of sufficient
8
age and with certain attributes. Because a number of pines greater than 30 years old would
be removed during the proposed construction (see Impacts Section), an examination of
contiguous stands to a radius of one-half mile was conducted to ascertain whether
red-cockaded woodpecker colonies exist proximal to the project site. The examination was
conducted following procedures consistent with US Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines
(Henry 1989).
Only one stand where pines exceeded 50 percent of the basal area was found to be age 60
years or older. An increment boring determined that a specimen tree with 28' DBH is age 68.
In this stand, located approximately 750 feet southwest of the bridge, between the power-line
right-of-way and the railroad spur line, all pine trees were examined. Neither cavity holes nor
evidence of excavation activity to create cavity holes was observed in any living pine trees.
All other pine-dominated stands were visited and through increment borings determined to be
no more than 55 years old, with most in the 40-45 or 50-55 year age classes. These scattered
stands comprise clusters of pines within the more prevalent hardwood-pine forest. In most of
the surrounding forest, hardwoods either numerically dominate stand composition or occur
exclusively. East of the bridge, where the highest pine densities occur, the trees are mostly in
the 20-30 year old age class. Except for in this young pine stand, understory hardwood
encroachment in the pine canopy is fairly extensive, a result of no past management activity to
control competition.
This investigation confirmed that red-cockaded woodpeckers do not currently inhabit the
vicinity and that removal of pines greater than thirty years old would have no adverse effects.
State Listed Species:
According to Steve Hull, NC Natural Heritage Program, no species listed by the state Of North
Carolina as endangered, threatened, or special concern have been recorded in the vicinity of
this bridge crossing. No evidence was found on this site to suggest that any of the species
listed in North Carolina occur here.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat. The Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods community
cannot be considered unique since it occurs commonly in Wayne County. Although the
stand in the project area is of good quality, it is not prime-quality. Thus, no adverse impact to
unique or prime-quality forest communities is expected from this project.
Impacts
The proposed project will replace an existing bridge with a wider structure adding one lane at
the same location. Since access to Seymour Johnson Air Force base cannot be interrupted,
an on-site detour is necessary, and no other alternative exists for construction at this site.
The on-site detour is proposed to be located upstream of the bridge, with a centerline
approximately 35 feet from the centerline of the existing structure. Including pavement and fill
slopes, the detour structure will require clearing and filling to a distance about 50 feet
upstream from the existing bridge. Thus, a rectangular area of forest measuring about 50 x
325 feet, or 0.4 acre, must be cleared to accommodate the detour. A detour downstream of
the current bridge would require an even greater distance, hence more clearing.
9
The clearing necessary for the detour would remove 25 to 30 large loblolly pines greater than
30 years old. Such proposed removal of the pines necessitated a survey of the surrounding
area for evidence of red-cockaded woodpecker colonies (as discussed), but none were found.
Therefore, no impact will result from removal of these trees.
In addition to the clearing and temporary detour structure, additional highway modification will
be needed for approaches to the new wider structure, which will tie into the existing road at a
distance of 400 feet north. This wider approach will mostly occur on land currently cleared of
forest cover and within the area where vegetation is periodically controlled.
After the new bridge is constructed and the temporary detour removed, area cleared for the
temporary detour would naturally regenerate to the existing plant community type, which is
mixed pine and hardwood. No change in the site's hydrology is likely to occur because of
these temporary alterations, and relatively little long-term change in wildlife habitat will occur
as a result of construction activity. Sufficient habitat exists adjacent and surrounding the site
to accommodate all species that would be dislocated during the project activity.
Within Wayne County as a whole, loblolly pine dominated stands occupy 32,149 acres, 22
percent of the total forest area and 9 percent of the entire county (Johnson 1990). Since
1984, regional forest cover for the 21-county Southern Coastal Plain region of North Carolina
has decreased only 1 percent (Johnson 1990). Therefore, since no permanent forest loss is
required by this project, since the temporary losses are small and come from a common forest
community, and since forest cover has remained essentially constant in the region, no
adverse impact to the forest cover is expected by the proposed project.
Accelerated soil erosion is always a concem when building around streams. Erosion
contributes to soil loss, but equally importantly, erosion sediments are deposited downstream.
In sufficient quantities, these deposits clog and restrict drainage and smother aquatic
organisms, especially bottom-dwelling and bottom-reproducing species. But soil erosion is
largely avoidable, if appropriate measures, consistent with current Best Management
Practices, are taken to control erosion during construction. The mussels identified at this
location are exotic species known to tolerate and recover quickly from disturbance. Following
and monitoring standard control practices should be sufficient.
The proposed project will not permanently impact any wetlands. However, the temporary
detour will fill the upstream seepage ditch, previously described, during construction. The
wetland area temporarily filled is approximately 150 square feet. The ditch and wetlands will
be reconstructed when the detour is removed.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into 'Waters of the United States!
Since the subject project is classified as a categorical exclusion and since less.than one acre
of wetlands will be impacted by the project, it is likely that this project will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
10
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is 'categorically excluded'
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures should be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented.
Literature Cited
Barnhill, W.L., R. A. Goodwin, Jr., M.R. Bostian, N.A. McLoda, G. W. Leishman, and R. J.
Scanu. 1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, NC. USDA Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C. 72 p. maps
Belanger, R. P. and R. L. Anderson. 1989. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA, For. Serv., Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note SE-352.
Pp. 2.
Brown, P. M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N. C. Geol. Survey, Dept. of Natl. Res.
and Comm. Dev., Raleigh.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rep. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. Pp. 100, appendices.
Henry, V. G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for
the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
13 pp. appendices.
Husch, B., C. I. Miller, and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest Mensuration. The Ronald Press
Company, NY. Pp. 410.
Johnson, T. G. 1990. Forest Statistics for the Southern Coastal Plain of North Carolina,
1990.USDA, For. Serv. Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Bul. SE-111. Pp. 52.
NCDEM. 1989a. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review
1983-1988. Water Quality Tech. Rept. No. 89-08. NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.,
Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1989b. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Neuse River Basin. NC Dept. Envir. Health, and Nat. Res.: Raleigh, North Carolina.
11
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC Dept. of
Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. N. C. Natl. Heritage Prog., Div. of Parks and Rec., N. C. Dept.
of Environ., Health, and Natl. Res., Raleigh. Pp. 325.
Society of American Foresters. 1967. Forest Cover Types of North America (Exclusive of
Mexico). Soc. of Amer. For., Washington, DC. Pp. 67.
Wilson, R. L 1976. Elementary Forest Surveying and Mapping. State Univ. Book Stores, Inc.,
Corvallis. Pp. 183.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal 'Categorical Exclusion' due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed and is shown on Figure 2. The bridge, built
in 1955, and the modem guardhouse, are the only structures located within the APE.
12
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register within the
APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the archaeological aspects of the project
and determined that an intensive survey will not be required.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition
and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed project
will impact farmland soils and if necessary, to complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating. The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to the SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.125 acres of soils defined as prime
and statewide or local farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 275,280 acres of
prime or important soils found in Wayne County. The impact rating determined through
completion of Form AD-1006 indicates that the site's assessment and relative value score is
32.5 out of a possible 260. A higher score would indicate that mitigation should be
considered.
It can be concluded that the project's impact on farmland, as defined by the SCS, is minimal
and therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
The project is located within the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Wayne County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CRF), Part 770 do not apply
to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
and air quality will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements
of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Wayne County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
13
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment
would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. The alignment of the project is
perpendicular to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
14

ft7 Rertrgnl ? Errn?! ?.
PmAn it ?R " ,I
Pikovil
r' I ?
ncelon fltelown .I.
1 7 i . Seulstor
A

Gnnthsm
.?twrrnt
a? r
t II ? Ser!
d w. r+.... arD
NORTH CAIIOLIIEA DDPLIITIIIIIET OF
TZ"OPORTSTION
DIVIOIOII OF DIOIIROTS
PLANT( 7O AND 131MIiONLIUlFTAL
IIIILIECII
a
BRIDGE NO. 298
WAYNE COUNTY
B-2660
5/92 Q m, 1. 1/4 FIG. 1
BRIDGE NO. 298
WAYNE COUNTY
B-2660
LOOIQNG WEST
LOOIQNG EAST

a £'4 a 3 'y
' .q'•IMw.ww•: 1

SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
WAYNE COUNTY
S YCAINUH I . of t t' --
Wa% nr
AREA NUT INt:t tir)ED
El:
51
y Oij
H `o
WEAVER.
?
DRIVE
ORNE
;??; ,':";? . , ?• .: ZONE B '
ZONF. C
ZONE C ('.ORPOKATF t
?•. LIMITS
r
` SSHtEt .? J
ZONE C
ZONE AB'.,
7ONFF T;
?-I4.`
ZONE B '' (?? r.r?r;PUTTArE ZONE
ZONE L I tit I T S B r •.g??
ZONE ..
0
ZONE AB
ZONE B
ZONE
B
st.000Uo'
FLOODING TREET
1 r' ; EFFECTS FROM y TNi'
SWNF Y CRF.FK
t? (
ZONE B ZONE A5 PM16 B-2660•- -
NF '?
c BRIDGE NO. 298
73 7 SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD
Q'
1 71
ZONE B
q
>> ? ZONEA8
ZUN E\ or
:. STONg) ??
--?, 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ZONEA8
cli
Srktntim Juhimin Air T'-)rn c 11a,v
\•°? ARPA NOT INCLl10?n .
FIGURE 4
SEP 11 1992
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 9 DIVISION OF ZU
HIGHWAYS
4 RESE
JAMES G. MARTIN Wilson, North Carolina DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR September 9, 1992
THOMAS J. HARRELSON WILLIAM G. MARLEY. JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Memorandum To: Mr. L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ATTENTION MR. J. A. BISSETTE, JR., PE
PROJECT MANAGER ?I
From: C. A. Gardner, Jr. , PE C • /? a-' ??ois
SUBJECT: Draft Reports:
Wayne County, SR 1920, Bridge No. 298 over Stoney
Creek, F. A. Project BRM-5491(1), State Project
8.2330601, B-2660
Nash County, SR 1403, Bridge No. 79 Over Sandy Creek
F. A. Project BRZ-1403(2), State Project 8.2320401,
B-2154
We have reviewed the draft reports as prepared by DSA Design
Group of Raleigh, NC, for the replacement of Bridge No. 298 on SR 1920
in Wayne County and Bridge No. 79 on SR 1403 in Nash County.
These reports are as discussed with Mr. Keith D. Lewis, PE, and
James H. Hoskins, PE, at their on-site review; therefore, we are in
agreement with the recommendations contained in the draft reports and
concur with the improvements and detours noted.
The one exception that was not mentioned in the draft report for
Bridge No. 79 on SR 1403 is we had recommended the new bridge be
shifted in a northwesterly direction as Sandy Creek is migrating in
that direction and is at present undermining the end bent.
Should you desire additional information, please advise.
JHH/sjt
c Mr. Keith Lewis, PE
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS 4TH WIND (TACT
SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NC 27631.6004
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDER
7 April 1992
Mr William G. Marley, Jr., P.E.
State Highway Administrator
NC Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr Marley
_ It has come to my attention that the Slocumb Street bridge (TIP #B-2660,
SR 1920 over Stoney Creek, Wayne County) is scheduled for replacement. The
bridge adjoins the base property and Slocumb Street is one of our 24-hour base
entrances.
We currently have a construction project under contract that widens Slocumb
Street on the base side of the bridge to four lanes. Based on the existing
road geometry, the gate proximity to the bridge, and the projected increase in
truck traffic, request the bridge be widened to at least four lanes. This
would ensure that the new bridge aligns with our street improvements and
provides adequate site distance for motorists as they approach our gate. Your
assistance on this matter will be appreciated. My point of contact is
Mr Dennis Goodson at telephone number [phone].
Sincerely
M. HORNBURG, Colonel, SAF cc: Mr James A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
HAL
4 -U-7
Commander Mr Keith D. Lewis, P.E.
r
n
_ 9 (?92
I ?.
CSA DESIGN GROUP
RALEIGH, NC
v•
3 . ts
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
D
q JUL 201992
D/V/S/p
H/G N OF
HW4yS
CfRFSEARG`Ala P
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
b' David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 Easdones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 11, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #298, B-2660, Wayne County, ER
92-8541
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1992, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIw
cc: L. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East ones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Replace Bridge No. 298 on SR 1920 over Stoney Creek,
Wayne County, B-2660, ER 92-8541
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed bridge replacement upon
archaeological resources without a map indicating the location of the proposed
project. Please forward a map and a project description as soon as possible so
that we may complete our review.
July 16, 1992

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 fro 7e cornoierea by ever a/ AgencY) I oat 2t }. COAV-2 canon Neou.st
Name Of Project F?aorai Agency 1"olved
Proposed Lind Use ` County A Stst
PART Il fro be completed by SCSI I Date Regya , -10-f By SCS
Does the site contain prime. unique. statewide or loaf important farmland? Y No
(if no. the FPPA does not app/y - do not complete additional parts of this form) . ? Aues impted
N W1 1 Avas4a Form 540 --
1-73
Major Crows)
C or ?. F mauve Lind in Govt. lunsaicuon
Acres: 3 0 5 2$ 6 t79 Amount Ot Fermarld As Detined in PA
Acres: 275 2 g o a
Name Ot Lana Evaluauon System Used Ranee at Local Site Awantent Strstam Oates Land6 a)usts2 Rnvmar liv SCS
Aliffnatlve Ite atln
PART 111 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site a Site C Site 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly = 0...l.;7,= t'- FQt'' '^P
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirecti =13.1=2. r
C. Total Acres In Site ?•?
PART IV (To be comp/errd by SCSJ Land Evaluation Infortradan '
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland O. 2 5
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 0,000
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Countv Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted I G , o l
0. Pwcerttage Of Farmland In Gwt. Junsdicnon nth Sartw Or Higher Relanve Vaiw (I I
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To BeConvertrd fSo1eof0ro 100Poi=J 1
2z. 5
PART V 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Sts Assessment Crimms /7 we critrris sew exviained in 7 CFR 63131b) Maximum
Poirto
1. Area In Nonurban Use
7- Perimeter In Nonurban Use 1 C,
f,
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtuo Area
S. Distance To Urban Support Sefvicas
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Avenges r`
B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Suooort Services
10. On-Farm Investments -' -
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooort Services
12 Cemostibili With Existing A 'cultural Use 1 r' ?^
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 1 C
'ART V11 (To be completed by Federal AgcncyJ I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100
To=4 Site Assessment (from Parr Vl above ora /ocai
srra asseamenrl 160 C
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines! 260 3 -

;Ito Selected:
Data Of Selection Wca A LaG Site A =zmrwn Wad?
Yes ? No ?
isuan For Se+action:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
July 16, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301796 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions) (State Project No. 8.2330601, Federal Aid Project BRM-5491(1),
T.I.P. No. B-2660)
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Attention: Mr. Doug Huggett %
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your written request of March 29, 1993, for Department of the
Army authorization to replace Bridge No. 298 over Stoney Creek on SR 1920,
in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina. Your Categorical Exclusion
document indicates that the proposed project will not permanently impact any
wetlands.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory
Program, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published
in the Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits
(NWP). Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act, that the activity, work or discharge is.categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers
has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for
the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work on the bridge replacement is authorized by this nationwide
permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed
conditions. This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water quality
certification.

-2-
The document also states that a temporary detour will be required
upstream of the existing bridge, impacting approximately 150 square feet
(0.003 acre) of wetlands. Temporary detour fills are incidental to the
primary construction and not covered by the Categorical Exclusion (49 CFR
771.117). This portion of the project may be considered under Nationwide
Permits (NWPs)l 4 (Road Crossings) or 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering), or by General Permit No. 31 (Associated fills including detour
fills). The NWPs will require pre-discharge notification.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions or comments may be
addressed to Mr. Norm Sanders of our Washington Regulatory Field office,
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
N.X?John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Division
310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mrs. Deborah Sawyer
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 2188
Washington, North Carolina 27889