19951086 Ver 1_Complete File_19951010

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
1771
TO:
G4'%c /' 1.74 &fL? REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
p'w - m
FRO REF. NO. ROOM. BLDG.
[?T [ /
i c e e amen
v
ACTION '
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR-IMQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS -' ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ". ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

APR, 2 9 1994
WETLX%-;)S u
WATER Una. T.:.:.
V" +l
- A ,
.wSTATEo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 26, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-2830; Greene County

The scoping meeting scheduled on May 5, 1994 at 9:30 A. M. for the
subject bridge replacement project has been cancelled.
B-2603 (9:00 A. ?.) and B-2855 (2:00 P. M.) will be held as scheduled.
¦4
?Y M Ado
@ aw.+®•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 6, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 23 on
NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, Greene County, B-2830
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for May 5, 1994 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Michele James, Bridge Replacement Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. r
MJ/plr w --
Attachment
/ L/Ij,
.r
BR I D(,]-.
PROJECT S(;OPING SHEET
DATE --lr'_?! -
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN ----- -- _._?
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F_A_ PROJECT
DIVISION
COUNTY - ----( REENE_ -
ROUTE 1a3
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 123, BRIDGE #23, GREENE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER CONTENTNEA CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
I_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3_ RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALIlT,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: (?> t%?
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR
TTST _l DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENG'T'H METERS;
FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE :
VPD
WIDTH ..__ 7=3 METERS
_ 2-4 FEET
BR:LDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
CULVERT - _X-- METERS
X _ FEET
DETOUR STS-tUCTURE :
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
METERS
FEET
METERS
FEET
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ------------------- s
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS---------------------------------- $
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- s
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 850,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ------------------------------- $ 50,000
SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- 900,000
PRIOR YEARS COST --------------------------------
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- zb yuv,vvv
BRIT iGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENT'S:
PROJECT NUMBERS, HYDRAULIC Tit-2!A'TTOr3, AND
TRAFFIC ESTIMATES WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE
SCOPING MEETING.
PREPAIEll BY: M I CH E T,E JAMES
DATE: MARCH 31, 1994
N 6 ..w n•n
401 ISSUED
951w1
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
November 10, 1995
.a
Fn.
a
U?i 101/
Regulatory Branch 6 69 5
T,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Green County, Replacement of Bridge No. 23 over Contentnea Creek on
NC 123, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-123(1), State Aid Project No.
8.1180501, T.I.P.,No. B-2830, Corps of Engineers Action I.D.
199600139.
This is in response to your October 30, 1995 letter concerning the
subject project. On October 6, 1995 the North Carolina Department of
Transportation distributed a Categorical Exclusion document for the above
referenced project. We identified that the project was being processed by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b) and proposed to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A-(B-23). Bridge No. 23 will be
replaced at its existing location with a bridge 96 meters (316 feet) long and
9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Calculation indicating the wetland areas to be
filled permanently and temporarily are included in the CE on pages 4 and 9
and on Figure 2.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site detour
located east (downstream) of the existing bridge. The Department of
Transportation will notify the Corps of Engineers when the detour bridge and
temporary fill is removed.
In our October 6, 1995 letter we identified that construction of the
proposed project will result in approximately 0.28 acres of permanent and
0.14 acres of temporary jurisdictional wetland impacts. The correct area is
0.11 hectares (0.28 acres) of permanent and 0.14 hectares (0.35 acres) of
temporary jurisdictional wetland impacts.
As noted above the project is being processed as a CE by the Federal
Highway Administration and meets the requirements for a NWP No. 23. A
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) was prepared to document the
n
0

f
Nove;r., ?,, p_i995
Page 2
project resources and assist in the preparation of the CE. A copy of the
NRTR is enclosed for your use. Information similar to the data required on
the wetland determination forms is included in the NRTR. Specifically, soils
and vegetation data are reported on page two, water resource information on
page five and impact data on pages 3, 5, and 6. According to the NRTR the
soils are Lumbee sandy loam and Kinston loam. The SCS in the Soil Survey of
Green County report both of these soils as typically having Munsell hue
ratings of 10YR, values of 3 to 6 and chroma 1 to 2.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms.-Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincerel ,
H. ran lin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
IMr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. G. R. Shirley, Jr., P. E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Y. Baldwin, Planning and Environmental Project Manager

a

Replacement of Bridge # 23
On NC 123
Over Contentnea Creek
Greene County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-2830
State Project No. 8.1180501
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-2830
Prepared for:
MA.Engineering Consultants, Inc.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Ecological Consultants
3403 Long Ridge Road
• Durham, North Carolina 27703
March 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 Introduction ................ .................................. 1
1.1 Project Description .......................................... 1
1.2 Purpose... .............................................. 1
1.3 Methodology ............................................... 1
1.4 Project Area ................................................ 2
1.5 Physiography and Soils ....................................... 2
2.0 Biotic Resources .......... ....... 2
2
2.1 Plant Communities ...........................................
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities ......................... 3
2.3 Wildlife ................................................... 4
2.3.1 Terrestrial ............................................ 4
2.3.2 Aquatic .............................................. 4
if 4
2.4 e .................................
Anticipated Impacts to Wildl
0
3 Water Resources .................................................. 5
. 5
3.1 Waters Impacted ............................................
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality ...................... . 5
6
3.3 Stream Characteristics ....................................... .
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .......................... 6
4.0 Special Topics ................................................... 6
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................... 6
4.1.1 Permits ............................................. 6
2 Mitigation ...........................................
4
1 7
4.2 .
.
Rare and Protected Species .................................... 7
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .............................. 7
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species ............................... 7
4.2.3 State Protected Species ................................. 7
8
5.0 References ......................................................

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document for the project.
1.1 Project Description
One alternative is proposed. Alternative 1 is to replace the bridge at the existing location
with a two-lane bridge approximately 96.3 m (316 ft) long and 7.7 m (25.4 ft) wide. The
recommended temporary on-site detour structure is a bridge approximately 96.3 in (316 ft) long
and 7.7 m (25.4 ft) wide located west of the existing bridge.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources identified
within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources. Specifically, the
tasks performed for this study include: 1) an assessment of biological features within the study
corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water
quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from the
following sources including: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
water quality classification (Neuse River Basin), DEM Point Source Discharge Report for
Contentnea Creek, DEM Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey for the
Neuse River Basin, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Hookerton,
N.C.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) data base of uncommon and protected species and unique
habitats, and aerial photography (scale l: 1200) furnished by the NCDOT.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignments on October 26,
1994. Plant communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements were walked and
visually observed for significant features. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques; active searching and capture, visual observations (binocular), and recording
identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, and burrows). Cursory surveys of the aquatic
habitats were conducted using a long-handled triangular sweep net. Organisms captured were
identified and then released. Alternative 1 impact calculations include 24 m (80 ft) width for the
existing alignment and 18 m (60 ft) for the on-site temporary detour alignment.
1.4 Project Area
. The proposed project occurs in a rural area of Greene County approximately 0.8 km (0.5
mi) northeast of Hookerton, North Carolina (Figure 1). Land-use is forested and urban/disturbed
areas. Forested areas are located adjacent to the Contentnea Creek. Urban/Disturbed areas are
lands adjacent to the existing bridge and road.
1.5 Physiography and Soils
- Greene County is located within the Lower Coastal Plain. The sediment of the Coastal
Plain is derived from soil material washed from the uplands and deposited as alluvium in
drainageways and on floodplains or terraces. Topography is characterized by gradual relief,
resulting in moderate drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 3 m (10 ft)
along the river bottom to 4.9 m (16 ft) along the roadway upland areas.
Greene County is underlain by unconsolidated rock material, sand, silt, and clay. Local
changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock
type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Lumbee sandy loam and Kinston loam. Kinston
loam soils are poorly drained and frequently flooded. Lumbee sandy loam are poorly drained
and found on smooth flat areas of stream terraces. Lumbee sandy loam and Kinston loam soils
are hydric or have hydric soils as a major component.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 Plant Communities
Two distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described
below.
Bottomland Hardwoods
This community (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods - Brownwater Subtype) is found
along Contentnea Creek and terraces adjacent to the existing roadway and bridge. The canopy is
composed of water oak ( uercus ni a), red maple (Acer rubrum), riverbirch (Betula ni a ,
sweetgum (Liquidambar st)raiflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix
nigra), and loblolly pine (Pinus Leda). Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus
American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and American holly (Ilex .
Baca). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of water oak, American elm, highbush blueberry
(Vaccinium atrococcum), possum haw (Ilex decidua), and cane (Arundinaria i antea . The
herb/vine layer is sparse and composed of Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).

Greene County
NC-123 over Contentnea Creek
Bridge #23
B-2830
0 i?iitc5
I'I(Tt )Kr. )
uiviotuo %jr n+vca ..n•+
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IV-71 BRANCH
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed roadside and bridge margins, and an
open field adjacent to the existing road. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses,
vines, and herbs including: Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 'a oaf nica), grape (Vitis =.),
trumpet creeper (Camnsis radicans), rose (Rosa =.), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
nla?!neuron), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), goldenrod (Solids o spy.), and grasses. The
canopy is spare and composed of riverbirch and loblolly pine (Pims- taeda). The shrub/sapling
layer is composed of loblolly pine. The sub-canopy includes mimosa (Albizia julibrissin).
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system
present in the study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire
proposed right-of-way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and
therefore actual impacts may be less. The following table summarizes potential plant
community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacement.
-------
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
----------------------------------
-----------------------
PLANT COMMUNITIES ESTIMATED IMPACT
Alt. 1 Perm. Alt. 1 Temp.
Bottomland Hardwoods 0.11 (0.28) 0.14 (0.35)
Urban/Disturbed 0.11 0.28 0.!!A. 451
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.32 (0.80)
--------- - - - ------- - ------------ - ----- - --------- - -------------- - -------- - ------- - - - - ----
Note Values in hectares (acres); Perm. = Permanent Impacts, Temp. = Temporary Impacts.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Alternative 1 is not expected to
result in significant adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements
occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits, and bottomland hardwood forest edges
which currently do not support significant communities.
3
2.3 Wildlife
2.3.1 Terrestrial
The project area consists of a combination of forested areas, bridge and roadside
development, and rural countryside. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for residential and
commercial uses has eliminated much cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species
nearby the project area. Even so, remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly
the forested area adjacent to the Contentnea Creek and associated ecotomes, do serve as valuable
habitat. The forest bordering Contentnea Creek has all the necessary components (food, water,
protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following
species of mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virni? niana) and white-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus).
The observed bird species are typical of rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types
are available. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Contentnea Creek include
barred owl (Strix varia), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), an d common crow (Corvus
brachvrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake
(Thgmnophis sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
caroling), pickerel frog (Rana a1Q ustris), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei).
2.3.2 Aquatic
Contentnea Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Game fish
species present are redbreast sunfish (Lepo_mis auritus), common carp (Cyprinus caroio), catfish
(Ictalurus spy.), striped bass (Roccus saxatilis), alewife (Alosa pseudoharen ugus) and shad (Alosa
sapid-, issima).
Contentnea Creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat
for amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
northern dusky salamander (Desmosnathus fuscus), frogs (Rana sW.), green frog (Rana
clamitans), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and several snake species.
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
The proposed action will not result in significant loss or displacement of known
terrestrial plant or animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include
Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by
opportunistic plant species such as Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents,
lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts. The hardwood forest
areas bordering Contentnea Creek will receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area.
4
Contentnea Creek should continue to provide adequate. habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and
birds.
The proposed action can potentially have substantial affects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless strict sediment control measures are taken. The disturbance of the river bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic
invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches. The project lies in a
known anadromous fish spawning area including possibly striped bass, alewife, and shad. An
in-stream construction moratorium is likely during the spring migration period for these species.
.3.0 WATER RESOURCES
3.1 Waters Impacted
Bridge #23 crosses Contentnea Creek approximately 64 km (40 mi) downstream of its
origin near Wilson, North Carolina. Contentnea Creek flows southeast into the Neuse River near
Grifton, North Carolina.
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing
or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD
1993). Contentnea Creek is Class C Sw NSW stream, indicating waters which are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture; and
a supplemental classification for swamp waters, waters which have low velocities and other
natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams; and a second supplemental
classification for nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report lists six
sources (GSH Corporation, Hookerton WWTP, Maury Sanitary Land District, Snow Hill
WWTP, Snow Hill Tape Corporation, and Maury Launderette) within four miles upstream of the
proposed crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II
Waters occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site. The project site is within an
anadromous fish spawning area. Fishery resources in Contentnea Creek may include
anadromous striped bass, alewife, and shad.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in
water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain
organisms are sensitive to very subtile changes in water quality. Good water quality is .
associated with high taxa richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence
of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive
species and leads to a community structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody.
There are no BMAN sampling stations on streams in the immediate vicinity of the project.
3.3 Stream Characteristics
Contentnea Creek originates approximately 64 km (40 mi) -upstream near Wilson, North
Carolina. The creek was approximately 27 m (90 ft) in width below the existing bridge. Water
depth varied from approximately 61 cm (2 ft) to 1.5 m (5 ft). Flow was moderate below the
bridge. The water color was clear. Substrate was sand and silt.
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts can be minimized by the use
of best management practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures during construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements. The new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity.
Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated
road shoulders and limited use of ditching where ever possible.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project
construction. Approximately 0.24 hectares (0.60 acres) for Alternative 1 of Palustrine forested
broad-leaved deciduous wetlands and-0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of Riverine Lower Perennial
unconsolidated bottom wetlands with 0.11 hectares (0.28 acres) permanent and 0.14 hectares
(0.35 acres) temporary wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) with the
current project design.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be meet; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma
values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil
surface for a portion (5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
4.1.1 Permits
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23,
for impacts to surface waters of the Contentnea Creek, is likely to be applicable if the WRC
certifies that construction of this project will not adversely affect these waters. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or
in part, by another Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined
6
that the activity is categorically excluded from the environmental documentation, because it will
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects. authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. However, utilization of best management
practices (BMP's) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988
Amendments). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned
due to potential vulnerability. As of November 17, 1994, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists
no federally protected species for Greene County.
Biological Conclusion: Construction of this project will not adversely impact any federally
protected plant or animal species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species
There is one C2 federal candidate species listed for Greene County. The wireleaf
dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) has a state status of threatened and suitable habitat is not
found within the study area.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. This species is
mentioned here for information purposes, should it become federally protected in the future.
Specific surveys for this species was not conducted, nor was this species observed during the site
visit.
4.2.3 State Protected Species
.
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.
12 et seq.). NC Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state
listed species occurring within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site.
7
REFERENCES
Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina. The North
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deeywater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical
- Report Y-87-1, USACOEWES, Vicksburg, Miss.
Gibbs, L.C. 1987. Weeds of the Southern United States. Univ. of Georgia College of
Agriculture.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distribution Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. Museum of Natural History, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Harrison, III, and J. Dermid. 1986. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, The University of North Carolina Press.
Murie, O.J. 1975. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
NCDNRCD. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Water of the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Division of Environment Management, Raleigh, N.C..
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Jeulings. 1986. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C.
SCS,:1993. Soil Survey for Greene County. North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritaie Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
ia
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr.. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas. Virgin
and Maryland, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.

M SU1Ed
? s 5 VVV
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
October 6, 1995
RECEIVED
OCi101995
EWIRONMEN
^71A!MTAL SCIENCES
A4
Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Greene County, Replacement of Bridge No. 23 over Contentnea Creek
on NC 123, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-123(1), State Aid Project
No. 8.1180501,1, T.I.P. No. B-2830.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project: Bridge No. 23 will be replaced at its existing
location with a bridge 96 meters (316 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet)
wide. Traffic will be maintained during construction during an on-site
detour located east (downstream) of the existing bridge. Construction of the
proposed project will result in approximately 0.28 acres of permanent and
0.14 acres of temporary jurisdictional weO's The project is being processed by th y Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance w 15(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an indivi propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance wdix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Department of Environmental Management, for their review.
0

October 6, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Since ely,
ranklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Lekson, Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. G. R. Shirley, P. E., Division 2 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Y. Baldwin, P&E Project Engineer
a
adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements occur primarily within
disturbed right-of-way limits, and bottomland hardwood forest edges which currently do not support
significant communities.
The proposed action will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or
animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood
Forested areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as Japanese
honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from
construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering Contentnea Creek will receive
disturbances next to the existing bridge area. Contentnea Creek should continue to provide adequate
habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the river bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches. The project lies in a known anadromous fish
spawning area including possibly river herring, American shad, and hickory shad. Mr. Mike Street,
(N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries) emphasized the necessity for an in-stream construction
moratorium from February 15 through May 31, to ensure that water quality during the spawning
season would not be reduced.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
10
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented. Fill
material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to
the extent reasonably possible, to promote the regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial impact.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
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 Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
11
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
David Brook, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in response to a scoping letter
responded in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994, that:
It is likely that we will recommend an archaeological survey for this project, but we
are unable to complete our review without project details and location. Please forward
them as soon as they are available.
When available, design plans will be forwarded to the NCSBPO for continued review of the potential
impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the proposed project's area
of potential effect.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project is located in Greene County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
12
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Greene County has had special flood hazard ares identified and is not a participant in the National
Flood Insurance Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in
Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be -affected is not considered to be substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no buildings or residences located within the limits of the 100-
year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
13
Greene County
NC-123 over Contentnea Creek
Bridge #23
B-2830
0 miles 2
H(iUKE 1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY6
RA H G AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IY71 B

NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3

N
F-
N
CL

'4
J
N
CL
N
F-
z
0
F-
U
w
N
S ?
U Z
Q
O
CL x
d w
<
J
<
U
CL
}
F-
N
F-
N
CL

UJ I
J
N
CL
N
F-
L•
O

Z
LU
F 2

CL. } O
L!l :.G
L
3
>
<Zxz
U
ul
0
° co
?
?
x 5 M
0<?
O o y N O
t"
V
UOZZT
o U o
41) 00
o WN
?c
n- 2z? 0 ;; c as
o ' ow
zt-oQ m N

z
0
f-
U
w
N _ s
S o '0
U Lli
< N
N -^
N
^ CD

0 0
O i
.? v C
co
CC a-
a0
CL CC
>
< CL M O -•

J h
'-
<
U co
a a
} co
F- D
0
a)

L
C O
?. 00
N ? -
W O O ?' ?
M N Q
s
v ?
L :3 -0
r O 3
L O
N L
v CO
4) > ..
CO CL
u u a
3 N N
Y J CL f-
w
f

O
F- d
Z E
W
Z
? W
H ?
d ?
¢x
w

-? ?- x cd

M
O ? O
_ v
o Z V
x z
?Zti N (? ?N
9? y CQ?

zE-Aam a
N
i

M c
N ?

z
0

0 0
U

W a
? W
,? W O
o=
' - Q U
AG

vs a O
V N
?

M
'
O T}
b

O

~
~ O O o
"o o
N M N
9 U co
p

?
Q rn
?
II II II
> r00 00
U Q o" o\ o
'-? -- N
z
0
H
U

w
r-?
w
Q?
U
QS
M
0 y M
M
? 0 &N
a? ? •? GA
M
N
z

?b

M
N
0
z
2
cr
Q
F

r-
0
7o
w
O _1
0u
z
?. O
qf?
1\? LLJ
Q
O
?i
w
O
U

H
A
O
O
w
O
0
O
O
r?
II
d
U
W
w
u
C
C
c

?<t .i ti's
20
s" DEC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources r?-
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ! (?t/?,.J r
Deputy State Histohic'Preservatlon Officer
WA ,
Division of Arc Histo • I
William S. Price,

SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Ear!ey to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 orr NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q?
H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County
Archaeological site 31 OR438* * is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: Renee Gledhill-EarleyQQ??
Environmental Reviev?T(Coordinator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
ors.-SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
„ More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-11.00(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
. s , ,
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp .
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1 152 over Swift Creek '
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
MI
R
TIP u 2$'3o Federal Aid m 13Ps-rP - In (I >
County GF_F_ SG
CONCURRENCE FORIM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
P-efvof? 612tPre t)o. M$ oN t1G 1z V/EfZ Ca*n' t"Neb. Ca eE4_
On JAaUaR-y '2G, M*)f , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review sessionlconsultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential. effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as . are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therrris necessary.
V1 - there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
y2-1S.s
Representative, NCDOT Date
Z
FHwA, the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
?ir??i??? ? a G - X15--
Revre-sentative, SHPO Date

State Historic Preservation Officer
!6
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A t 1 K
From : Ecological Consultants PHONE No. : 919 596 0650 Jul.28 1995 11:54AM P01
estate of North Carolina
Departmen'l of Envlronment,
Health and Nalural Resources
Division of Marine Fisheries
Jarrles B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jontiihan B. Howes, Secretary
BrucA l.. Freeman. Director
QEHNR
July 6, 1995
Mr. George Pesacreta
Ecological Consultant
3403 Long Ridge Road
Durham, NC 27703
Dear Mr. Pesacreta:
Per our recent telephone conversations regarding replacement
of the N.C. 123 bridge over Contentnea Creek near Hookerton, an
appropriate construction moratorium period would be approximately
mid-February through the end of May. The purpose of this
moratorium is to avoid impacts to spawning activities of river
herring (plosa aestivalis, Aj pseudohar naus), American shad (j,
sayilissima), and hickory shad (A. mediocris) which utilize
Contentnea Creek each spring.
The above information does not constitute the official comment
or position of the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
regarding replacement of the N.C. 123 bridge over Contentnea Creek.
Such comments will be provided through the normal project review
process.
ere,
oXi'Coh11YW. Stree
MWS/gm
cc: Katy West
P.O. Box 769. Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer poper
NC 123
Bridge No. 23 Over Contentnea Creek
Greene County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-123(1)
State Project 8.1180501
T.I.P. No. B-2830
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9
DATE V?4; Franklin Vick, PE, anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT C
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA

NC 123
Bridge No. 23 Over Contentnea Creek
Green County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-123(1)
State Project 8.1180501
T.I.P. No. B-2830
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1995
Documentation Prepared By: •r4••0.. le"
00
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. •.••••QIZH CAR01 "''•,
••r ?? ESSi '?•?y9
= SEAS
2 ? - '9?- 19732 ?
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE s'.yGINcS09-',
Project Manager '••,%tiCN
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
J.A. Bissett, Jr.,-?PE, Uni ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
D? ody
Stacy . B dwm
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
NC 123
Bridge No. 23 Over Contentnea Creek
Greene County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-123(1)
State Project 8.1180501
T.I.P. No. B-2830
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The project lies in a known anadromous fish spawning area and impacts were coordinated with the
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). Construction will be prohibited during the river herring,
American shad, and hickory shad spawning period of February 15 through May 31, in order to
protect the egg and fry stages from sedimentation.
Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored
to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
Design plans will be forwarded to the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office for continued review
of potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the proposed
project's area of potential effect.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
A North Carolina Geodetic Survey (NCGS) benchmark (GRN 31 1979) is located in the northeast
concrete wingwall of the bridge with elevation (NGVD 29) 13.349 meters (43.796 feet). NCGS will
be contacted before the monument is disturbed.
A National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) gaging station (#02091500) is located
on the east side of NC 123 downstream of the existing bridge. This is a nationwide data-collection
network site designed by United States Geodetic Survey (USGS) to meet many needs regarding
national or regional water-quality planning and management for government agencies and other
interested groups. USGS will be contacted before the gaging station is disturbed.
NC 123
Bridge No. 23 Over Contentnea Creek
Greene County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-123(1)
State Project 8.1180501
T.I.P. No. B-2830
Bridge No. 23 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page I.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 23 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 96 meters (316 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.0-meter (a-
foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 0.6 meters (2 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary on-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,434,500. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program, is $873,000 ($850,000-construction;
$23,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southeastern portion of Greene County, approximately 0.8 kilometers
(0.5 miles) northeast of Hookerton, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural forested in
nature.
NC 123 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 123 has a 6.1-meter (20-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-
foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area.
The existing bridge is located on tangent that extends approximately 120 meters (400 feet) south from
the structure. The roadway is situated approximately 11.3 meters (37 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 2600 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 5100 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 3% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 55 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 23 is a seven-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure
3) was constructed in 1947.
The overall length of the structure is 96 meters (316 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.2 meters
(24.0 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 19 metric tons (21 tons) for single vehicles and
22 metric tons (24 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 23 has a sufficiency rating of 6.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure; however, there are overhead power lines on
both sides of the roadway through the project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Two single vehicle accidents, resulting in no fatalities and no injuries, have been reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 23 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. Neither accident
occurred on th?.bridge. Each accident was the result of hitting deer crossing the highway.
Eight school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 23 were studied. Each alternative consists of a bridge 96
meters (316 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Typical sections of the approach roadway and
structure are included as Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters
(200 feet) to the north and 60 meters (200 feet) to the south. A temporary on-site detour will be
provided during the construction period east (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary
detour will consist of a bridge 40 meters (130 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about
12 meters (40 feet) east of the existing structure. The design speed for this alternative is 100
kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it maintains the
existing horizontal alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative 2.
Additionally, Alternative 1 has less impact on the wetland environment due to the additional roadway
approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location immediately east of the existing
structure. Improvements to the alignment on the bridge approaches include approximately 135
meters (450 feet) to the north and 135 meters (450 feet) to the south. The design speed of this
alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on-
site detour during the construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the
reverse horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at each end of the
project.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This in not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by NC 123.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 2 concurs that an on-site detour during
construction of the proposed bridge will be the best alternative because the off-site detour route is
a narrow, soil road. It would require extensive upgrading to serve as a detour route.
The Greene County School Superintendent indicates that maintenance of traffic on-site during the
construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3

V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended) Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Structure $ 740,000 $ 740,000
Roadway Approaches 55,000 259,500
Detour Structure and Approaches 346,000 0
Structural Removal 59,000 59,000
Engineering and Contingencies 200,000 191,500
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 34,500 44,300
Total $ 1,434,500 $1,294,300
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 23 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 96 meters (316 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 0.6 meters (2 feet)
will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.2-meter (30-foot)
clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. NC 123 is classified as a rural major collector;
therefore, criteria for a rural major collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide
a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design
speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is necessary.
Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is
considered unacceptable due to traffic volumes using NC 123 and the excessive length of additional
travel required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 96 meters (316 feet). The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing bridge so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain
elevation. The length and height of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 26, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Bottomland Hardwoods:
This community (Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods - Brownwater Subtype) is found along
Contentnea Creek and terraces adjacent to the existing roadway and bridge. The canopy is composed
of water oak (Quercus nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), riverbirch (Betula nigra), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), and
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus American elm (Ulmus
americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and American holly (Ilex opaca). The shrub/sapling
layer is composed of water oak, American elm, highbush blueberry (Vaccinium atrococcum), possum
haw (Ilex decidua), and cane (Arundinaria gigantea). The herb/vine layer is sparse and composed
of Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed roadside and bridge margins, and an open field
adjacent to the existing road. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses, vines, and herbs
including: Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grape (Vitis spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), rose (Rosa spp.), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and grasses. The canopy is spare and composed of
riverbirch and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of loblolly pine. The
sub-canopy includes mimosa (Albizia julibrissin).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of a combination of forested areas, bridge and roadside development, and
rural countryside. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for residential and commercial uses has
eliminated much cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area.
Even so, remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forested area adjacent to
the Contentnea Creek and associated ecotones, do serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering
Contentnea Creek has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and white-tail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus). Mammals likely to inhabit the area inlcude raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), and mice (Peromyscuc spp).
The observed bird species are typical of rural setting where a patchwork of habitat types are available.
Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Contentnea Creek include barred owl (Stria
varia), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and common crow (Corms brachyrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), pickerel frog
(Rana palustris), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei).
Aquatic:
Contentnea Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Game fish species
present are redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), catfish (Ictalurus
spp.), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), striped bass (Roccus saxatilis), alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) and shad (Alosa sapidissima).
Contentnea Creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians
and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), frogs (Rana spp.), green frog (Rana clamitans), eastern mud
turtle (Kinosterhon suhrubrum), and eastern hog snake (Heterodon platyrhinos).
Physical Resources
Soil
Greene County is located within the Lower Coastal Plain. The sediment of the Coastal Plain is
derived from soil material washed from the uplands and deposited as alluvium in drainageways and
6
on floodplains or terraces. Topography is characterized by gradual relief, resulting in moderate
drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 3 meters (10 feet) along the river
bottom to 4.9 meters (16 feet) along the roadway upland areas.
Greene County is underlain by unconsolidated rock material, sand, silt, and clay. Local changes in
subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Lumbee sandy loam and Kinston loam. Kinston loam soils are
poorly drained and frequently flooded. Lumbee sandy loam are poorly drained and found on smooth
flat areas of stream terraces. Lumbee sandy loam and Kinston loam soils are hydric or have hydric
soils as a major component.
Water
Bridge No. 23 crosses Contentnea Creek approximately 64 kilometers (40 miles) downstream of its
origin near Wilson, North Carolina. Contentnea Creek flows southeast into the Neuse River near
Grifton, North Carolina.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993).
Contentnea Creek is Class C Sw NSW stream, indicating waters which are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture; and a supplemental
classification for swamp waters, waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics
which are different from adjacent streams; and a second supplemental classification for nutrient
sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report lists six sources (GSH Corporation, Hookerton WWTP, Maury
Sanitary Land District, Snow Hill WWTP, Snow Hill Tape Corporation, and Maury Launderette)
within four miles upstream of the proposed crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site. The project site is within an anadromous fish
spawning area. Fishery resources in Contentnea Creek may include anadromous river herring and
shad.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. There are no BMAN sampling stations
on streams in the immediate vicinity of the project.
7
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Contentnea Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecoloeical Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Sand, silt
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 27 meters (90 feet)
Water Depth 61 centimeters (2 feet) to 1.5 meters (5 feet)
Water Color Clear
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation . None
Adjacent Vegetation Water oak, red maple, river birch, sweetgum,
green ash, black willow, loblolly pine
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.25 hectares (0.63 acres) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the
recommended alternative. This wetland is associated with broad terraces along both sides of the
existing bridge. A wetland area along Contentnea Creek is included in this area.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the following
three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values); 2) presence
of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
8

vulnerability. As of March 28, 1995, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service lists no federally protected species for Greene County.
Biological Conclusion: Construction of this project will not adversely impact any federally protected
plant or animal species.
Federal Candidate Species:
There is one C2 federal candidate species listed for Greene County. The wireleaf dropseed
(Sporobolus teretifolius) has a state status of threatened and suitable habitat is not found within the
study area.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. This species is mentioned here for information
purposes, should it become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for this species was
not conducted, nor was this species observed during the site visit.
State Listed Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of state listed
species occurring within 1.6 kilometer (I mile) of the project site.
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 2 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 2
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Bottomland Hardwoods 0.11 (0.28) 0.14 (0.35)
Urban/Disturbed 0.11 0.28 0.18 0.45
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.32 (0.80)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment
Temporary Impacts are based on an 18-meter (60-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow strips adjacent
to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Alternative 1 is not expected to result in significant
9
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS cOu
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 -? Mo
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF December 5, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199600139 and Nationwide Permit No. 23
NC Department of Transportation
ATTN: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your application of November 10, 1995, for Department of the
Army (DA) authorization to replace North Carolina Department of Transportation
Bridge No. 23, located over Contentnea Creek, on NC Highway 123, near
Hookerton, Greene County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided by Nationwide Permit No. 23 for
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or-financed, in
whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or'discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and any
required State authorization. A Section 401 water quality certification is
required from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
Contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone] for this certification. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other
required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified,
reissued or revoked, which will occur prior to January 21, 1997. It is
incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits,
which will be announced by public notice when they occur. if you commence, or
are under contract to commence, this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation, to complete the activity under the present
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.

4
-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Bill Biddlecome, Washington
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 27.
Sincerely,
W;? QJ
401-V G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Steve Benton
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
orth Carolina Department of Environment,
VII?NHealth and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mrs. Stephanie Briggs
NC Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201