19950987 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
September 8, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
95927
WETLANDS GRU::
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: New Hanover County - Replacement of Bridge No. 15 on SR 1100 over
Barnards Creek; State Project No. 8.2250601; T.I.P. No. B-2595
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report
for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an Individual Permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix.A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that a CAMA Major Permit will be required from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Coastal Management, for this project. NCDOT will apply directly to DCM for a
CAMA Permit when final plans have been developed. By copy of the CAMA Permit
application, a request for 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division of
Environmental Management will be made.

September 8,x=1995•
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
Cyndi Bell at [phone], Extension 306.
Vncer ly
H. Fr nklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: Matt Flint, COE, Wilmington Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
D. J. Bowers, P. E., Division 3 Engineer
Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental

New Hanover County
SR 1100
Bridge No. 15 Over Barnards Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1100(5)
State Project 8.2250601
T.I.P. No. B-2595
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
RA/9't, &zL, -0
A E H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
0 6/0 3 Iq ? lz-a'-l '0?7 &01-?
DATE Fog Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA

M.- I .
New Hanover County
SR 1100
Bridge No. 15 Over Barnards Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1100(5)
State Project 8.2250601
T.I.P. No. B-2595
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
Documentation Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. ald n
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
?••?R?H CAROB
td ESS/ri: /y9
i SEAL
19732
•,,??yCH E N F????:
New Hanover County
SR,1100
Bridge No. 15 Over Barnards Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1100(5)
State Project 8.2250601
T.I.P. No. B-2595
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
In-stream construction will be prohibited during the striped bass and American shad spawning
period of March 1 through May 31 in order to protect the egg and fry stages from sedimentation.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
New Hanover County
SR 1100
Bridge No. 15 Over Barnards Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1100(5)
State Project 8.2250601
T.I.P. No. B-2595
Bridge No. 15 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".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 15 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a double 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-
foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to provide two
3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) graded shoulders, 1.2 meters (4 feet) of
which will be paved 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 1.2 meters (4 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary off site detour (see Figure 2A) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $279,600. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $523,000 ($500,000-construction;
$23,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southern portion of New Hanover County, near the southern city limit
of Wilmington, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural marsh and residential in nature.
SR 1100 is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is located on a designated North Carolina Bicycling Highway
named Ports-of-Call.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1100 has a 5.8-meter (19-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 a tangent that extends approximately 12 meters (40 feet) north and
76 meters (250 feet) south from the structure. Curves of approximately twelve degrees and five
degrees are located to the north and south, respectively. The roadway is situated approximately 5
meters (17 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 700 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2600 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 5% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 55 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 15 is a five-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 1950.
The overall length of the structure is 26.5 meters (87 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.2 meters
(24.0 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 21 metric tons (23 tons) for single vehicles and
26 metric tons (29 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 15 has a sufficiency rating of 30.8, 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, overhead power lines are on both
sides of the roadway. The overhead lines cross the roadway at several locations throughout the
project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Four accidents, resulting in no fatalities and one injury, have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 15 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. Three of the accidents were single vehicle
2
incidents that were the result of excessive speeds as the vehicles traveled through the approach curves
and running off of the road. The remaining single vehicle accident was the result of the vehicle
attempting to avoid a collision with a deer.
Eight school buses cross the bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 15 were studied. Each alternative consists of a double 3.6-
meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. Typical sections of
the approach roadway are included as Figure 4. The proposed shoulder widths as shown will be
sufficient to accommodate bicycle traffic.
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 with a double 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box
culvert. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 60 meters (200
feet) in each direction from the bridge. The proposed replacement structure will be of sufficient
length to accommodate the roadway typical section. A temporary off-site detour will be provided.
during the construction period. The off-site detour will be 18 kilometers (11 miles) in length (see
Figure 2A). The design speed for this alternative is 65 kilometers per hour (40 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, a culvert can generally be constructed in
less time than will a bridge, which reduces the exposure time of the traveling public to the
construction work zone and temporary detour.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure at a new location immediately west of the
existing structure. Improvements to the alignment on the culvert 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 65 kilometers per hour (40 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 is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1100.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 3 concurs that an off-site detour will be
the best alternative during the construction of the new bridge.
3
The New Hanover School Superintendent indicates that maintenance of traffic off-site during the
construction period is acceptable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
. , Alternative 2
Structure $ 64,400 $ 64,400
Roadway Approaches 135,314 223,314
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 0
Structural Removal 16,286 16,286
Engineering and Contingencies 34,000 46,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 29,600 31,300
Total $ 279,600 $ 381,300
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 15 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
double 3.6-meter (12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert.
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) graded shoulders, of which 1.2 meters
(4 feet) will be paved, on each side will be provided throughout the length of the project in
accordance with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation Policy (see Figure 4).
SR 1100 is classified as a urban minor arterial; therefore, criteria for a urban minor arterial was used
for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 2.4-meter (8-foot)
shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 65 kilometers per hour (40 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off-site is acceptable because of low traffic
volumes using SR 1100 and the short length of additional travel required along existing secondary
roads. Construction of a temporary on-site detour will impact the wetlands.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to be a double 3.6-meter
(12-foot) wide by 2.7-meter (9-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure. The final design of the culvert will
4
be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits.
The dimensions of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 27, 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.
Tidal Freshwater Marsh:
The marsh wetland area (Tidal Freshwater Marsh Type) are on level areas within and adjacent to
Barnards Creek. Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), hung with Spanish moss (Tillandsia
usneoides), occur as dead standing snags in the marsh. Live bald cypress are found near the edges
of the marsh. This community is dominated by reed (Phragmites communes) and cattail (Typha spp.).
The shrub/sampling layer includes sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens) and inkberry (Ilex glabra).
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed bridge and roadside margins in the vicinity of the
project. A canopy is formed adjacent to the existing roadway and composed of sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracij7ua), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). A subcanopy includes eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana). The shrub layer is composed of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and inkberry.
This area is characterized primarily by invasive vines, grasses and herbs including: poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), grape (Vitis spp.), trumpet creeper. (Campsis
radicans), and plantain (Plantago spp.).
5
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of a combination of marsh and urban/disturbed areas. Clearing and
conversion of tracts of land for urban/disturbed uses has eliminated some cover and protection for
many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project area. The remaining natural plant communities
in the area, particularly the marsh area adjacent to and nearby Barnards Creek and associated
ecotones, do serve as valuable habitat. The marsh bordering Barnards Creek has all the necessary
components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
No sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) for any mammal species were observed.
Mammals typical for this area are the gray squirrel (Scittrus carolinettsis), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargentetts), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiatia), mink (Mustela vison), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virgit» amts), nutria (Myocaster coypus), and river otter (Ltttra canddensis).
The observed bird species are typical of a coastal setting where a patchwork of habitat types are
available. Species encountered above and nearby Barnards Creek include fish crow (Corms
ossiftagus), belted kingfisher (Alfegaceryle alcyon), killdeer (Charadritts vocifents), and sandpiper
(Tringa spp.).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thantnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Aeolis carolinensis), yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), spotted turtle (Clemmys gztttata) and the Carolina Saltmarsh snake
(Nerodia sipedon u,illiamengelsi).
Aquatic:
Barnards Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. American shad (Alosa
sapidissinta), white perch (Morose antericana), and striped bass (Moron saxatilis) are found in
similar coastal waters. Oysters (Crassostrea Virginica) colonized the bridge pilings and adjacent
bottom, but no commercial harvest of this species occurs from the bridge or in adjacent waters.
Juvenile blue crab (Callineactes sapid-its) may occur in this creek.
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), southern dusky salamander
(Desmognathnts auriculattts), frogs (Rana spp.), rough earth snake (Virginia striatula), brown snake
(Storeria dekayi) and pine woods snake (Rhadiitaea flavilata).
6
Physical Resources
Soil
New Hanover County is located in the Lower Coastal Plain - Wicomico and Talbot System. The
upland surfaces in the Lower Coastal Plain have low relief and broad gently undulating to nearly flat
plains. Elevations in the immediate project area range from 1.5 meters (5 feet) along the creek to 3
meters (10 feet) along the roadside.
The county is underlain primarily with sedimentary rock in New Hanover County. Local changes in
subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare. Soils
in the project vicinity include the presence of Tidal Marsh. Tidal Marsh is classified as a hydric soil
or has hydric soils as a major component.
Water
Bridge No. 15 crosses Barnards Creek approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) from its origin south-
east of Wilmington, North Carolina. Barnards Creek flows to the west into the Cape Fear River
which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
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).
Barnards Creek is class C Sw, 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.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) reports two dischargers (Heatcraft, Inc. and The American Crane
Corporation) within 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) upstream of the proposed crossing.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters occur within 175.3 meters (575
feet) of the project site. Mr. Bennett Wynee (NC Wildlife Resources Commission) said American
shad and stripped bass may occur in the creek.
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 Bamards Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Mud, muck
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width 18.3 meters (60 feet)
Water Depth 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Water Color Brown
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Bald cypress, reed, cattail
Wetlands Freshwater Marsh
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 0.52 hectares (1.27 acres) of Palustrine Emergent Persistent
Wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 19.79) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the recommended
alternative. The wetland community is found along the existing structure and approach roadway in
the tidal marsh. -
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
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for New Hanover County as of March 28,
1995.
8
TABLE 2
Federallv Protected Saecies for New Hanover Count
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus E
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Bald Eagle
Piping plover
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead turtle
Green sea turtle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
Charadrius melodus T
Lepidochelys kempi E
Dermochelys coriacea E
Caretta caretta T
Chelonia mydas T
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumihus T
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Status: E
Family: Falconidae
Listed: 6/2/70
The Peregrine. Falcon is a medium sized hawk, slightly larger than a crow. Males average 40.6
centimeters (16 inches) in length while females average 48.3 centimeters (19 inches) in length. Adult
plumage varies between light and dark phrases in this species. Typically, individuals are a solid slate-
grey above and off-white to bully-orange below, with fine to heavy horizontal barring of dark brown
except on the throat, which is usually unmarked. The top of the head is marked with a dark helmet-
like cap which extends down the face. Two key habitat requirements of the Peregrine Falcon are
cliffs for nesting and open country for hunting; given these conditions they range from coastal regions
to -mountains, and from plains and tundra to forested areas. Nests are typically located on high ledges
with a good view of the surrounding terrain. Although Peregrines do not build a nest as such, laying
their eggs on the bare substrate, they are usually quite faithful to a given site.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
While it is possible that peregrines could forage in the project vicinity, the proposed project will not
impact nesting sites for this species, nor will it impact this bird's forage resources. Also, a review of
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject
project study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Peregrine
Falcon.
9
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The
bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white.
Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine
stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Status: E
Family: Accipitridae
Listed: 2/14/78
The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near bodies of
water where it feeds. Nests are usually constructed in living trees, but bald eagles will occasionally
use a dead tree. The proximity of good perching trees may also be a factor in site selection. An
otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in the area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No nesting sites were observed within the subject project study area. While it is possible that bald
eagles could forage in the project vicinity, the proposed project will not impact nesting sites for this
species, nor will it impact this bird's forage resources. Also, a review of North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area. It can
be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Bald Eagle.
10
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
Status: T
Family: Charadriidae
Listed: 12/11/85
The Piping plover is a small, stocky shorebird resembling a sandpiper. The adults are 18 centimeters
(7 inches) long, and have a wingspan of 38 centimeters (15 inches). Both sexes are similar in size and
color, upper parts are pale brownish, underparts are white. Nesting occurs on beaches close to dunes
or in other shoreline habitats. Breeding birds on the North Carolina coast are mostly found from the
vicinity of Cape Lookout northward.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable breeding habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Piping plover.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi)
Status: E
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 12/2/70
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is a small turtle with a heart-shaped body, usually broad, keeled carapace
which is serrated behind the bridge. Adults approach 56 centimeters (22 inches) in carapace length
and average about 36 kilograms (80 pounds). The Kemp's ridley sea turtle inhabits shallow coastal
and estuarine waters often associated with red mangrove. Most of the population nests on
approximately 14.9 miles of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostional in the State of Tamaulipas,
Mexico.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle does not nest or breed along the study area. Also, a review of North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. An incidental passage of the turtle through the study area is possible. It can be concluded
that project construction will have no impact on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle.
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 7/28/78
11
The Loggerhead turtle is a large turtle with a large head and blunt jaws. Adults average about 91
kilograms (200 pounds). The Loggerhead turtle inhabits a large range of marine, salt marshes, and
inshore areas. The loggerhead nests on beaches from North Carolina through Florida.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
subject project study area. An incidental passage of the turtle through the study area is possible. It
can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Loggerhead turtle.
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Status: T
Family: Cheloniidae
Listed: 7/28/78
The Green sea turtle is a large turtle which approaches 122 centimeters (4 feet) in length and average
about 200 kilograms (440 pounds). The Green sea turtle inhabits shallow waters (except when
migrating) inside reefs, bays and inlets. The Green sea turtle nests on open beaches with a sloping
platform which have minimal disturbance.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
subject project study area. An incidental passage of the turtle through the study area is possible. It
can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Green sea turtle.
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Status: E
Family: Dermochelidae
Listed: 6/2/70
The leatherback sea turtle is a large turtle with a barrel-shaped body, with leathery skin and
paddlelike, clawless appendages. The leatherback sea turtle lacks a hard shell and has five to seven
longitudinal ridges (keels) running the length of its back. Adults approach 2 meters (6 feet) in
carapace length and average about 360 kilograms (800 pounds). Leatherbacks nest on sandy, ocean-
facing beaches, usually with few rocks or coral and relatively deep near-shore approaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Leatherback sea turtle.
12
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Status: E
Family: Acipenseridae
Listed: 3/11/67
The shortnose sturgeon is a small species of sturgeon (seldom exceeding 1 meter (3 feet) in length)
with a wide mouth and a short snout. In North Carolina, this species has only been reported from
Brunswick (Cape Fear Basin) and Anson (Yadkin Pee Dee Basin) Counties. Moser and Ross (1993)
documented shortnose sturgeon in the lower Cape Fear River and estuary during January-July.
Population density apparently for the species is low in this section of the river as only seven shortnose
sturgeon were captured despite intensive gillnet sampling (893 net days). No gillnet sampling
occurred in Barnards Creek. The short nose sturgeon occurs in the lower section of larger rivers and
in coastal marine habitats. The species' general pattern of seasonal movement appears to involve
using an upstream spawning area in late winter to spring, spending summer and fall in the lower river
near the mouth.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable breeding habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project
study area. An incidental passage of the shortnose sturgeon through the study area is possible. It can
be concluded that project construction will have no impact on this species.
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pun ilus)
Status: T
Family: Amaranthaceae
Listed: 4/7/93
Seabeach. amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic ocean beaches. The stems are fleshy and
pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves that are 1.3 to 2.5 centimeters in diameter. The leaves
are clustered towards the tip of the stem, are normally a spinach-green color, and have a small notch
at the rounded tip. Flowers and fruits are relatively inconspicuous, borne in clusters along the stem.
Flowering can be from June until autumn. Seabeach amaranth occurs on barrier island beaches,
where its primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting ends of islands and lower foredunes
and upper strands of non-eroding beaches.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternatives. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study.area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Seabeach amaranth.
13
Federal Candidate Species:
There are 14 C2 federal candidate species listed for New Hanover County. The North Carolina status
of these species is listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Snecies for New Hanover Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Carolina crawfish frog Rana areolata capito Yes SC
Magnificent rams-horn snail Plmiorbella magnifica No E
Greenfield rams-hom Taphius eucosmius No W
Cape Fear three tooth Triodopsis soelneri Yes E
Rare skipper Problema bulenta Yes SR
Savanna leadplant Anrorpha georgimia confusa Yes T
Carolina spleenwort Aspleniuni heleroresiliens No E
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii Yes C
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis No C
White-wicly Kalmia cuneata No E-SC
Pickering's morning-glory Stylisma p. var. pickeringii Yes E
Smooth bog-asphodel Tofieldia glabra Yes C
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula No C-SC
Dune blue curls Trichostema sn. Yes C
NC Status: SC, E, T, SR, W, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, Significantly
Rare, Watch List, and Candidate, respectively.
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. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these 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.).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record for the American Alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), a state threatened species, within 1.6 km (1 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 4 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacements.
14
TABLE 4
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact
Urban/Disturbed 0.13 (0.33)
Tidal Freshwater Marsh 0.09 0.23
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacements for Alternative 1 are restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway segments. Bridges and approach
improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits and marsh edges. The loss of
marsh habitat is likely to reduce the number of plant species which serve as shelter, nesting and
foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and marsh areas. Marsh habitat
provides excellent habitat for a diversity of plants and animals. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized
by opportunistic plant species such as greenbrier and trumpet creeper, and mobile species such as
rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the creek 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 possible American shad and striped bass. Mr. Fritz Rohde (N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries) emphasized the necessity for a construction moratorium from March 1 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.
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) will be
utilized in an effort to minimize impacts.
15
Permit Coordination
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC) in which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage
to property, public health and the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if the project
meets all of the following conditions: 1) it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CANM
2) it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC; 3) it is considered "development" under the terms
of the Act; and 4) it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by CRC.
This project is likely to affect the following AEC: Estuarine Waters, Public Trust, Coastal Wetland,
and Estuarine Shoreline. Estuarine Waters are an AEC which CAMA defines as all the waters of the
Atlantic Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds, rivers,
and tributaries there to seaward of the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing
waters. This definition of estuarine waters was also set forth in an agreement adopted by the WRC
and the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. A Public Trust AEC
includes all waters and submerged lands in the coastal region where the public has rights of use/or
ownership, including rights of navigation and recreation. This AEC covers all lands underneath these
waterways and the mineral and biological resources that these submerged lands contain. A Coastal
Wetland AEC is defined as any marsh subject to occasional flooding by tides (including wind tides).
Tidal waters may reach the marsh by either natural or artificial watercourses. Coastal Wetland AEC's,
by definition, must contain certain plant species listed in the CAMA regulations. Cattail which is
present in the project area, is a plant species listed in the CAMA regulations. An Estuarine Shoreline
AEC includes all shorelines within 23 meters (75 feet) landward of the mean high water level, or
normal water level, of estuarine waters has been designated an AEC. Existing SR 1100, the marsh
area, and roadside areas are within 23 meters (75 feet) landward of the mean high water level in the
project area.
This project will require a CAMA major development permit because impacts to AEC's are likely.
The CAMA major development application form serves as an application for three other state permits
and for permits from the Corps of Engineers (COE) required by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The state permits include: 1) permit to excavate and/or
fill; 2) easement in lands covered by water; and 3) 402 Water Quality Certification.
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 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.
16
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.
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 environmental consequences.
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.
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
17
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.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated December 19, 1994 (see Appendix),
recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the project.
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 New Hanover 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.
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.
New Hanover County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 5. The amount offloodplain
area to be affected is not substantial.
18
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 structures located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
19
Scotts
,
t32 Wd.His
51 40 82,
mingt0 17)
1*` 9
74
i
e o. ,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
New Hanover County
SR-1100 over Barnards Creek
Bridge # 15
B-2595
FIGURE 1
r
vZ a-anoI3
n
i
i?
_ oolt I
CI
CL: asp b s;olyd
v dq? ?
ZSS'Z 'd d ?? X49 1X3
?NINn)
:4Aqso 31.IzIA
70)1 N--?

PAW
SZ9'£ -dOd
'E (''NINn) ;Ik
db DIVI SWIS ?i
ZE1

%?/f Y v
........................ ...
..............
N 3J41218
1 '
E.*O?
E `' Er 1 t' .? '•?1
lotof'£
D
dOd
_ ('SNINn) .1311`dA 3N`Id
on T
HDIVW
V09'17'dOd
y (-]NINn) o
)ISVd S31NIM
e
Eby bbd S? . Q
9L U-
O
S I # a?Pug
,aaaia spreuregJOAO 0011 -dS ft
f4unoz) sanoueH MOM t9 _
Cn
r
D
o
;'a f
f
I
dVd qr ££l' :.9111A311HM Off.
SIDE VIEW
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3
L.
O
F
Z
Ctl

F- M
zz

x
a >-O
cv e a
0
<z=z
b

O Ea- ?•
a a UOzZ
_ C GQ
rnzV x o W

a
>
o
30
°HOam z
a
ce)
re
.
r
rr"
J J
Z z
O p
F-
L)

U
w
N uJ
cn
.
= U
U z _
2 D
U w
.. ?
UJ 0? c O0 a O
CL X a O Q m
CL Lj
Q CL cr-
Q CL
J

Q
Q M

-
U U
} a
} a
N F-
CD
aD
m

X ? ? (h
W N O N 'p
Q
s
N
CL N
a ?
v

L_ O
O ?

CO L O
N N
`D, co F -

a? If u u

?
Y ?-
Q
w
T
ZONE C
?.
Ad.KAV7

New Hanover County
SR-1100 over Bainards Creek
Bridge #15
B-2595
(Y , N

V -IF
BRIDGE NO. 15
Pond

Longwood
)NE C t " % //
SHALLOTTE
- 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
STANLAND a
9oa
SCALE: 1" = 2000' 1`
BA Y
Z
j 3 FIGURE 5
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, TVA,
Health and Natural Resources AT. «
Wilmington Regional Office 0
Division of Marine Fisheries r...,...?? 1
James 0. Hunt, Jr., Governor ?---?
Jonathan 9. Howes, Secretary
Bruce Freeman, Director
June 14, 1995
Dr. George Pesacreta
Ecological Consultants
3403 Long Ridge Rd
Durham, NC 27703
Dear Dr. Pesacreta:
With reference to your request concerning Barnard& Creek,
the Division of Marine Fisheries requests a moratorium on bottom
disturbing activities from 1 M4rch through 31 May. If you
require further clarification, please contact me. Thank you.
sincerely,
Fritz Rohde
Biologist supervisor
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28405-3845 • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmativa Action Employer
4? G t' ?F
Tt " t "z O
=2 0
DEC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
? Gib"?A;
Division of Arc Histo • ?
William S. Price,
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State H sto`6c-Preservation Officer
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-Earley 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 on 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 IMP
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
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental RevievJ" oZoJrdi*nator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
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
on 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-1100(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q"31
a
f?
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 1152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
A
TIP #
C,
t?- 2ti'iy Federal Aid # tJt rP -11400 (ti) County 14eW uP.n10VF-V-
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
P.EPt-AC-E &iZl1xE 00• IS onl SR 1100 oVEg- $ ARD?i Gg'EGI-
On JANUAR-`( 2-G, I'll'; , 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 session/consultation
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 elble for the National Register and no further evaluation of therrr-is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
-Z/.2- / ss,
Representative, N

Date
Date-
Date
Representative, SHFU
State Historic Preservation Officer
wA, fo e Divi ion Administrator, or other Federal Agency
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
. g, .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF February 5, 1996
Regulatory Branch
ACTION ID. 199505693, TIP B-2595, State Project No. 8.2250601, and Nationwide
Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions)
Mr. Frank Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your project planning report received September 11, 1995,
regarding the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) proposal to
replace Bridge No. 15 over Barnards Creek on SR 1100, New Hanover County,
North Carolina.
According to the planning report, NC DOT proposes to replace the existing
structure at the same location with a two cell, 12-foot by 9-foot reinforced
concrete box culvert. The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot
pavement width. Through coordination with Ms. Cindi Bell, it is our
understanding that permanent impacts to wetlands associated with this project
are 0.23 ac.; not 1.27 ac. as stated on page 8 of the planning report.
Your proposal is authorized pursuant to Nationwide Permit #23 provided it
is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed General conditions and
the following special conditions:
1. No in-stream construction work will occur between March 1 and May 31.
2. The invert of the box culvert will be at least 18" below the existing
creek channel bottom.
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 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
cumi,}latively 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.
This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to
obtain other required State or local approval.
Printed on ® P-YCW Paper
f-
-2-
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.
Questions or comments may be addressed to me in the Wilmington Regulatory
Field office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mrs. Stephanie Briggs
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761-5201
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
(-/ 5c9F7

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES V
P' ?/ ( )?EItNOR
r ry
EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
lu6clu
Oqflow
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. David Timpy
Dear Si::
April 30, 1999
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 23 RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR
BRIDGE NOS. 31 AND 14 OVER LIMESTONE CREEK AND
OVERFLOW ON NC111, DUPLIN COUNTY. TIP B-2595. ACTION
ID 19970617.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 23 for the subject project on April 7, 1997. The permit expired on
January 21, 1997. This project is scheduled to be let to construction in October 1999.
Consequently, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) needs to
renew authorization for this work. The State Project No. is 8.1241701 and the Federal
Aid Project No. is BRSTP-111(2).
The information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form and the Natural
Resources Technical Report in a letter dated January 31, 1997. However, it can be
clarified that 0.18 acre of wetlands and 0.06 acre of surface waters will be impacted as a
result of this project. The bridge and culvert will be replaced on existing location while
traffic is routed to an on-site detour.

The DOT requests a renewal of the NWP 23 permit from the USACE and the
General Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Michael Wood
at 919-733-1194.
Sincerely,
?l L six
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWPC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E.. Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E.. Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Ms. Jeff Ingham, Planning & Environmental
\'? 1'i`;r•,, \ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
I'.v
P.O. BOX 1890
>w, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 7, 1997
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199704617, TIP B-2130, Replace Bridge No. 14 and Bridge No. 31
over Limestone Creek, Duplin County, North Carolina.
RECD

Mr. Frank Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 -4
:•? <%i^

Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your letter dated January 31, 1997, requesting Department of
the Army (DA) authorization to place fill material in wetlands adjacel-t tc
Limestone Creek and Limestone Creek overflow, on NC Highway 111, neai
Beulaville, Duplin County, North Carolina. According to the Categorical
Exclusion Classification Form and the attached Natural Resources Technical
Report, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace:
Bridge 14 with a 3-cell, 10-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert and
Bridge 31 with a bridge 120 feet long. Total fill in wetlands associated with
this project will be 0.2 acres.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the
"December 13, 1996 Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and
Modification of Nationwide Permits (61 FR 65874)" listed 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 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 Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.), 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 (ATTN: CECW-OR) 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 provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). This nationwide permit does not relieve
you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval.
fi?
r

-2-
This verification will be valid until
reissued or revoked, which will the nationwide occur by permit is moodified,
upon you to remain informed of February 11, 2002. It
be announced bY changes to the nationwide incumbent
public notice when the Permits,
which will
contract to commence, this activity before the date the nationwider are under
revoked, you will have
modification or revocation to have telve mo the from the date of thermit is
and conditions of this nationwide Y under the
permit. Present terms
When you have completed your work and any required mitigation, please
sign and return the enclosed certification form.
Questions or comments may be addressed to me in the Wilmington Re ulat
Field Office, telephone [phone].
g ory
Sincerely;
i
V cv ` /
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manage:
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (without enclosures)
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor_
J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
?ost Office Box 33726
'.aleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
r. John Dorney
ivision of Water Quality
orth Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Vatural Resources
601 Reedy Creek Road
sleigh, North Carolina 27607

S-0 197 JV6,L ?Ac4?(,k/e`
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 /
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
June 7, 1999

Action ID No. 199901190, TIP B-2595, Replace Bridge No. 14 and Bridge No. 31 over
Limestone Creek, Duplin County, North Carolina.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
WF(LANDSryR0UP ,,
Reference your letter dated April 30, 1999, requesting Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to place fill material in wetlands adjacent to Limestone Creek and Limestone Creek
overflow, on NC Highway l 11, near Beulaville, Duplin County, North Carolina. According to
the Categorical Exclusion Classification Form and the Natural Resources Technical Report, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace Bridge 14 with a 3-cell,
10-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert and Bridge 31 with a bridge 120 feet long.
Total fill in wetlands associated with this project will be 0.2 acres.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the "December 13, 1996
Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and Modification of Nationwide Permits
(61 FR 65874)" listed 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 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
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.), 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 (ATTN:
CECW-OR) has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
.1
-2-
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 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 by February 11, 2002. 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.
When you have completed your work and any required mitigation, please sign and return
the enclosed certification form.
Questions or comments may be addressed to me in the Wilmington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone]
Sincerely,
David L. Timpy
Regulatory Project Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. David Cox
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607