NCDOT 99-96 Coast Guard Permit Application Wiccacon River

t - aSTAA ECEIVED
R
g DEC 12 1997
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201.RALEIGH,N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 3, 1997
Commander(OAN)
Fifth U. S. Coast Guard District
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Virginia 23705
ATTENTION: Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Chief
Bridge Section
SUBJECT: Application for Coast Guard Permit for: The Proposal Replacement of Bridge
No. 23 on NC-45 over the Wiccacon River in Hertford County; Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) No. B-1231; State Project No. 8.1070401; Federal
Aid No. BRS-5053(2).
Application is hereby made by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways for approval by the Commandant, U. S. Coast Guard(USCG), of the location and
plans for the construction of a fixed span bridge to replace the existing bridge over the Wiccacon
River, approximately 2.2 road miles northwest of the town of Harreisville in Hertford County.
Plans call for the replacement structure to be constructed slightly north(downstream) of the
existing structure (see attached plans).
Existing Bridge
Specifically, the proposal provides for the replacement of an aging (1940) structure which has a
substructure of creosoted timber caps and piles, and reinforced concrete caps on timber piles; end
bents are of creosoted timber caps and piles with timber bulkheads. Multiple (14) spans at 22
feet and a main span of 69 feet comprise the 379 feet length of the existing structure. The main
span, which contains a timber fender system, provides for navigational clearances of 58 feet •
horizontally and 25 feet vertically.
Proposal Bridge
The replacement structure consists of five spans, including two at 89 feet-10 inches, one each at
80 feet, 90 feet and 91 feet-3.4 inches. The main channel span will provide for navigational
clearances of 85 feet-2 inches horizontally and 20 feet vertically (measured from normal high
water). The overall bridge length will be increased to 441 feet. The existing fender system will
not be replaced.

Ms. Ann Deaton, Chief
December 3, 1997
Page 2
Federal Funds
Federal funds will be utilized and have been applied or under the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project code for this
action is BRS-5053(2).
Other Regulatory Actions
The original proposal (+/- 15 foot vertical clearance) was authorized by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 under Nationwide Permit 23; the state Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) under Section 401 Water Quality Certificate No. 3025; and, the Division of Coastal
Management(DCM)under Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit No. 99-96. Due to
additional environmental impacts that will result from the new design, the departmen}'is in the
process of re-applying to each of these agencies for re-authorizations. Informal discussions with
the COE and the DWQ suggest that such authorizations are likely to be issued only with
commitments to compensatory mitigation for the additional wetland impacts that will ensue from
the design revision. Once these state and federal authorizations have been obtained they will be
forwarded to you.
NEPA Actions
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the human
environment, and accordingly, authorized the project as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance
with 23 CFR 771.115 (b) (g). A copy of the Categorical Exclusion, which was approved by the
FHWA in June 1986, was previously provided to your office.
Sensitive Resources
There are no wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges, recreational areas, public parks or historic sites in
the project study area. Furthermore, a study by a staff biologist has concluded that no federally
protected species or their habitat will be affected by the proposal action. Anticipated impacts to
a high quality swamp forest will total 1.11 acres for the current proposal (440 foot bridge with a
20 foot vertical clearance). The original proposal (362 foot bridge with+/- 15 foot vertical
clearance)would have impacted approximately 1.05 acres of wetland, whereas a 362 foot long
bridge with a 20-foot vertical clearance would impact 1.20 acres.
Legal Authority
Legal authority for the proposal bridge replacement project is found in the General Bridge Act of
1946. As indicated above, application for other state and federal authorizations are underway.
The existing bridge and obsolete approachway sections will be demolished and removed
immediately upon completion of the replacement structure and its approachways. Construction
is scheduled for Summer 1998.

Ms. Ann Deaton, Chief
December 3, 1997
Page 3
Please find enclosed one (1) original and three (3) copies of the U. S. Coast Guard drawings for
the project. Your assistance in expediting this application, including initiation of your
public notice, is respectfully requested. Should you have any questions or comments, please
contact Mr. Randall Turner, Division Environmental Officer, at(919) 482-7977.
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mrt
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John R. Parker, Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh
Mr. Terry Moore, Division of Coastal Management, Washington District Office
Mr. Mike Bell, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington
Mr. Raleigh Bland, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., Department of Transportation, Highway Design Branch
Mr. D. R. Conner, P. E., Department of Transportation, Division One
Mr. M. Randall Turner, Department of Transportation, P & E

—.-•-••••• •,gill ..
t �i r I - • •� R/ItR •
IE10 I 1•.. 1 ,'ul• \
,
I , I, 1''•
vE •'rwr.
N 1/ ,
1./f �•
'441 140 1,,,7; ,
i \ %ICCI4C°S / in
krip, P , 4
I r u
:;; 1 NI. L, 1••1
�1—
(1• c, I.I 4:C ...
51 IU.�LAIUE �`1•..
� 1•l. ' VCR.III 1
PROJECT: 8.1070401 •,' \Li ,. ..
ElA•.cA r
143
.. /
1 I {.N.A.m. 1 ,
* SR 1400 SCALE
ai /-��' I 0 I 2 3 4 MILES
•�WIi
•i� 5R14a5
C
sR1a•s VI INITY MAP
R1443
...c;• 46 .
„.+ •
lift RI I,4,1z
• t %.
1 --1 —
ill
L .." ".c
eoti r
0 SHEET I OF 3
.\_--'a 30 r v STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
SCALE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE
1 o I MILE OVER WICCACON RIVER
Imem, Pl. HERTFORD CO NTY
SUBMITTED BY :
LOCATION M AP CHIEF ENGINEER
DRAWN BY : C LEDBETTER DATE ll-
CHECKED BY : 4A. VW MS•v DATE :

440'-II3/8' (FILL FACE TO FILL FACE)
80'-0' 90'-0' 89'-IO' 89'-IO' .. 91'-3 3/8'
' 85'-2' HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE
I /
3 ,. .,
1 ,/
, -LREV.- TO NC 561�
108 *-00'-00' if
, I I EXIST. STRUCTURE TO
TO SRI443 :;/ c; I ri :r BE REMOVED (TYP.)
:: it
:;I
\\:: I :: .! .2 .... .2 , ... .2 ...:
I o I /' 60 0 20 80
/ / Q �N am
/ u I / SCALE
3c, PLAN
N.H.W. EL. 1.6 N.L.W. EL. 1.4 EXISTING FENDER SYSTEM
CLEARN VERTICAL (TO BE REMOVED)
GP ELEV 2I_994 - , ^ A- - - -
APPROX. NATURALGROUND _21.0 STA1(a M CARONA
GROUND LINE EL. ± DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PALM
76'-5' CLEAR PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE
OVER W ICCACON IV
ELEVATION HERT FOR C
suBwrrrEo err
I NOMNEER
,PROJECT : 8.1070401 mow err CD. ER DATE , II•J97
CHECKED Br r CATMpYP51pv DATE r ►/•3,97
FEDERAL FUNDS WILL BE USED TO FINANCE THIS PROJECT.

8' 12' !Le 12' ..— 8' 12'
I"/FT. 1/4" .F I/4"/Fit. I"/FT.
6I 31
9 I/4
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION
I'- 6 I/2" 30'- 0" I'- 61/2"
Row Y. PROJECT: 8.1070401
. I/4"/FT I/4"/FT. _ j FEDERAL FUNDS WILL BE
g A Yi( A t ' USED TO FINANCE T HIS
PROJECT.
T
1
1
T Ii HW• EL. 3.2
I I I I EL.I.6
. I 1
SHEET 3 OF 3
STATE OF NORTH cARoa.0
I,— 11• spi L.L7' 7' 7' 7' I1_ I I" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RAIEIGH
31'— 10" PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BR IDG.
OVER WICCACON RIVER
HERTFORD COU TY
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION SUBMITTED
IEF NGINEER
DRAWN Br : C. DBETTER DATE : I1-4
CHECKED BY : 4.A. 7740MPsorJ DATE : II-4-

i a
e"'SUS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201,RALEIGH.N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 3, 1997
Mr. Michael D. Smith, Asst. Chief
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Smith:
SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC 45 over the Wiccacon River in
Hertford County;( TIP)No. B-1231; State Project No. 81070401; Federal Aid
Project No. BRS-5053(2).
The Department of Transportation recently reapplied to the U. S. Coast Guard for authorization
to proceed with a revised proposal for the subject project. As you are aware, the department's
original proposal was to replace the existing 25-foot vertical clearance bridge with a structure
that would provide+/- 15 feet of vertical clearance. The proposed length of the new structure
would have been 362 feet. Based on objections from adjacent landowners, who argued that the
planned reduction in vertical navigation clearance would result in personal hardships, the Coast
Guard did not authorize the proposal. The department's original design would have impacted
1.05 acres of forested wetlands, the majority of which is a high quality swamp forest.
The department's current proposal is to replace the existing bridge with a structure that will
provide 20 feet of vertical navigation clearance. This proposal also includes a longer bridge in
order to minimize impacts to high quality forested wetlands. The newly proposed structure will
be 440 feet long. Anticipated wetland impacts total 1.11 acres.
In evaluating design options, the department considered an alternative that would provide a
20-foot vertical clearance while maintaining the originally proposed bridge length of 362 feet.
This structure would have impacted 1.20 acres of wetlands. The decision to lengthen the bridge
to 440 feet, at an increased expenditure of approximately $100,000, was made in the interest of
minimizing impacts to wetlands.
Although the Regulatory Branch approved the department's original proposal under a
Nationwide 23 authorization, design revisions necessitated by the Coast Guard have resulted in
an increase in impacts to Section 404 wetlands. However, steps have been taken to minimize

Mr. Smith
December 3, 1997
Page 2
these impacts and, in fact, the department has reduced impact from 1.20 to 1.11 acres by
lengthening the proposed replacement structure as described above. In addition, the Department
has committed to the removal of all obsolete approachway fills to original contours.
By copy of this letter, the department is requesting authorization of its current proposal by the
Division of Water Quality under Section 401. Based upon recent discussions with Cindy Bell,
the department will be obligated to provide compensatory mitigation for the anticipated 1.11
acres of impacts to wetlands. The department is willing to propose a 1:1 replacement
(1.11 acres) from the restoration component at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site, or provide
$26,640 to the WRP (based upon unit cost of$24,000 per acre for riparian wetland replacement.
In a related,but separate matter, the Division of Coastal Management has indicated that the
department's current proposal can be reauthorized with a minor CAMA Permit refinement letter.
The department will be pursuing this matter in the immediate future. It is assumed that any
response the Regulatory Branch intends to make will occur through General Permit 291
coordination.
Thank you for the time and effort your staff has invested on this project to date. Hopefully, these
efforts will result in a successful project for all interested parties. Should you have any questions
or comments, please call Mr. M. Randall Turner at [phone].
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mrt
cc: Cindy Bell, Division of Water Quality
Bill Brazier, U. S. Corps of Engineers
Terry Moore, Division of Coastal Management
D. R. Conner, P. E., North Carolina Department of Transportation
M. Randall Turner,North Carolina Department of Transportation

.• J , ‘ 1.11 \
a " -......
MD ■I I... 1 �;I.'. \
•• ID1 • ,, 11
_- 1.d
' '''..:1• •
(
7 ..I i/
I•q f IM.1
HILLS
\ C� RBI
414114
V I
1,1.13
7 t u
•-_. 1.
• � `uw .7�. :1.. I.!
�„ i�S.Rf ,? '• _ •1 � 7
PROJECT: 8.1070401 P51 „, c.c., woe —
5 'fin '',. ,../ ;'; • ,wadi -,._rj 4
11 MKh.aaa \
SR 1400
SCALE
V O. I 0 I 2 3 4 MILES
011"/ l t - I I I 1
•
•0 SR 11 t 5
o
" �
$R1445 VICINITY M A P
R1443
.'.c; 46 .
•
Mak 1'F R
• I (iblZ", Nil N
1 1
`L . � 4
,� ,ti it
�` SHEET I OF 3
1 t�0 r •,�' `'L-
STATE 0► WITH CAROLMA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
SCALE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE
I 0 I MILE OVER WICCACON RIVER
omidm , ^ HERTFORD CO NTY
SUBMITTED Br :
LQ _ I10N M AP CHIEF ENGINEER
DRAWN BY : C LEDBETTER DATE : /I-

440'-II %' (FILL FACE TO FILL FACE)
80'-0' ... 90'-0' 89'-10' 89'-I0' 91'-3 %'
IT /
85'-2' HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE
I /
liri — / — 1 a/ / , _ [dA TO NC 561
-LREV.
I EXIST. STRUCTURE TO
TO SRI443 ::/' ': 1 :: :: ;1 :KBE REMOVED (TYP.)
:I
\\ V I :., !! !? t! .. , .! - ...:
I o I /' 60 0 20 80
3 SCALE
' PLAN
N.H.W. EL. 1.6 N.L.W. EL. 1.4 EXISTING FENDER SYSTEM
GEAR NCE ICAL (TO BE REMOVED)
GP ELEV 21_994 - - •I I\ 9., - -- - - - - - - _ - - - - - -
7
- ,.
\ _ ..
..:
..
.. 1 ii - - - - - -A
_` - _ SHEET 2
GROUND .. NATURAL EL. -210± STAR a Nonni Curaw
GROUND LINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
76'-5' CLEAR modsPROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRIDGE
OVER W ICCACON IV
ELEVATION HERTFOR C
SUBMITTED Br r
I MGINEER
AI
PROJECT : 8.1070401 DRAWN Br r CD. ER DATE r 1,-3-97
. -- , r.r „4-rn Tn rmI A Pirr Tine nnn irrT CHECKED Br r GATHONPSnw DATE r 1 F•3-97

8' 12' 12' - 8' . 12'
\'‘\.7...,,,_..,„,,,,,,,,"„,...,../... .-------
I"/FT. I/4'� F . 1/4"/Fir. I"/FT.
6 ! 31
91/4 GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION
I'- 6 1/2" L. 30'- O" I'- 6 1/2"
ROW Y. PROD ECT: 8.10704 (
11 _ I/4"/FT t 1/4"/FT _ 4 FEDERAL FUNDS WILL BE
c 1 y ) USED TO FINANCE THIS
1 :I k PROJECT.
I
I 4
_ : I HW• EL. 3.2
1 I I I I E L.I.6
SHEET 3 OF 3
sT*Tn or NORTH CAROCN.
1'- I II 7' 7' 7' 7' 0. .4 I'— I I" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATID
31'- 10" .. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BR 1
OVER WICCACON RIVER
HERTFORD COU TY
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION SUBMITTED BY :
IEF GINEER
DRAWN BY : C. DBETTER DATE : f 1-
CHFI'KFD BY : C,A_ 7701•gpsonl D4TF : Il

S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX25201. RALEIGH.N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR March 18, 1997 SECRETARY
Commander (OAN)
Fifth U. S. Coast Guard District
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Virginia 23705
ATTN: Ms. Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Specialist
Dear Ms. Deaton:
Subject: Hertford County, North Carolina; Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on NC 45 over
the LViccacon River; TIP(Transportation Improvement Program) No. B-1231;
State Project No. 8.1070401; Federal Aid No. BRS-5053(2)
On September 20, 1995 the North Carolina Department of Transportation applied for
Coast Guard authorization to replace the subject bridge structure. The Department's proposal
is to replace the old (c. 1940) bridge, having a 25-ft. vertical clearance, with a new structure
having a 15-ft. vertical clearance.*
On July 31, 1996 the Coast Guard notified the Department that the permit would not
be approved for the proposed bridge replacement. The Coast Guard's disapproval was stated
to be based primarily upon objections from two adjacent property owners. The substance of
these objections can be summarized as follows:
1. Property Owner A 's stated intentions to use his Wiccacon River property as a
port of refuge for his 52-ft. long sportfishing boat during hurricanes that threaten
his permanent port in II/forehead City, and
�. Property Owner B's implied future intentions to use barge(s) to haul logs
presumably from properly located upstream of the bridge site.
In response, the Department feels that, as a matter of public policy, it is imprudent to
allow the narrowly-defined interests of one or two landowners to dictate the design
parameters of a public transportation facility. The Department must plan, design and build
transportation improvements that will safeguard the overall public's interests. It is not
*Note: It is important to point out that the vertical clearance of the proposed bridge will be 15 feet above
normal water level(NW!.), not 13 ft.-7 in. The 13 ft.-7 in. vertical clearance, noted on drawings and in
correspondence provided to the Coast Guard and the Division of Coastal Management, erroneously
contrasts the existing 25-ft. vertical clearance, measured at NWT, with the proposed structure's anticipated
vertical clearance at a recorded high water elevation.

Page Two
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
uncommon, in fact it is rather routine, for individuals with property interests (present or
future) to object to one or more aspects of a transportation proposal. These interests are
often sincere, but are narrowly-focused on specific needs and/or demands of one, or a
small faction of individuals. Unless these interest coincide with those of the overall public,
or unless the objection can be accommodated without compromising project objectives,
i.e., safety, transportation integrity, cost, etc., the Department has an overriding obligation
to defend its proposal on behalf of the public good.
Regarding the first objection (1), there is no question that numerous alternate ports
of refuge are available to boatsmen whose home port is Morehead City. To concede to
this objection would lend credibility to requests from any adjacent landowner (who might
also be part-time residents) to lengthen, shorten, raise or relocate a structure, which is
scheduled for replacement, simply because they would not be able to get maximum usage
from some aspect of their personal property otherwise. In this instance, the Department is
aware that it is proposing to modify an existing use. The Department completed a federal
Categorical Exclusion study in 1986, followed by a reevaluation which was published in
1994. The resulting environmental document addressed a full range of topics, including
cultural resources, natural resources, social impacts, and air and noise analyses.
Interviews with local residents were undertaken to assess trends of waterway usage. The
conclusion from these surveys was that only small recreational/pleasure craft up to 22 feet
in length were using the waterway. Based upon this study and the response from the
public during the public hearing, it was reasonable for the Department to conclude that a
lower profile, less disruptive and expensive replacement structure would accommodate the
pattern of usage that had been established in the 1980's. All things considered, this
objection appears to be without merit.
With regard to the second objection (2), it is important to point out that currently
only one firm is transporting logs via barges in northeastern North Carolina. According to
N. C. Forestry professionals in eastern North Carolina, it is generally not economically
feasible to harvest and load logs directly onto barges at a harvest site. Harvested logs are
normally transported via surface transportation to staging areas and in some instances it is
feasible to load onto barges for final transport to the processor. If the timber stocks are
located on flooded swamp forests adjacent to the river, it is unlikely that traditional,
mechanized timber harvests would be permissible under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Non-traditional harvesting, i.e., helicopter or cabling out via winches to barges,
would probably not be practicable. Again, in this instance the Department feels that
attempts to accommodate the desires of a local, part-time resident, who may, or may not
find it expedient to transport logs in the future from parcels located upstream of the
bridge, is to subjugate the overall public's interest. The record will reflect that the
Department is always receptive to comments and criticism from individuals or groups of
individuals, but, in the final analysis, the interest of the collective public are usually the
most compelling. It is on behalf of the larger public interest that the Department petitions
the Coast Guard for a review and reevaluation of its permit decision.

Page Three
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
Following a review of all aspects of the subject project, the Department has
concluded that is should continue to pursue authorization of its original design. In
addition to comments made above, numerous other factors were evaluated in making this
decision. These factors are summarized below:
• Federal Highway Administration approved Categorical Exclusion for project
on April 21, 1994.
During the investigation that preceded publication of the Categorical Exclusion document,
it was determined that the only water-borne craft which utilized the river were small, recreational
boats up to 22 feet in length. Based upon this data, the Department could not justify the
expenditure of the additional funds required to purchase excess right of way and construction costs
to build a new bridge with the same vertical clearance as the existing structure.
• Section 401 Permit was issued on May 13, 1996 by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) of the NC Department of-Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR).
• Section 10 and Section 404 authorizations issued by U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Nationwide 23: CFR 330.5 [a] 23).
• Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit was issued on June 26, 1996 by
the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) of the NCDEHNR.
The adjacent landowner notification process is a mandatory prerequisite of the CAMA
permit process. The DCM received adverse comments from the adjacent property owners,
presumably similar to those received by the Coast Guard. However,the DCM decided to issue a
CAMA Major Development Permit on the merits of the proposal, which were ultimately
determined to be in the overall publics interest. While the DCM is charged under CAMA to make
its permit decisions only after consideration of a wide range of issues, navigation and public trust
issues were among the more important factors evaluated during that agency's deliberations.
• Elevated bridge design will impact more wetlands.
Redesign of the bridge replacement to conform to the existing vertical clearance will
necessitate impacts to an additional 10,000 square feet of palustrine forested wetlands. Under the
strict application of the 404b(1)guidelines, the Department would have difficulty justifying this
additional impact, since its preferred alternative would avoid and/or minimize impacts, as
compared to the elevated bridge design. The Department has reason to believe that the Corps of
Engineers (Section 404) and the Division of Water Quality (Section 401) would object to the
elevated bridge design on the basis of"avoidance/minimization".
• Additional design and anticipated construction costs estimated at $189,000
would be needed to accommodate the elevated bridge project, as compared to
the recommended design.

Page Four
March 18, 1997
Ms. Deaton
• Additional right of way expenditures are anticipated to accommodate the larger
footprint that would be required with the elevated bridge structure.
• Project completion date would be delayed more than 1 year from date decision is
made to shift to elevated bridge design. This delay will lead to additional cost
increases. Under the existing, recommended design, construction letting could
be scheduled within weeks of permit approval.
It cannot be over-emphasized that the Department has no intentions of initiating a
highway improvement project which will not be in the best interest of the general public.
Consequently, it is requested the Coast Guard reconsider its previous decision and
authorize the project as originally proposed. We believe that when all economic and
environmental factors are considered, the alternative selected is in the best interest of our
state. Your assistance in expediting this review and reexamination will be appreciated.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. If you need additional information,
please call M. Randall Turner at [phone].
Sincere! ,
//1
y • ,VICw�
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/eah
cc: John Parker, DCM
John Dorney, DWQ
Michael Bell, COE
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., NCDOT
D. R. Conner, P.E., NCDOT
M. Randall Turner, NCDOT