19941121 Ver 1_Complete File_19941207

law
-V
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
401 ISSUE6
•? ?.• *SUED
+W . .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T11ANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
December 1, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECE1
SEC ; 1994
?IVIfiDt?MFJNTAL SCVENCES
Subject: Pender County - Replacement of Bridge No. 115 on
SR 1523 over Holly Shelter Creek; State Project
Number 8.2271101; T.I.P. No. B-2602
Attac ur information is a copy of the project
plann' g report for th subject project. The project is
b g processed by the ederal Highway Administration as a
'Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
fore, we do no anticipate requesting an individual
pe 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 a CAMA Major Permit may be required
from the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, for this
project. By copy of this letter, we hereby request that DCM
review this document and determine if a CAMA Permit will be
required. If so, NCDOT will apply directly to DEHNR for the
LAMA permit when plans have been developed. .0
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sin erelyantnager,
Es- P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: Mike Hosey, COE, Wilmington Field Office
Bob Stroud, DCM, Wilmington Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
D.J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Philip Edwards, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
Pander County
SR 1523
Bridge No. 115
Over Holly Shelter Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-152311)
State Project No. 8.2271101
T.I.P. No. B-2602
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
rjil1
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
AT H. Franklin Vick, P.E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?Z? - zxy ZLZZ;2?
DA Nichol . Graf, E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Pender County
SR 1523
Bridge No. 115
Over Holly Shelter Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-152311)
State Project No. 8.2271101
T.I.P. No. B-2602
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1994
Documentation Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates
caRO
SEAL
z 10926 =
' hael E. Krann', P.E.
Project Manager'
E.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
tzj
1. G1 Grime , P.E., Unit Head
?Consultant En ineering Unit
Philip 15. Edwards
Project Planning Engineer
Ponder County
SR 1523
Bridge No. 115
over Holly Shelter Creek
Federal Aid Project BR2-1523(1)
State Project 8.2271101
TIP #B-2602
Bridge No. 115 is located on SR 1523 over Holly Shelter Creek and is scheduled for
replacement in the NCDOT 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated
as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impact. Basic sedimentation and erosion control measures
in accordance with the NCDOT "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures"
will be utilized throughout construction. Temporary fill placed in wetlands will be
removed following completion of the new structure. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary. A Coastal Area Management Act
Permit is required.
The DSHPO requested additional consultation only in the case of new location
selected as the preferred alternative. B-2602 will be replaced on existing location with
a detour bridge serving the construction phase. At this time, no plans are available
for the project as currently proposed. When plans are prepared they will be forwarded
to the SHPO for review and additional consultation.
11. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 115 will be replaced on the existing alignment as shown in Figure 2A.
Traffic will be maintained on a run-around detour constructed on the upstream side
of the bridge.
Existing curves on each approach to the bridge satisfy minimum design speed
criteria for the project and will be maintained. The existing clearance above the
navigable waterway will be maintained. An increase in the superstructure depth
will result in the approach roadway grade being raised approximately 1.0 meters
-1-
(3.28 feet). Approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of roadway work will be required on
each approach to accommodate the grade change.
The replacement structure will have a length of 73.2 meters (240 feet) and provide
a deck consisting of a 8.6 meters (28.21 feet) clear roadway width. The travelway
is 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) with a 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) shoulder on each side.
The design speed for the project is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour). The
design speed for the detour structure is 73 kilometers per hour (kph) (45 miles per
hour). <
The estimated cost based on current prices is $1,172,000. The estimated total cost
of the project as shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $926,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1523 is classified as a local roadway in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The alignment serves as a crossing of Holly Shelter Creek between NC 53
and SR 1520. The land use in the vicinity consists of rural/residential and
woodlands. Kings Chapel Church is located 183 meters (600 feet) from the north
end of the bridge in the northwest quadrant. SR 1523 is a two lane facility
providing a total pavement width of 5.2 meters (17 feet) and 3.0 meters (10 feet)
unpaved shoulders. The existing structure provides a clear roadway width of 5.2
meters 0 7 feet-2 inches) and a total bridge width of 5.4 meters 0 7 feet-9 inches)
face-of-rail to face-of-rail. The existing right-of-way along SR 1523 is estimated to
be 18.3 meters (60 feet).
The horizontal alignment is tangent across the bridge with a 320 meters radius (5°-
30') curve and a 295 meters radius (6°) curve on the south and north roadway
approaches, respectively. The existing grade across the bridge and onto both
approaches is level. (See Figures 3, 3A)
The existing (1993) traffic volume is 400 vehicles per day (VPD) and the projected
traffic volume is 900 VPD for the design year 2015. The volumes include 1 %
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TT/ST) and 4% dual tired (DT) trucks with a 60%
directional split. The roadway currently has no posted speed limit. The posted
load limit is 9,980 kilograms 01 tons) for single vehicles and 15,425 kilograms 0 7
tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 115 was built in 1953. The existing structure consists of nine spans,
six at 5.2 meters (16 feet-11 inches) to 5.5 meters 07 feet-11 inches) and three at
10.7 meters (35 feet) for a total length of 63.5 meters (208 feet-5 inches). The
superstructure consists of a timber deck with asphalt wearing surface on timber
-2-
stringers for the approach spans and steel I-beams for the main spans. The
substructure has timber caps on timber piles for the approach spans and R.C. caps on
timber piles for the main spans with cross-bracing at all interior bents. The end bents
include vertical abutment walls of timber planks. Generally, all substructure units have
experienced repair modifications.
Bridge No. 115 has a sufficiency rating of 34.9 out of a possible 100.0 for a new
bridge. This rating is below the minimum criteria of 50 established by the Federal Aid
Bridge Replacement Program for structure replacement. The bridge has an estimated
remaining life of two years.
There are no utilities attached to the bridge, however, an overhead electric line and
an underground telephone line parallel the roadway on the downstream side of the
bridge.
No accidents were reported near the bridge for the period between January 1990 and
March 1993.
The Pender County School System reports that two buses currently cross Bridge No.
115 two times daily. Closure of the roadway will cause major routing problems for
the school system because of weight restrictions and travel distances on available
detour routes.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
SR 1523 is a primary crossing of Holly Shelter Creek connecting NC 53 and SR
1520. The minimum off-site detour length would be 29 kilometers (18 miles).
Alternatives studied focussed on maintaining traffic, satisfying minimum design
speed criteria, and minimizing environmental impacts.
Two replacement alternatives were evaluated: Alternative No. 1 replaces the
structure for Bridge No. 115 on new location; and, Alternative No. 2 uses the
existing location. See Figure 2 and 2A.
Maintaining the existing clearance over the navigable waterway and added
superstructure depth will require raising the bridge elevation approximately 1.0
meter (3.28 feet).
Alternative No. 1 proposes a permanent new alignment, using 295 meters radius
(6°) and 250 meters radius (7°) curves to tie into the existing alignment on the
north and south roadway approaches, respectively (See Figure 2). Approximately
183 meters (600 feet) of roadway work will be necessary on each approach.
-3-
Additional right-of-way will be required for the relocated structure and roadway
approaches. A detour structure will not be required. Approximately 0.64 hectares
0.55 acres) of wetlands will be impacted.
This alternative is not considered reasonable due to the long term environmental
impacts and additional right-of-way requirements. Also, a less than desirable
alignment would be provided.
Alternative No. 2 (Recommended) uses the existing alignment for the replacement
structure with a 53.4 meters 0 75 feet) detour structure placed on the upstream side
of the bridge to maintain traffic (See Figure 2A). The detour alignment satisfies a 73
kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) design speed by providing 175 meters radius
(10°) reverse curves to tie into the existing roadway alignment. No additional right-of-
way will be necessary. Approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of roadway work will be
required on each approach to accommodate raising the bridge deck elevation. The
detour alignment will impact approximately 0.4 hectares (0.9 acres) of wetlands,
however, the detour is temporary and after removal, wetlands impacted will be
restored.
A downstream location was not considered for either alternative because of potential
utility conflicts, greater wetland impacts, and impacts to the Kings Chapel Church.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually require closure of the bridge. This is not
a desirable alternative due to the level of traffic service provided by SR 1523.
Investigations by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicate that rehabilitation is not feasible
due to the age and deteriorated condition of the existing bridge.
The design criteria for both alternatives is as follows. See Figure 4.
The approach roadway width is a 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) travelway with 1.2
meters (4.0 feet) shoulders.
The clear roadway width across the bridge is 8.6 meters (28.21 feet).
The bridge width accommodates a 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) travelway with 1.0
meters (3.28 feet) shoulders.
The design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) with a posted
speed limit of 73 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour).
The detour design speed is 73 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) with a
posted speed limit of 64.5 kilometers per hour (40 miles per hour).
-4-
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as
follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure Removal $ 17,930 $ 17,930
Pavement Removal 3,713 4,650
New Structures 376,320 376,320
Construct/Remove Detour Structures 0 188,160
Roadway & Detour Approaches 275,105 235,955
Traffic Control 10,000 15,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 136,932 167,985
Engineering and Contingencies 130,000 144,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements 23,000 22,000
TOTAL $ 973,000 $1,172,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 115 over Holly Shelter Creek will be replaced on existing location with
traffic maintained on a run-around detour constructed upstream of the bridge site.
The existing horizontal alignment across the bridge and on the approaches satisfies
design criteria for the project and will be maintained. Grade adjustments will be
made on the approaches to accommodate raising the bridge 1.0 meters (3.28 feet).
Approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of roadway work will be required on each
approach to accommodate the grade adjustments. Temporary construction
easements will be necessary. The run-around detour will provide a design speed of
73 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) by utilizing 175 meters radius (10°)
reverse curves. (See Figure 2A). The NCDOT Division Engineer concurs with this
recommendation.
A 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) wide pavement with 1.2 meters (4 feet) shoulders will be
provided on the approach improvements to the bridge. In accordance with current
NCDOT Bridge Policy, the replacement structure will provide a clear width of 8.6
meters (28.21 feet). This will allow for a 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) travelway and 1.0
meters (3.28 feet) shoulders across the structure.
-5-
Based on the field reconnaissance of the site and preliminary hydraulic analysis, an
estimated replacement structure with a length of 73.2 meters (240 feet) is proposed.
The proposed bridge opening is based on the historic performance of the existing
structure and on field observations. The proposed bridge opening may be adjusted
during final hydraulic design as determined appropriate to accommodate design flows.
The replacement structure will improve flow characteristics at the site and will not
impact adjacent properties by altering the existing floodway from roadway
encroachment.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project replaces Bridge No. 115 on SR 1523 over Holly Shelter Creek
in Pender County. The preferred alternative (No. 2) at this location is to replace the
structure on the existing alignment, with an on-site detour on the upstream (east)
side of the existing alignment. Alternative No. 1 would utilize a permanent new
alignment.
The project area is in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province and lies south of
the Angola Bay Game Land and highway 53, and east of the town of Burgaw and
Interstate 40. The area is generally quite disturbed. Stone riprap exists on the
east side of the road. Powerlines run along the west side. Small roads and trails
are also present.
METHODOLOGY
A natural resources investigation was undertaken to search for evidence of
protected plants and animals and unique or high quality natural communities, to
describe current vegetation and habitats, identify wetlands, and provide information
to avoid or minimize the adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement projects.
During the period of December, 1993 through March, 1994 correspondence
relative to the project was carried out with the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
the U.S. Geological Survey, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the county Soil
Conservation Service office. Data on protected species, soil types, and stream
characteristics were gathered.
-6-
Biologists visited the site on 7 February and 19 March, 1994 to gather data and
verify documented information to complete an assessment of potential impacts
incurred by the bridge replacement proposal. The area was divided into four
quadrants, with the road dividing the east-west parameters and the water channel
dividing the north-south parameters. Information on tree ages was gained using a 5.15
millimeter increment borer. Basal Area data was gained using a ten factor prism. No
canopy cover estimations were made since the work was accomplished before the
leaves were fully open. Wetland determinations were made using the 1987 Corps Of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and Munsell color charts. Precise delineations
were not performed, but area estimates and descriptions of wetlands are included.
Forest community types follow Schafale and Weakley (1990). Plant nomenclature
follows Radford (1981). Status of listed animals follows LeGrand (1993) and the
1993 US Fish and Wildlife Service "Listed and Candidate Species of North,Carolina,
by County" publication. Status of listed plant species follows Weakley (1993) and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service list.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Plant Communities
The site is basically composed of a disturbance forest that is a product of human
disturbance. The amount of tree cover varies around the site. A small amount of
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods occurs in the northwest quadrant in the bend of
the river west of the powerline. However, it has been heavily disturbed and is not in
a natural condition. Within this small area there is a matrix of wetland and upland.
Disturbance community
Disturbance community covers the majority of the project area. These are generally
upland areas, though there is a small dredged channel in the northeast quadrant.
Sometimes there is heavy cover by young pines or oaks. Other areas are covered by
weedy herbs and shrubs. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), along with some longleaf pine
(Pinus I ri) and mixed oaks (Quercus Qhellos, Q. laurifolia, I r ) are
scattered around the site. They are probably best developed in the northwest
quadrant, west of the powerlines, where they reach a height of 10 to 12 meters (30
to 40 feet) and a basal area of 80. Ironwood (Carninus caroliniana) and holly (Ilex,
QQaca) are also present. Dense greenbriar (Smilax spg.) was common. Cover included
shrubby species such as cane (Arundinaria gigantea), blueberry (Vaccinium soQ.) is
often quite heavy, along with huckleberry (Gaylussacia so), privet (Ligustrum sinense),
yucca (Yucca filamentosa) and other shrubs common to natural community types.
Herbs include bracken fern (Pteridium aauilinum), bluets (Houstonia caerulea), wild
strawberry (Fragaria virainiana), mouse-ear cress (Arabidoosis thalania), panic grass
-7-
(Panicum sp.), dock (Rumex crisp_us.), and poke weed (Phytolacca americana), corn
salad (Valerianella radiata ), vetch (Vicia angustifolia), lyre leaf sage (Salvia lyrata),
field garlic (Allium vineale), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), dog fennel
(Euoatorium caoillifolium), daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera iaoonica), Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides), and resurrection
fern (Polyoodium
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
This community type was present only in very small amounts and only in a disturbed
condition. It is present mainly in the northwest quadrant, which will not be utilized
for this project. The northeast and northwest quadrants are heavily used for fishing
and other recreation. Species described in the above community were present. In
wetter locations this forest type has elements of the Cypress--Gum Swamp, such as
occasional cypress trees (Taxodium distichum) and shrubs such as titi ( rill
racemiflora). Common trees included oaks and loblolly pine. The average diameter
was 28 to 35 centimeters (11 to 14 inches), with the largest diameter noted being 50
centimeters (20 inches), with a basal area of 140. Soils were composed of alluvial
deposits from river flooding. Drift material was also present. Herbs were often
sparse, but included St. John's wort (Hyoericum sR.) and sedges (Carex cf. crinita,
Cyoerus so.). Herbs are often lacking due to trampling of the forest floor.
Wildlife
Numerous signs of wildlife were observed. Signs of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginiana), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) were
noted. Many trot lines for fishing were seen. Birds observed included a black vulture
(Coragyos atratus), a sharpshined hawk (Accioiter striatus; this species is listed as
Significantly Rare by the state, however, it was not nesting in project area), bluebirds
(Sialia sialis), a brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), house wren (Troglodytes aedon),
crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), towhee (Pioilo erythroohthalmus), pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus ileatus), and a downy woodpecker (Picoides oubescens).
Other wildlife likely to occur in the project area include amphibians such as the spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer), southern leopard frog (Rana sghenoceoha), pickerel frog (Rana
pal ri ), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), southern toad (Bufo terrestris), slimy slalmander
(Plethodon glutinosus) and southern dusky salamander (Q smognathus auriculatus).
Reptiles include the banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), rat snake (Elaohae
obsoleta), black racer (Coluber constrictor), carolina anole (Anolus carolinensis),
eastern fence lizard (Scleroosis undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces laticeos),
snapping turtle (Chelydra seroentina), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) and eastern
boxturtle (Terragene carolina).
-8-
Birds include the indigo bunting (Passrina cyanea), common crow (Corvus
brachyrhyncos), turkey vulture (Coragyps atratus), common grackle ( i I
9uiscula), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) and
yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Mammals include the opsossum ( i I hi
virginiana), marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus galustris), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),
house mouse (Mus musculus), and southeasten shrew (Longirostrus longirostrus).
Fish likely to be found in the project area include the bowfin (Amia calva), carp
(Cyprinus cargio), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), yellow bullhead ( I r
natalis), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus).
Biotic Community Impacts
Small amounts of forest cover will incur temporary impacts. However, these areas are
already highly disturbed. No permanent impacts are expected since the structure will
be built in place. Alternative No. 1 would cause permanent impacts.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
it
This site occurs in the Coastal Plain Physiographic province. There are three soil
series present in the project area (Barnhill, 1985). None are hydric soils, though
each has the potential for inclusions (see Table 1). Alpin fine sand occurs on the
north side of the creek, on both sides of the road. It is an excessively drained soil
occurring on uplands and stream terraces with 1 to 6% slope. The surface layer is
usually gray fine sand with a depth of 13 centimeters (5 inches). The upper
portion of the subsurface, to a depth of 106 centimeters (3.5 feet), is brownish
yellow fine sand. The lower portion, to a depth of 191 centimeters (6.25 feet), is
very pale brown fine sand, often with thin bands of loamy sand.
Autreyville fine sand occurs on the south side of the creek, on both sides of the
road. It is well drained, occurring on convex divides near drainageways, on 1 to
4% slopes. The surface is typically pale brown fine sand 23 centimeters (9 inches)
thick. The subsurface layer, to a depth of 66 centimeters (2 feet 2 inches), is very
pale brown sand. The subsoil, to a depth of 203 centimeters (6 feet 8 inches), has
variations of yellow and brown.
-9-
Forest on loamy fine sand occurs on on the north and south edges of the project area
away from the creek. It is moderately well drained, also occurring on convex divides
between drainageways, on slopes of 0 to 2%. The surface layer is usually dark
greyish brown loamy fine sand, about 20 centimeters (8 inches) thick. The subsurface
layer, to a depth of 33 centimeters (13 inches), is pale brown loamy fine sand. The
subsoil extends to 167 centimeters (5.5 feet), with variations of yellowish brown and
grey.
Table 1 Soil Series in Project Area
Series Hydric
status Potential for
hydric inclusions Locations
Alpin no Muckalee north side of creek
Autreyville no Muckalee south side of creek
Foreston no Woodington north and south edges
of project area
Water Resources
Holly Shelter Creek is a relatively unimpacted tributary of the Northeast Cape Fear
River. Its headwater reaches are formed by the confluence of several swamp/stream
systems including Angola Creek, Moores Creek and Sandy Run. Holly Shelter Creek
is a low flowing swamp system typical of the coastal plain ecoregion of eastern North
Carolina.
Holly Shelter Creek has no special designation for Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) or Wild and Scenic River status. It has a Best Usage Classification of C Sw.
The "C" class means that it is suitable for agricultural uses, fish and wildlife
propagation and secondary recreation, but not rated for human consumption or
contact recreation (State of NC, 1993). The "Sw" classification denotes that this
water body is a swamp, and therefore has different levels for parameters such as
dissolved oxygen. The average flow rate for the water body at the project area is 1.7
cubic meters per second (60 cubic feet per second) (U.S. Geological Survey).
-10-
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is a program that is used to
monitor water quality. Long term trends are detected by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. BMAN is incorporated into the Basin Wide program being
established by the state. Due to difficulty of assessment, there are no monitoring
stations along Holly Shelter Creek (DEM, 1994), therefore, no data is available.
TABLE II Stream Characteristics
Substrate sand
Current flow low
Channel width in meters 80.00 (262 feet)
Bank height in meters 0-2 (0-6.3 feet)
Water depth variable
Water color brown
Water odor none noted
Aquatic veg none noted
Adjacent veg hardwood, cypress, or cleared
Wetlands Assoc. Southwest quadrant
Water Resource Im9acts
Potential impacts to aquatic systems in the projects area include: increased
sedimentation and erosion, alteration of water levels and water flow, loss of aquatic
organisms, modification of benthic substrates and some changes in light and
temperature (in the immediate area) due to vegetation removal. Best Management
Practices and all Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be utilized and enforced in order
to minimize impacts.
-11-
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Wetlands are designated as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3) and are
therefore regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US COE). as to discharge
of dredged or fill material. The area of direct impact to wetlands expected for the
preferred alternative (No. 2) for this project is 0.4 hectares (0.9 acres) for temporary
construction. Alternative No. 1 would impact 0.64 hectares (1.55 acres) of wetland
for permanent construction. The area immediately along the creek and the
channelized drainage parallel to the east side of the road may be considered wetlands,
though they are highly disturbed. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction
over this matter.
Permits
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 US COE
1344), a permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (US COE) for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since this project is classified as a categorical exclusion it is likely that this project will
be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the US COE.
This project requires a Coastal Area Management Act permit. The CAMA major
development permit application form serves as an application for three other state
permits and for permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers required by Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The state
permits include: 1- a permit to excavate and/or fill, 2- an easement in lands covered
by water and 3- a 401 Water Quality Certification.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, may be required. This certificate is issued
for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit
is required.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during
construction activities to minimize unnecessary impacts to wetland ecosystems.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation may not be required under a Nationwide Permit. Final
authority rests with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
-12-
Rare and Protected S ecies
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants or animals is subject to review by the US Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973. Species listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed endangered (PE)
and proposed threatened (PT) are protected.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated the following species (see Table III
below) occur in Pender County and may occur in the project area.
Table 111 Federally Protected Species
Scientific name Common name Status* Habitat
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded
woodpecker E mature long leaf pines
Charadrius melodus piping plover T beaches
Lepidochelys kempi Kemp's ridley sea
turtle E marine
Dermochelys
conacea leatherback sea
turtle T marine
Caretta caretta loggerhead sea
turtle T marine
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle T marine
Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth T beach dunes
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's
meadowrue E wet savannas, sandy
roadside
Lysimachia
asperulifolia rough-leaved
loosestrife E pine upland/pocosin
edge
-13-
Table III Federally Protected Species
Scientific name Common name Status* Habitat
Schwalbea
americana American chaffseed E savannas with fire
* Federal status : E = endangered; T = threatened
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida, west to eastern Texas, including the states of Kentucky, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Oklahoma and Missouri. It is currently known only in coastal states of its
historic range, plus southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. North Carolina
populations are found in the sandhills and southern coastal plain.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on
the sides of the nape of the neck in the male. The back has horizontal stripes of black
and white and the breast and underside is white with streaked flanks. It has large
white cheek patches surrounded by a black cap, nape and throat.
The RCW uses open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly long leaf (Pinus
I ri ), for nesting and foraging. Suitable habitat must contain at minimum 50%
pine and a fairly open understory. The birds nest only in trees that are 60 years or
older and are contiguous with pine dominated forest stands that are at least 30 years
in age. The RCW foraging range is about 0.8 kilometers (0.5 mile) and must be
connected to suitable nesting sites.
RCWs nest exclusively in living pine trees that are frequently infected with the fungus
that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies and are found at 4-30
meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground, with an average height of 9-15 meters
(30-50 feet). Large incrustations of running sap on the tree trunk is an indicator sign
of a nest tree. This may be a defense against predators. A clan of RCW's consists
of one breeding pair and the offspring of previous years. Eggs are laid in April, May
and June. Clutch size varies from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising
the young. Diet consists mainly of insects, but occasionally includes seasonal fruits.
The project area was surveyed in February and March, 1994 for potential habitat.
-14-
Biological Conclusion: No effect. During the survey, no suitable habitat for RCWs was
found within the project area. No mature longleaf pine forests were present.
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) T
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that resembles a sand piper. An
average adult reaches 17.5 centimeters (7 inches) in length with a wingspan of 37.5
centimeters (15 inches). It breeds along the east coast from New Foundland to North
Carolina. It winters from North Carolina south to the Florida Keys and Gulf of Mexico.
They return to their breeding grounds in March or early April.
Piping plovers can be identified by their orange legs and black band around the neck.
During winter the bright colors fade. They nest in flat areas with fine sand, along with
shells and pebbles. There is generally no vegetation around. The nest is a shallow
depression in the sand that is usually lined with shells or pebbles. It is very sensitive
to human disturbance. The presence of people can cause it to stop feeding and
abandon its nest.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No beaches occur in the project area.
Lepidochelys kem ii (Ridley's sea turtle) E
The Ridley's sea turtle inhabits the Gulf of Mexico, while the young range from the
east coast to Massachusetts. This species is an infrequent visitor to North Carolina
and generally does not nest here. The only known nesting ground is on one beach in
Mexico. Here, it comes ashore in mass to lay eggs during the daytime. This can
occur up to three times during the April to June breeding season.
It is the smallest of the sea turtles that can be found near North Carolina. It is
580-750 millimeters (23-30 inches) in length and weighs from 36 to 50 kilograms (80-
110 pounds). It has a triangular shaped head and hooked beak. The head and flippers
are grey. Hatchlings are black.
The turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in association with red
mangrove trees, feeding on small marine animals and plants.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) T
The loggerhead sea turtle nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke Inlet, North
Carolina through Florida, occasionally along the Gulf states, plus Australia. It lives
worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters.
-15-
Adults weigh between 77 and 227 kilograms 0 70-500 pounds) and are from 800 to
1,200 millimeters (31-47 inches) in length. It can be distinguished from other sea
turtles by its reddish-brown color, large head and blunt jaws.
Loggerheads feed mainly on small marine animals. They nest nocturnally between
May and September on isolated beaches with fine grained sediments.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) T
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical ocean water. Its ranges
extends as far north as Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia in the
west. For the North American continent, it is limited to nesting on the east coast of
Florida. It must have beaches with minimal disturbance and a sloping platform for
nesting. Nesting does not occur in North Carolina.
It can be distinguished by its single clawed flippers, a single pair of elongated scales
between the eyes and small head. It grows to a size of 760-1,530 millimeters (30-60
inches) and a weight of 100-295 kilograms (220-650 pounds). It can be found in
shallow waters, such as reefs, inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be
found, bays and mangrove swamps. It feeds mainly on marine grasses.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
Dermochelvs coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) T
The leatherback sea turtle is distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Indian oceans, ranging as far north as Nova Scotia and New Foundland
and as far south as Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Major nesting areas are
found in tropical regions and the only nesting area in the United States is found in
Martin County, Florida. It nests from April to August and has very specific habitat
needs. A nesting area must have a sandy beach backed with vegetation in proximity
to deep water.
It is the largest of marine turtles, weighing from 295 to 680 kilograms (650-1,500
pounds), with an average length of 1,180 to 1, 780 millimeters (46-70 inches). Unlike
other sea turtles, it has a shell composed of leathery skin. It is black to brown in
color, occasionally with white blotches on the head and limbs. It prefers deep water
and is often found near the edge of the continental shelf. It feeds mainly on jellyfish,
thought it has been known to feed on mollusks, tunicates, urchins, fish and
crustaceans.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
-16-
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) E
Cooley's meadowrue was historically found in the southeastern coastal plain in North
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Currently known populations are limited to nine
locations in North Carolina and one in Florida. Distribution in North Carolina counties
includes Columbus, Pender, and Onslow.
This species is a perennial plant that grows to 1 meter (3 feet) in height. This
rhizomatous plant grows erect in sunlight but is often trailing in shady areas. Leaves
are generally lanceolate and unlobed, though two or three lobes can occur. Flowers
lack petals but sepals on staminate ones are somewhat showy, with yellow to white
color and lavender filaments that are about 5-7 millimeters long. Pistilate flowers have
smaller, greenish sepals. Fruits are narrowly ellipsoid achenes, 5-6 millimeters long.
Fruits mature in August and September.
Habitat for this species is sunny areas such as wet bogs, savannas and savanna-like
openings, sandy roadsides, right-of-ways, and old clearcuts. It is dependent on some
form of disturbance that keeps the habitat open. All known populations are on
circumneutral, poorly drained moderately permeable soils of the Grifton series.
Calcareous soils must be present for this species to occur (NHP, 1994).
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No calcareous soils occur within the project area.
Lysimachia asoerulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Rough-leaved loosestrife, in the family Primulaceae, was listed on the 12th of June,
1987. This plant is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North Carolina and
South Carolina. It is currently known from nine North Carolina populations and is
believed to be extirpated from South Carolina.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb with slender stems, growing to a height
of 3-6 decimeters. The leaves are whorled at intervals along the stem below racemes
of bright yellow flowers. The five-petalled flowers occur in threes or fours. Fruits are
found from July through October.
The habitat for this species is in the ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond
pine pocosins with dense growth and wet, peaty, acidic soils or seasonally saturated
sands. It has been found in Carolina bays. Frequent fire is essential for maintenance
of habitat. It is rarely associated with hardwood forest.
The project area was examined for potential habitat in February and March, 1994.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There is no suitable habitat for rough-leaved
loosestrife within project area. No dense undergrowth nor pine uplands are present.
-17-
Amaranthus milus (sea-beach amaranth) T
Sea-beach amaranth, in the family Amaranthaceae, is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal
Plain beaches. It is presently confined to 55 populations in North Carolina, New York,
and South Carolina, but once ranged from Massachusetts to Florida. It is an annual
that grows in clumps up to 3 decimeters across, with 5 to 20 stems. The trailing
stems are often reddish, fleshy, and 1 to 6 decimeters in length. The leaves are fleshy,
thick, round or spatulate, and about 1-1.5 centimeters in length. They are deep green
in color, with winged petioles. The flowers grow in axillary fascicles and have smooth
fruits that are indehiscent and 4-5 millimeters long and glossy black seeds. Fruits and
flowers both are borne along the stem and are inconspicuous.
The habitat for sea-beach amaranth is restricted to beaches functioning in a relatively
natural and dynamic manner. Overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands, lower
foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches seem to create the best habitat.
Temporary populations may form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and
beach replenishment. This species is very intolerant to competition and is generally
not found around other species.
The project area was examined for potential habitat in February and March, 1994.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There are no beach dunes in the project area.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) E
American chaffseed is an unbranched perennial that grows 3 to 6 decimeters tall. It
is tomentose, with leaves taht are alternate, lanceolate or elliptic-lanceolate, 2 to 4
centimeters long, 6 to 10 centimeters wide, entire and sessile. Terminal racemes are
distinct. The calyx is tubular, with a yellow or purplish corolla.
Its range is in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee,
and Florida. It occurs in 5 counties in North Carolina. Its habitat is savannas and
pine woodlands. Fire seems to be a key factor for this species' habitat needs.
The project area was examined for potential habitat in February and March, 1994.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No good quality pine woodlands or savannas are
present in the project area.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
Federal Candidate (C2) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act. These species show evidence of decline or vulnerability and may
become listed in the future. Presently, there has not been sufficient data gathered on
-18-
many of these species to ascertain the correct status. State listed species with
designations of Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern are granted protection
by the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Enforcement and administration falls under the jurisdiction
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species and their appropriate habitat were not
surveyed for in this study. Table IV (below) lists Federal Candidate Species known to
occur in Pender County. Habitat may be somewhat appropriate for the Carolina
trillium, however, it is greatly disturbed and no individuals were noted during survey.
A population of a state protected species, listed as Significantly Rare, occurs near the
downstream side of the road in the project area. Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier) is
recorded as being on "lowermost 6.5 kilometers (4 miles) of Holly Shelter Creek, from
confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River upstream about 6.5 kilometers (4 miles)
to boat ramp at SR 1523.
In general no impact is expected to the resources since the bridge will be built in
place.
Table IV Federal Candidate Species, Including State Protected Status
Scientific name Common name Federal
Status* State
Status**
Aimophila aestivalis Bachmans sparrow C2 SC
Ammordramus
henslowii Henslows sparrow C2
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe mussel C2 T
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel C2 T
Agrotis buchholzi pyxie moth C2
Spartiniphaga carterae Carter's noctuid moth C2
Carex chapmanii Chapman's sedge C2
-19-
Table IV Federal Candidate Species, Including State Protected Status
Scientific name Common name Federal
Status* State
Status**
Dionaea muscipula venus flytrap C2 C-SC
Kalmia cuneata white-wicky C2 E-SC
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina bogmint C2
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane C2
Parnassia caroliniana Car.
grass-of-parnassus C2 E
Plantago sparsiflora pineland plantain C2 E
Rhyncospora thornei thorne's beakrush C2
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod C2 E
Solidago verna spring-flowring
goldenrod C2 E
Sporobolus teretifolius wireleaf dropseed C2 T
Tofieldia glabra smooth bog-asphodel C2
Trillium pusillum var.
pusillum Carolina trillium C2 E
• Federal status: C2 = candidate; `• State Protected Status : E = endangered,
T =threatened, SC=special concern
-20-
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plan or zoning regulations. No
significant change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of
the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Temporary easement
acquisition will be required. No relocatees will be involved 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.
Impacts on utilities as a result of the proposed action will be low.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance adjacent to 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 for federally funded, licensed, or
permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given
an opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated June 17, 1994, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
indicated there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register
within the area of potential effect (APE). Therefore, the State Historic Preservation
Officer has no comment on this project in regards to historic architecture.
The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer's letter of January 12, 1994,
(included in the appendix) in response to a scoping letter, states "if the
replacement is to be in a new location, please forward a map" so that review can
be completed. The new bridge will be constructed on the existing alignment, a
detour structure will be placed east of existing SR 1523. The DSHPO requested
additional consultation only in the case of new location selected as the preferred
alignment. Figure 2 serves as the "map... indicating the location of the new
alignment so" the SHPO "may evaluate the potential effects of the replacement
-21-
r
upon archaeological resources." At this time, no plans are available for the project as
currently proposed. When plans are prepared they will be forwarded to the SHPO for
review.
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). According to the SCS, the
proposed project will impact 0.12 hectares (0.3 acres) of soils in Pender County
defined as prime, statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very
little of the total 173,160 hectares (427,884 acres) of prime and important farmland
soils in Pender County. Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, is
included in the Appendix.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Wilmington Regional
Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Pender
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air
quality of this attainment area. Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease as a
result of the project. The existing noise levels are not expected to change significantly
therefore no impacts will occur. Noise levels may temporarily increase during
construction. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
Records of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the N.C.
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section indicated that no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites are known to exist in the project
area.
Pender County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project
limits for Holly Shelter Creek are not located in a detailed FEMA study area.
Approximate limits of the 100 year floodplain in the project area are shown in Figure
5. Impacts to the floodplain as a result of roadway encroachment are not considered
to be significant.
There are no reasonable alignment alternatives which will avoid a crossing of Holly
Shelter Creek.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of this project.
-22-
REFERENCES
Barnhill, W.L. 1985. Soil Survey of Pander County, NC. Soil Conservation Service,
USDA publication. Raleigh, NC.
Brown, P.M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. NC Geologic Survey. Raleigh, NC.
Bull, J. & Farrand, J. Jr. 1988. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds,
Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways. Experiment Stn., Vicksburg, MS.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey & J.R. Harrison. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
NC Department of Environmental Management, 1994. Unpublished Report on Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data for the Cape Fear River Basin.
NC Department of Environmental Management, 1994. Personal communication.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Personal Communication relative to Federally
Protected Species.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles & C.R. Bell. 1981. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. & A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, 3rd approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
State of North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Lumber
River Basin. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1993. Listed and Candidate Species of North Carolina, by
County.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
-23-

wee
? w.ew Nay
C eo,
Atkwm m 1. 8
E N 1XM I E R "w' "I
421
SCALE:
• 1 MILE
1 .? 0 1 it KM
tommolod
=03 CAROLINA DEPART390 : OF
T?QO:lA2703F
O? ZWERAlf
? AND M W IZO?TAL
BRIDGE NO. 115
PENDER COUNTY
B-2802
I FIGURE 1
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING NORTH
(& NORTH APPROACH)
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
ELEVATION
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
FIGURE 3
LOOKING UPSTREAM
(EAST)
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
(WEST)
FIGURE 3A
m
L

N z
N ?
p
O N ?
W
p p
X W
_j
?
QOWp W a F-N
C9 y 3 y =a 2?-z
31:a?Wp °D OW cna
m m d W
mw O y
E p z p C Cr CC /
O W
Q?y
N y0 w4 W W m?Q

N C=9GMm •-•
O
Xw
Wa J
V
0 J (n ac
` W
Z a_

a-?
r
10
VQ ~ m 3

Q ?
?
a
Q
ti
Q ? y

O 1 Q
y m
LL) cr
W
O w
0
N L) z
Q
m
."'
I- p F- 0 O H Q F- W
z M cr I CL z M itp ON O Q
V C9 a. ON ? U r.; t9 d y
Q z z
O O
O N ~
L) z
M N u- M O
W Ld
•
z N
p

IN' .
O O J
U a
U Q
, W
a
N _
Q N
}
H
-? ~ z
4
ti Q
U
a-

1-
C
z
!
6-40
I- z
y ?
.? O
Xcr
w O
FIGURE 4
PENDER COUNTY
B-2602
• 7 + r j; ZONE C ?.i.: v,• !?A! t?''
it k '" ' + ;•J 1. ? r? `i' ,.elf r'i ; ! ? •;411
f « ?? ' 4 as d f C+1k' ei iL
s n ? ? J i, r
F k t 3.?t 4. 4s , '. i? tt ZONE C ." 9"N. ZONE ,./
..t jt .? ? F ,a'?•,'? -' • l.?? ti , " Phi Fg?yTf i f?' . 1?.. ?t' I
fti ?t+ ??{{ 11 I > xt y\""'jjji?" ? t'1 t 1[t # 1 X751 j ??.L.
?. yiv }A' x r. ?•?+J .r T!iS ?,, t -11' f „?{ ?•?'.FT Y S?:L. .a'r'tir - ?1:?7c t? ??ri '+
I4.F,. / N , :a r' ?q (?l;,• ?? s? A;A ZONE C {"•`' i;
n ''/ .., •+ ti /?'#• .iis1.. ,{: , t 7« ; ;ZONE
?f. r _'n • 1???1??M?,?••i.??. ,T::?rtw'1?4,t+`#y7?Rys2't k ??lyfn'!'t: ; /ZONEC y
, i2; w F?Ff ?a?t f 'L ?l fr :1 t n 1,';. ,
by Z y r ZONE A'
, ? 33 ? 7 i •} • S f> •M
_ :.
4 ,
BRIDGE O. 115
4 N e • , '' `ri 'CR, EE.? K . . ° 1??4r r N ;?KEN
F f1R r1f122 • S ?' Ste.iy { i 5.. , «' +\
•???;' Cr?? ?'.',' •? : ',F •_•.?? ?'f i ' ???-:• , ZONE
p i ?:, t s ta4#?+,?{illd ? L•_ t `?
R.' w ZONE A
? ZONE A
ro.
t. ZONE C i ZONE A c a
v .' h f ? ,:+?? 'F f ZONE C
PLAYERS A
lit,
W1.4- -Wl ef A.
? ri ? it tt t "'
42F;i : ZONE A'A?K`: •€.. * } c ` s?,,??;? `;'
,
••{?d ? i' ! , i '• f, I ( t. trtn • ? ?/l;t, 4l' < ri 1{•'t 1???t '?' T
i 1 !.! \ nY II r :. i tat s, t N _1t' _. F 1?"^ ts.r*- V. ?r
• ;?r,J ?r???`? *. 5,?11?#d. ?? ,•I.s??.?r ;??.,i5?1?(?„' t'f?Lv?'i %1rti??.?;{, a,,?''.
t 1. tf I 1 y s ix ? : ? ??k?Y • ?1 ? r , ? ?'• i?f? ? ,,}} ?i,???!
f .' +• ? !: `t. ?l,:?yf{fi}'.! ., rya,;'
1.00 YEAR FLOODPLAIN 70NE C : ON,E
ZONE A
i; _ `?`I r'f+ ({• R
LIZ.
jg)
FIGURE 5

- North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hnnt. Jr.. Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain. S=etary William S. Price. Jr., Director
June 17, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridge No. 115 on SR 1523 over Holly
Shelter Creek, Pender County, B-2602, ER 94-
8015
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1994, providing additional information
concerning the above project.
Based upon the aerial photograph and written information provided to us, we
understand that no structures over fifty years of age are located in the area of
potential effect for the project. Therefore, we have no further comment on this
project in terms of historic architectural resources.
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,
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
N. Graf

Preservation Officer
109 Fist Jam Street • Rab*ib Nash Cadioa 276012807
CO L
render County Schools
Board of Education P. O. Box 1239 Super,ntenoent
Burgaw. North Carolina 28425 Wendell M. Murray. Jr.
J. L. Giddeons. Chairman
Katherine Herrin Vice-Chairman
Herring. Telephone [phone].,, ---'•""°?""
?: - • '"? "
Fax [phone]

?
Emil H. Ruegner :+t' '_, _ ";•
y s 1
Joseph Knox Taylor
Larry B. Wooten
Este: March 9, 1994
To: Mike Krannitz ,.
Wilbur Smith Associates -
POB 2478 _ >.
Raleigh Bldg. Suite 910
Raleigh, N. C. 2760

From: Thurman Casey
TIMS/Bus Driver Coordinator ?[
Render County Schools
Re: Bus Routes Which Use Bridge #115
As of this date, I have two (2) buses that cross bridge
#115 two times each day. There are three (3) students that
attend Burgaw Elementary School and ride bus #21 plus one (1)
student that attends Pender High School and rides bus #43.
One of these students lives on SR 1522, near the intersection
of SR 152^c and SR 1520 and the others live on SR 1520, near
bridge #116.
'f bridge #115 is closed, we will have no way to get our
buses to these students. Buses #21 and #43 are gasoline
buses and are light enough with their loads to cross bridge
#11b. All other buses in the area are diesel buses and
would come from the Maple Hill area. These buses would have
to cross bridge #117 and #116 which the weight limit will not
allow.
As you can see, the closing of this bridge will create a
mayor problem in bus routing.
Tf I car, be of further assistance, please call.
Each day, each child ... SUCCESS!
?e
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Roger N. Sc ";ter
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Dir:ctur
February 9, 1994
Mr. Michael E. Krannitz, P. E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P. 0. Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 10
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr Krannitz:
This is with reference to the request you made to Director Roger Schecter concerning the perr.ut
requirements for several bridges located in the Wilmington District. Due to the fairly isolated location
of these structures the field investigation has been slower than normal. On February 3, 1994 I visited
Bridge X67 and Bridge # 115. Bridge # 9 was visited by Ed Brooks of this office at an earlier date.
These three structures all fall within the Public Trust Area AEC and will require a CAMA Major
permit.
Bridge X49 has not had a site visit yet but will be evaluated in the very near future. Based on the
copies of the photographic information contained in your letter, and which was forwarded to me. this
bridge may not require a CAMA permit.
For your future information, the CAMA has no provision for 'Categorical Exclusions' and if Public
Trust Area and/or Ebtuarine Water AEC's are involved permits are required.
Please feel free to contact me at any time for assistance in preparing the application packages for these
replacements.
If you have questions concerning the above or if I can be of any other assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
C. Robert Stroud, Jr.
District Manager
cc: Roger Schecter, DCM John Parker, DCM
127 Cardinal Dnvs Exten?lgn. WilatislPla. V.C. 28405.3W * Telephone 9! 9.395.3900 * Fox 919-350.2004
AA Squnl (> spc%nunity Afranwtivo Action EmployJr
:J :f'1 "IH. :JCc_ -17: 7 -t=
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, ,Secreta C) E H N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
. ? ...s..?..:-?-?..r.?L.•-,--ter,
February 7, 1994
MEMORANDUM R ,
TO: Michael E. Kranni , P.E.
THROUGH: Doug Holyfeld, Pead
Waste Management Branch
FROM: Larry D. Perry, Supervisor AM
Eastern Area Compliance Unit
RE: RCRA Comments on the NCDOT Group V Bridge Replacement Report
The Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the noted project and offers the following
comments:
There are numerous RCRA hazardous waste generating facilities in the counties where
the replacement projects are located, but we do not believe there are any located near
the proposed projects. I do not believe that these projects will cause any adverse
situation on any sites that might generate or handle hazardous waste nor any hazardous
waste generator facility cause an adverse situation on any project.
This review only considered hazardous waste sites or generators. By copy of this
memorandum, this packet is being referred to the Solid Waste Section and Superfund for
their review.
If a site is encountered that raises concerns or questions, please contact our office at
[phone].
LDP/Ifb
cc: Solid Waste Section
Superfund
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director

GROUNDWATER SECTION
January 25, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh Bldg., Suite 910
Raleigh, INC 27602
Dear Mr. Krannitz:

The Groundwater Section has reviewed its records for the the items you requested in your
December 14, 1993, letter to Arthur Mouberry regarding thirteen bridges slated for replacement
in the State. All bridges, except for numbers 77 and 315, were reviewed with regards to
hazardous waste sites, hazardous waste generators, landfills, and underground storage tanks.
According to our records, none of the above situations were within 1000 feet of these
bridges. However, Solid Waste Management (SWM) for the State maintains complete records
for all landfills and hazardous waste sites and generators. I suggest contacting Doug Holvfield of
the Hazardous Waste Section of SWM, [phone], for more information. Fay Sweat, in our
Pollution Control Branch [[phone]], maintains the incident management database for all
reported underground storage tank incidents in the State.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], ext. 406.
Sincerely,

Brian Wanner
Hydrogeologist
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Ted Bush
Bob Cheek
Fay Sweat
Doug Holyfield
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Erncjoyer 50% recycled/ 10% cost-consumer paper
er?o?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 12, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, PE
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridge No. 115 on SR 1523 over Holly
Shelter Creek, Pander County, B-2602, ER 94-
8015
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 14, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Pander County has
never been conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project
site, please send us photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each
structure. These photographs should be keyed to a map that clearly shows the
site location. If there are no buildings over fifty years old on or adjacent to the
project site, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that
significant archaeological resources would be affected and no investigations would
be recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be in a new location, please
forward a map to this office indicating the location of the new alignment so we
may evaluate the potential effects of the replacement upon archaeological
resources.
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.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
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,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

.,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
January 5, 1994
MI REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
FILE NO. CESAW-C-010
Mr. Michael E. Rrannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
Post Office Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 910
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Rrannitz:
Reference your letter dated December 14, 1993, concerning the proposed
replacement of 8 bridges by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in Bladen/fender, Columbus/Brunswick, Duplin, Onslow, Wake, and
Wayne/Johnston Counties, North Carolina.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 330, Nationwide Permit Program Regulations, dated
November 22, 1991, Categorical Exclusion determinations are "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... that the activity, work, or discharge is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation...." and that the
Corps of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Our review of your information indicates that the work is eligible for
authorization under the terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusions). Temporary detours involving fills in wetlands or
waters of the United States or not authorized by this permit. However, such
temporary detours may be authorized under the provisions of Nationwide Permit
33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering), Nationwide Permit 14 (Minor
Road Crossing), or NCDOT General Permit No. 31.
The request for our concurrence for Categorical Exclusions should be
submitted directly to this office by NCDOT or their designated authorized
agent. It should be accompanied by information in support of this
determination. Please refer to this file number and the date of this letter
when requesting the concurrence(s).
If you have questions please call Mr. Ernest Jahake, Wilmington Area
Field office manager, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
e Wrig -
hie , Regulatory Branch
s
U.S. Department of AWiadture
w, FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1(To be completed by Federal Agency/ Data Of Land Evaluation Request de11 1-7 94'
Nance of Project N L DO'S 'r 1. P f1 19-2io0L Federal Agency Involved F N. L?, Q
Proposed Land Use County And State PQ,r?dar Co. N.G?.
:'1 By
PART 11 (To be completed by SCS) ; Deese R est Received
2-1
.. Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Y?!r No
= (If no, the FPPA does not apply-'..N" do not complete additional parts of this fmlwm' _ ?. 11t .. ? Awn Irriget
? 0" Pi A"ragb Farm Size .= a
? 7 q
Major Crow. ?'
y . _ a, . ::,.Q r ?_ Farmewe LaIn ion
, : "`$ ` % -7 6 r. t .. Amount Of Farmland At Defined in FPPA

.9 %
Acres: .3495113
::. Name Of lend Evaluatlon?Synst-emlUse?drr.. Name Of??JT?Site Asseestnattt System Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
Alternative site Rating
PART 111 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly O
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect) 49.90
C. Total Acres In Site 0-90
PART 1V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information `: • ' b. `
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland '
S. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland ?• D
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O
0. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. jurisdiction With Saute Or Higher Relative Value r d
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion - -
' '..Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100Points)
7?1

'
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (Them criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
S. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) -
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part V1 above or a local
site assassrnent/ 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes 0 No O
Reason For Sion:
tSvc lnstructiom an ruversesickI Form AD-1006 0003)