20000391 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

4%
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howesy Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MAI
D FE F=1
January 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM.
To: Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality G C.6
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated November 5, 1996, in which you requested comments concerning
the scope of work to be performed by Wang Engineering Company, Inc. The Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT and its consultant consider the following generic environmental commitments for
design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure. If an on-site
detour or bridge/approach road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be removed to
pre-construction contour and revegetated with native vegetation. Tree species should be planted
at 320 stems per acre.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be? installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by
the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than directly flowing into
the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should
be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed one
acre. Smaller impacts may soon require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Allirtnative Action Employer 50% recycie&10% post consumer paper

Mr. Joe Westbrook Memo
January 16, 1997
Page 2
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2806.DOC

m v o m Np o ,Nm., o° 2 0 - -o $ g v o z c m $ „Nm, 4 '4 g
- m o oa`
y $ $ c m= v m$ c fa v CIS
m E
c?
c$ .
c?
c$
c c
v m$ v m$ v m$ a m$ a m$ a m$ a> a m$ a m$ m$ a m$
? S 3 ?• 5 3 -- 5 3 .. ? 3 ?• 5 3 .• ? 3 .. t 3 S 3 .• S 3 _. S 3 -• 5 3 ..
f0 > L co > L 0 ca f0 > _ CO M (D a fn C (a Ca fo r fah > t
V _ F= 7 f=- C co E C 7 E C c E C 7 E C E C E C E=

m r
(D
m

m
ID
m
ID 2
m
3:
m ? O 7
- (D
m r m

m 7

0 L 7

m t
s
Z z Z Z Z Z
? y a
z Z Z Z
C
N Y
ca Y
ca
m
N
$
$
lL O O

m ca
CL
m
E
E
E
E
n. co
a 0

0 Z J J J /6
U J
0
0 t
? L
?
? F
- F
- F
-
C

N
U)
Z

Z

(a

cD

(n

Z
0
Z

Z
U3
Z
cn
Z
Q w U
U U U U U U
V U U
3 m U m to
D U
i z N (0
N
7 c;
N
O
co
co
O f3 N
m Q
Z
m
co 7

lA 7

/A
Q C m N r d, t
D
C6 f7I co
Q N N N

O
O
N
N
N V
L
X
0 L a
0 a
0 a
0 N
E •?
a
=
Z O O
0 fo O O O
m
0
co
Y

CD

1d
m CL
E

E
CL Y
(D
m Y
CD
m

m Y
(D
m Y
(D
m N

m
R
Z
U
U
U
9
fa
E
fa
U
U
T
U
U
E a Z u3i co i c z S m m
(

m
x
c
a
ro
`m
Q
m
.? 0
£ D
?
N U = cc x x v

N Cl)
o
Z
0
Z
C

?' m

U
U
U

CS
U

U
U

U

U
d Q
0 m m fa la fa to to fa fli m fa
i V
a fD fD m (D 0 0 0
c CD
cz m
cc m
ct m
cc
a: x ¢ ¢ m x a
fr
0) U)
v
e
-° U c
04 m rn Co
o U
? c?
o m
v (o
v
m Z
co r
2
Z
Z C.)
a: 0)
,-
2
1=
co

tL

Q

Q
J (D m m (J) m m N fn lA

C
Z ?

Of cr)
LL7
a Cl)

N ^ p>
CV In
r m
r
II 0)
m r
Z tp

C

W co

N rn

N

M Cl) of

U) CO)

a)
N
0. N N m ems? ? m m cv C? ? ?
m m m 03 co m ao m co m m

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 16, 1997
L71.
A . 9 MAI
ED r--= P1
MEMORANDUM .
To: Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality G /? 6
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated November 5, 1996, in which you requested comments concerning
the scope of work to be performed by Wang Engineering Company, Inc. The Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT and its consultant consider the following generic environmental commitments for
design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure. If an on-site
detour or bridge/approach road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be removed to
pre-construction contour and revegetated with native vegetation. Tree species should be planted
at 320 stems per acre.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins beinstalled at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by
the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than directly flowing into
the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should
be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed one
acre. Smaller impacts may soon require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AllinnaWe Action Employer . 501, mcyd"l00/e post consumer paper
r
Mr. Joe Westbrook Memo
.January 16,1997
Page 2
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch. ,
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2806.DOC
lop\ltoi?
so \.q
N fq O
?a y W
m a y N Q
a.8 y N
a uR` N N O
ga ? 9 O
a o Z C N N
ma 4 N O
`ry
("D a y N
ma
o
$? o
c Sa vmE °mE a
v?? $ m
mE a
$
?
e c
-om$ v`m$ 'om$ om$ om$ am$ a> am$ am$ vm$ "m3
?5
m 53., c3.- B. 53-- 53- S3.- 3 53?- 53. 53... 93-
l9 -> L Co> L ? t W? L ?> L 0 0. (D L a C m> t R> L CL (D > L
c > L
2
U E c E c m E c E c E c w o f E c? cm
E c c
E c E c
zm zm z( zm zm zm? CIS 3TmC°
? =
§ ID ° ?Tmc° °
-S y Z m
s z m Z m-Z Z m
C $ ? Y Y
co
t6 E H $ S S ti S E E O
m
CL m E E E R . n
CL m

m

? z J J J R
U J
R
R L t
F -
F F
-
C
to = 3 3 3
N Z z U) U) (D Z Z in z Z
Q y U
U U U U U U
U U U
3 cn U U Cl)
D U
C
m Z N
?-
_ ?

C N

O

?R
C4 6 C4
d
d
Q V m
N
v
o

z

v
m

)

)
d)

N co d)

N
co
N

_
3
N
N
N a
R ?
X
:3 H
t (D
O CD
a
O CD
a
O 0
rL
E a

E .?
= y
z O
= O
_
U O
'
a.
rt
ct R
U .
U O O O
U
cfl
C
au
Y
0
m
-V
m CL
ca
d
O. Y
m Y
m
Y Y
(D
m Y
CD
m CV
in
z U U N E U U m U U
E
co
Z
(n
U)

a

Z

°

a m

m
m (D x
V U = R
0 ? ¢
U
U U $
z o
z
e
O
s
U
U
U
8
U
U
8
U
U
EL R R R R R R R R R R R
m m m m m m m m m m m
a x m ¢ a` m a: ac a: m a`
rn
0) Ul)

v
-° Z tlz n rn co
o U Cl)
o < °

N
Q r
Z
z
cc
Q
co
Q
a: v
Q
J U U V) U U co U Cl)

O
Q! co i n l0 Il N Cl)
CCV
a m
m
4

Z co - .- co Of

O Cl)

O in Cl)

r
N
N

CL m
N
N O
Cl) O
m
oo
C?
C?
c? N
07 N
m
m co m m m co m co 03 m m

• a.
t
b„aSWF,?
W D
T+w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, Cooper Building
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Request for Scoping Comments
Replacement of Bridge No. 119 on SR 1406 over Northeast Creek
Onslow County, State Project 8.2260701, TIP No. B-3215
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has retained Wang Engineering
Company, Inc. to prepare the Planning and Environmental Study (Categorical Exclusion) for the
replacement of the subject bridge. The bridge is included in NCDOT's 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for acquisition of right-of-way in 1998 and construction in 1999.
This letter is to obtain your comments concerning the environmental impacts and scope of work
that should be performed with this bridge replacement project. Pertinent design data is as follows:
Classification: Urban Minor Arterial
Traffic Projection: Construction 1998-19700 ADT; Design year 2018- 26800 ADT
Posted Speed: Not posted but within corporate limits assumed 50 km/h (35mph)
Existing Bridge: Length -16 meters; Width - 7.2 meters; Built -1951
Proposed Bridge Typical Section: Travelway - 7.2 meters; Shoulders - 2.4 meters; Total -12 m.
Proposed Roadway Typical Section: Travelway - 7.2 meters; Shoulders - 2.4 meters
Possible Off site Detour Availability: 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles)
Attached for your review and comments is the vicinity map and contour map for the subject project.
Please provide your comments by December 8, 1996.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of the planning process. If additional information is needed to
assimilate your comments, please contact Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT Planning and Environmental
Branch at [phone] or Ms. Pamela R. Williams, Wang Engineering at [phone].
HFV/pw
Attachments
¦r

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 0.119
CREEK
OVER NORTHEAST ON SR 1406
ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3215
0 500M 1 kilometer
SCALE 1:30 000 FIG. I
.'.W QNSLOkh
A r" -
r
Cent
;1326 m n =-1 =J/ ?--? r",
Im ?? k• ;,s
17
17 \' • u I' • __ `?s \.?r„`,4 I?.J?/;1 ?k /• s ''sx
1411
19 #
^I,?`` --: '. .,1407 ? ? )..?? ,,? "„'. _! ,'?'•. r '\?`
'Fg
%
oaf = \ ti ~i.. • / - ?,.?? r -
Course -
BRIDGE N0. -
r140 ,I - uZll . z?;•. ? White Oak?n. - ' -
%itY ?oUege
tflrte Oak
Cem 3&k, _ ^ _ l I11 .tlL it r
1403 _ •\• ^' -- " ?` fI L fa ` 40W
- ? ? ? .,..? \ -` rsry. ? ? r?r:?•?' % ice' .....
BM ? 1???? Oda ??f"? ,"? _ ?•• r i _ -
i SCALE 1:24 000 MIL.
0 1 `
1 z
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 5 0 1 KILOMeiER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
NATIONAL GEOCETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
TV
Replacement of
Bridges 118 & 119 over Northeast Creek
Onslow County JUL 2 7 2000
State Project No. 8.2260701
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1406(2)
W ND's GI;flJP
TIP Project No. B-3215 I4Urj Rc SECTION: r:
In addition to. the CAMA Major Permit Conditions, standard Nationwide Permits #33, #23, and #12 Conditions,
General Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, General Certification Conditions, Section 401 Conditions of Certification; and State Stormwater
Management Permit Design Standards, Schedule of Compliance, and General conditions, the following special
commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Commitments Developed through Project Development and Design
Division 3 Engineer/Structures Unit
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices for the protection of Surface Waters
and NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
Division 3 En ineer
Construction will be scheduled to avoid the necessity of instream activities during the spring months (February 15
through June 15) to minimize the impacts to anadromous fish passage.
Division 3 Engineer
Waste and borrow sites will be kept out of wetland areas. Compensatory mitigation will be required if wetlands
are impacted by waste or borrow.
Roadway Design Unit/Structure Design Unit/Hydraulics Unit/Design Services Unit
During the design phase of this project, provisions will be made for a future five-lane roadway and structure, and
coordinated with TIP Project U-3810.
Roadway Design Unit
This section of SR 1406 is part of the Jacksonville City to the Sea Bicycle Route, and the replacement bridge will
include AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodations.
Commitments Developed through Permitting
Division 3 Enzineer/Roadway Design Unit
Use 2:1.fill slopes in all wetland areas.
Division 3 Engineer
Excavate the new overflow channel from only the west bank to minimize impacts due to mechanized clearing.
The channel construction sequence will include placement of a temporary dike in the overflow channel,
backfilling the existing channel, and cutting the new channel. This will take approximately six weeks.
Division 3 Engineer/Hydraulics Unit
Remove all lateral drainage ditches from wetland areas.
Division 3 Engineer/Roadside Environmental Unit
Use high quality waters sediment and erosion control measures during construction of the project.
Pagel of 3 July 18, 2000
Division 3 EngineeK
Debris resulting from demolition of the existing bridges, including deck components, shall not enter wetlands, or,
waters of the United States, even temporarily. See attached letter from CAMA dated June 26, 2000.
Division 3 Engineer
All excavated materials and debris associated with the removal of the existing bridge will be dispose of on an
approved high ground site.
Division 3 Engineer
The material excavated for the installation of the water line, to be temporarily stored in the adjacent wetland area,
must be placed on a geo-textile fabric, and must be fully removed to original contour and elevation upon
completion of the utility.
Division 3 Engineer/Structures Unit
The temporary placement or double handling of any excavated or fill material within waters or vegetated wetlands
is not authorized, with the exception of that associated with the water line installation. This condition also applies
to the removal of the existing bridge structure.
Division 3 Engineer
No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time in any wetlands or surrounding waters outside of the
alignment of the fill area as indicated on the workplan drawing(s).
Division 3 En igneer
The fill material must be clean and free of pollutants except in trace quantities, and all permanent fill material
must be obtained from an upland source.
Division 3 Engineer
Placement of riprap shall be limited to the slopes underneath the proposed bridge, as depicted on the attached
work plan drawings. The riprap material must be free from loose dirt or any pollutant. It must be of a size
sufficient to prevent its movement from the site by wave or current action. The.riprap material must consist of
clean rock or masonry materials such as but not limited to granite or broken concrete.
Division 3 Engineer/Design Services Unit
There must be no resultant change in preconstruction bottom contours. Authorized fill includes only that
necessary to backfill or bed the utility line. Any excess material must be removed to an upland disposal area.
Finished grades of subaqueous or wetland crossing must be returned to preproject contours and elevations.
Division 3 Engineer/Design Services Unit
The utility line route or construction method will not disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life
indigenous to the waterbody.
Division 3 Engineer/Design Services Unit
Cuts through wetlands must be minimized.
Division 3 Engineer/Design Services Unit
Subaqueous lines must be placed a minimum of two feet below the bottom contour.
Division 3 Engineer
The portion of the Northeast Creek overflow channel that is to be permanently filled for rechannelization shall be
filled to natural grade with suitable wetland or organic substrate to ensure natural vegetation of the impacted
areas.
Page 2 of 3 July 18, 2000
Division 3 Ewginee
In order to reduce wetland impacts at the site, the old bridge approaches shall be restored to forested wetlands by
removing fill from the old approaches to wetland elevation at pre-construction contours and revegetating with
native wetland species.
Division 3 Engineer
All instream construction shall be contained by turbidity curtains.
Division 3 Engineer
This project must conform to all requirements of the NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and NC DOT's
Memorandum of Agreement with the Division of Land Resources.
Division 3 Engineer
Erosion control structures must be installed on the outboard edge of both the temporary and permanent fill in or
adjacent to wetlands, between the area to be filled and the existing creek to prevent sediment from entering the
adjacent wetlands or watercourses.
Division 3 En ineer
In order to adequately contain fill graded to 2:1 slopes on this project, the permittee should employ stringent
measures within the wetland areas in addition to silt fencing to prevent the movement of material from entering
these wetland areas.
Division 3 Engineer
In;order to protect water quality, runoff from construction must not visibly increase the amount of suspended
sediments in adjacent waters.
Division 3 En ig neer
The cut of filled slopes shall be at an angle, which can be retained by vegetative or other appropriate cover
Division 3 Engineer
A ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided within the shorter of 15 working or 30 calendar
days of completion of any phase of grading on cut or filled slopes.
Page 3 of 3 July 18, 2000
f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
August 4, 1999
N?
Re: Permit Application for a CAMA Major Permit for replacement bridges 118 and 119 over Northeast
Creek overflow and Northeast Creek on NC 1406 in Onslow County. Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-1406(2); State Project No. 8.2260701; TIP No. B-3215.
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the Q
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
• S en o e i at' re n the bm' pa e,
• On February 25, 2000, the N.C. Division of Wate uality received ur application for a 401 Water n
Quality Certificatio for the aforem tinned project. T Division wi begin to review the project for MX
ventual decision. H ever, please b ware that beginni January 1, 99 that the N.C. General
A embly passed legisl 'on requiring pa ent of fees for p cessing of ter Quality Certifications. C.C??? C
In 1 9, the NC General sembly passed a quirement for p mentof fee to the Division of Coastal
a/
Manag ent for processing CAMA permits, s well. For purpose of situp ification, we have an Pol
agreement ith the DCM for a combined fee structure and payment process. The DCM will contact
you will the necessary information regarding fee payment. However, please be advised that the 401
Certification cannot be issued until this fee is paid (to DCM), and the aforementioned 7 copiess
delivered to our office. j
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h .0507(a), we will have to place the permit application on hold until LO
we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
AA
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: Joanne Steenhuis, DWQ Regional Office
Dave Timpy, USACE
Central Files
C:\ncdot\B-3215\correspondence\CAMAhld.doc

Sat?d???6n
J _
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY '. r
January 28, 2000 >)
"y`.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources ?coSPI
Division of Coastal Management 2<`
Hestron Plaza 11, 151-B Hwy. 24
Moorehead City, NC 28557
F
ATTN: Mr. Ted Tyndall
CAMA Central Section District Manager"
Dear Sir:
Subject: CAMA Major Permit for Replacement of Bridges 118 & 119 over Northeast Creek
overflow & Northeast Creek on NC 1406. Onslow County. Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-1406(2). State Project No. 8.2260701. T.I.P No. B-3215.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridges Nos. 118 and
119 over the Northeast Creek overflow and Northeast Creek respectively. The project consists of
replacing the existing bridges on new alignment north of the existing bridges with the centerlines offset
approximately 21 ft. Approach roadways will have a 36 ft travelway with 8 ft shoulders, including 4 ft
paved shoulders and 11 ft shoulders where guardrails are warranted. The approach work will extend
approximately 950 ft northwest of Bridge No. 118 and 1350 ft southeast of Bridge No. 119 to the existing
three lane roadway section northwest and southeast. The proposed project will be built in phase
construction. Construction sequence will consist of construction of the new alignment while maintaining
traffic on the existing road.
STREAM/WETLAND IMPACTS
Stream impacts associated with the project will consist of the permanent fill of 130 linear feet of the
overflow channel for Northeast Creek a Class "SC-NSW" stream (Index No. 19-16(0.5), 8/1/91) and 8
feet of temporary stream impacts resulting from a water line installation. Additionally, the deck and
bridge railings for the superstructure for Bridges No. 118 and No. 119 are composed of concrete, while
the substructure is composed of timber. Both the bridge rail and substructure will be removed without
dropping them into Waters of United States, however, temporary fill resulting from dropping deck
components into waters of the U.S. will be 16 yd3 and 17 yd3 respectively.
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will result from fill, excavation, and mechanized clearing.
Total permanent wetland impacts will be 0.615 acres. Temporary wetland impacts will result from
excavation (0.7 acres) and fill (0.7 acres) associated with the installation of a new water line. Total
temporary wetland impacts will be 0.14 wetland acres. A summary ofall permanent stream and wetland
impacts is included in Table 1 and the attached permit drawings.
W
K
Table 1. TIP B-3215 Permanent Stream and Wetland Impacts.
Site Station
No. To/From Stream Name Wetland
Fill (ac.) Mechanized
Clearing (ac.)' Wetland
Excavation (ac.) Stream Channel
Lost (ft.)
1 27+00 to 32+75 Northeast Creek 0.079 0.128 0.038 130
2 23+00 to 30+30 N/A 0 0.37 0 0
Total Impacts 0.079 0.498 0.038 130
Impact in wetlands due to mechanized clearing beyond construction limit.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
In efforts to reduce wetland impacts, NCDOT has incorporated the following avoidance and minimization
measures:
1) Reductions of the proposed roadway fi 11 slopes from 3:1 to 2:1.
2) Excavation of the new overflow channel from only the west bank to minimize impacts due to
mechanized clearing. The channel construction sequence will include placement of a
temporary dike in the overflow channel, backfilling the existing channel, and cutting the new
channel. This will take approximately six weeks.
3) All waste and borrow sites will be kept out of wetlands to eliminate additional wetland
impacts.
4) Removal of lateral ditches from wetlands areas.
THREATENED AND/OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of December 20, 1999, there are I 1 species that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance T(S/A) for Onslow County, North Carolina. Additionally, a
January 10, 2000 review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicated
that there is no known occurrence of the eleven federally protected species within 1.0 mile of the project
area. Relevant information for those species listed for Onslow County is included in Table 2.
Table 2. Endangered and Threatened Species for Onslow County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological Conclusion
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) Section 7 consultation not required.
Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth T No Effect.
Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T No Effect
Carex lutea golden sedge PE No Effect
Charadrius melodus piping plover T No Effect
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle T No Effect
Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle E No Effect
Felis concolor couguar eastern cougar E No Effect
Lysimachia asperulaefolia rough-leaved loosestrife E No Effect
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E No Effect
Thalictrum cool i Coole 's meadowrue E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"P" denotes Proposed (a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern,
but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the forseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened by Similarity of Appearance, species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other
rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
2
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
The project is being processed by the Federal Highways Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion"
(CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The project, however, occurs in a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) designated county and does not meet the criteria for a General CAMA bridge
replacement permit. This letter therefore is a request for a CAMA Major Permit.
Attached for your information is a copy of the CAMA Major permit application, preconstruction
notification form (PCN), CE planning document, permit drawings, Wetland Delineation Sheets, Wetland
Rating Sheets, and a check for $250 (See Attachments). Additionally, copies of the letters sent to the
property owners and the certified mail receipts are attached. The signed return receipts from these
property owners will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. By copy of this letter, NCDOT also
requests Nationwide permits 23 and 12 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and
the appropriate 401 General Certifications from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919) 733-
1176.
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
W/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
W/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. J. Bowers, P. E., Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Tom Kendig, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
ATTACHMENT A
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION, PERMIT APPLICATIONS, AND PERMIT DRAWINGS
FORM DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a
b
Landowner:
Name N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Address P. O. Box 25201
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Authorized Agent:
Name N/A
Address
City State
b. City, town, community or landmark
Jacksonville, NC
C. Street address or secondary road number
SR 1406 Pumpkin Center/Piney Green Rd.
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? x Yes No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g.
river, creek sound, bay) Northeast Creek
3. DESCRIPTION & PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose e.g.
building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead, pier,
and excavation and/or filling activities.
Replace existing bridges and install new
water line.
Zip Day Phone b.
Fax
C. Project name (if any) State No. 8.2260701; (TIP B-3215) c
Bridges No. 118 & 119 on SR 1406 over N.E. Creek.
Note: Permit will be issued in name of landowner(s),
and/or project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Onslow
Is the proposed activity maintenance or an
existing project, new work, or both?
new work
Will the project be for public, private or
commercial use? public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use,
methods of construction and daily operations
of proposed project. If more space is needed,
please attach additional pages. Replace existin
bridges on new alignment north of existing
alignment. Project will be conducted in stage
construction. See attached drawings for details.
Revised 03/9
FORM DCM-MP-1
M. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities
4. LAND AND WATER N/A
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A waters of the state. (For example, surface runoff
sanitary wastewater, industrial/commercial
c. Approximate elevation of tract above MHW effluent, "wash down", and residential
or NWL 13 ft discharges.) Runoff from Highway
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
Muckalee loam & Craven fine sandy loam.
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
e. Vegetation on tract red maple, green ash, N/A
bald cypress, American elm
£. Man-made features now on tract Two
bridges, power poles, utility lines, & road.
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consult the local land In addition to the completed application form, the
use plan) following items must be submitted:
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community * A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
Rural x Other other instrument under which the applicant claims title
*Urban Transition to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
h. How is the tract zoned by local government? claiming to be the owner of said property, then
R-7 Single family residential. forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the from the owner to carry out the project.
applicable zoning? x Yes . No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable) * An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
j. Has a professional archaeological assessment ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
been done for the tract? Yes x No Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
If yes, by whom? detailed description.)
k. Is the project located in a National Registered Please note that original drawings are preferred and
Historic District or does it involve a National only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
Register listed or eligible property? prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if an
Yes x No adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U. S. Army Corps of
1. Are there wetlands on the site? x Yes - No Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
Coastal (marsh) _ Other x drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? yes requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
(Attach documentation, if available) guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03/95
FORM DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
number, landmarks, and the like..
6. CERTIFICATION AND
PERMISSION TO ENTER ON LAND
x A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary
X A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described
in the application. The project will be subject to
conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
Name See attached
Address (Page 2 of permit drawings
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
Name
Address
Phone
A list of previous state or federal permits issued
for work on the project tract. Include permit
numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
N/A
A check for $250 made payable to the Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
* A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
* A statement of compliance with the N. C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A-1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of
public funds or use of public lands, attach a
statement documenting compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
y,? o
This is the J. 9 day of
Print Name William D. Gilmore. P.E.
Signature J/, C _.?lk? - ,V 4). Gl
Landowner or Authot'fz ed Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
x DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-S
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major (4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all removed? (Explain) N/A
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to
this proposed project.
Main/Overflow
g. Length of proposed bridge 100ft/80ft.
1. BRIDGES
h. Width of proposed bridge 52ft./52ft.
a. Public X Private
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
b. Type of bridge (construction material) 13 ft.
Cored slab bridge
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
Yes x No
C. Water body to be crossed by bridge If yes, explain Longer bridge, will not restrict
Northeast Creek flow.
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL 2 feet
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge? 10.5ft.110.5ft.
x Yes No
If yes, main/overflow 1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
(1) Length of existing bridge 52 ft./52 ft. reducing or increasing the existing navigable
(2) Width of existing bridge 25 ft./25 ft. opening? Yes x No
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing If yes, explain
bridge 10.5ft./9.5 ft.
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) All parts will be
removed.
M. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? Yes x No
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)? If yes, explain
Yes x No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above n. Have you contacted the U. S. Coast Guard
the MHW or NWL concerning their approval?
Yes x No
If yes, please provide record of their action.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-5
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
2. CULVERTS potential? Yes No
If yes, explain N/A
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
N/A
b. Number of culverts proposed N/A
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
C. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
N/A a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes x No
d. Will proposed culvert replace an existing bridge? If yes,
Yes No (1) Length of area to be excavated
If yes, (2) Width of area to be excavated
(1) Length of existing bridge (3) Depth of area to be excavated
(2) Width of existing bridge (4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing yards
bridge
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be b. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
removed? (Explain) require any excavation within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs x Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 65'
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert? (2) Width of area to be excavated 20'
Yes No (3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
If yes, yards 110 yd3
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge of culvert
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above require any highground excavation?
the MHW or NWL Yes X No
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be If yes,
removed? (Explain) (1) Length of area to be excavated N/A
(2) Width of area to be excavated
(3) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards
f. Length of proposed culvert N/A
9.
Width of proposed culvert N/A
If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
Upland area determined by contractor.
h.
i.
Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL N/A
Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
Yes No
If yes, explain N/A
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
Yes x No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP-S
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
maintenance?_ Yes x No any existing utility lines? x Yes -No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal If yes, explain in detail Relocate water line
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands? on south side of existing project. See impact
Yes X No sheet and drawings for details.
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above. C. Will the proposed project require the construction of
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below any temporary detour structures?
the MHW or, NWL? Yes x No Yes x No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2 If yes, explain in detail
above.
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? Yes x No
MHW or NWL? x Yes No If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 130' e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled 13' and erosion controlled? Standard erosion control
(3) Purpose of fill fill existing overflow devices.
channel, channel to be relocated.
f. What type of construction equipment will be used
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert (for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
result in any fill (other than excavated material dredge)? Dozer, crane, heavy duty truck
described in Item d. above) to be placed within:
_ Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs x Other Wetlands
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled 3441 ft2 g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(2) Width of area to be filled to project site? Yes x No
(3) Purpose of fill Placement of new approachs, If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
stream relocation environmental impacts.
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
highground? x Yes No require any shoreline stabilization?
If yes, Yes x No
(1) Length of area to be filled 500' If yes, explain in detail
(2) Width of area to be filled 52'
(3) Purpose of fill Roadway
4. GENERAL
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation?
Yes x No
If yes, explain in detail
Applicant or Project Name
G• 4,d, 4). -b /--?
Signature
- 112.9-12-
Date
Revised 03/95
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):NWP 12
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLIC ON
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE: S??C,>1, A
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Z < 'u
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION C+j
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COAST AMANAGE
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM THE AP O IATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRE SES d'H
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF Eff I Q?MENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT. \+_'
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT; Project Development and Environmental Analysis.
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Onslow NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Jacksonville, NC
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): Bridges
No.118 & 119 over Northeast Creek on SR 1406 (Pumpkinseed/Piney Green
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Northeast Creek (Class SC-NSW)
RIVER BASIN: White Oak
Ff {
7a.'IS°PROJECT- LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), 14,1(5H QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[x] NO[ ]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
(CAMA)Urban Transition - 1996 Landuse plan update
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [x] NO [ ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK: _
Possible additional wetland fill of 0.103 acres may be associated with
U-3810.
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER: 0.37 acres (mechanized clearing)
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.37 acres
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A
WIDTH AFTER: FT
FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Perpendicular excavation of stream bed to install water line.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Mechanical equipment will include heavy duty excavation
equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Installation of potable 24" water line.
FT
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): Existing project perpendicularly intersects wetlands.
V T zTkRE REQUIRED T-G !'GNT7 THE U.S. ND T. va7I?$??-IF" SL?xc?r T7;4GE
?T TS A?1Ir ?7??s?? ?zT?)caTyz? 7v? r??E?'r7D T-7?z7 .,?MARINE ?.,za zrrc'?'- T TFISH ?- rrrav---
(v'L??i?. T ? [? ? S.N9' .?rC-NATI?'TCLTII- FISHERIES S-11TH RF-S) (cTEE SLT GENfl
'z-99RESSES SHEET)--REGARDING-THE PREGENGF3--e 2m44* FE9E 1,vY T-
2 RA 13 1
PROPGSS9 FGR-LISTING -ENDANGERED E)R-THRErATEr NS9 SPECIES GR G-F4TIGAL
ITT
V ITA IN THE =a? ?Rarr SIZr z THa0iT HA* ? B TFLEGT-E9 DV HE Rv PlFi6S-L- it pFkGvE
1{1T17?r??+ (`?/1T??TrLT7?rTTTTT2 E - z7rr?+z?+--nczu??'F-rrrrFir?rzcv
DATE GeT ?.?
" AGTE7'1 D• A ?Tf RESP'GNSEwS'7 FRGH THESE TGBNGlS-.+
-(SHPG) (SEE; AGENGY A99RESSES SHEET) REGAR9I-NG THE i ESENGT)z IST-G IG
PREPERTIES F?d THE?PSRH-ET- -AREA WHICH-MAYBE AFFBGT-E;9 -Bz-=nL-PR9P9SF39
pRGdEGT. DATE GeNT-AGTED.,
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Residential and
Forested property.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGE T'S SIGNATURE
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
u0
the
O /e (AN-
S / -
MANN
n ?, ? ? {Vnrn'.
e JptetsowE
e
-! FOREST Btlereae '.
erne taee?} \',,S \ Nellum \_ '
+ lacksonvill srl.f•
/r7 5 >?
l ( _ _?1?ii,Jwar ?1

1
U ltu»E
RIME EASE
of k%ton irrryl - ,Nru Rh-

North Topsail Beac
21
rol iSl •7
R•q.ewd a. .ur.u
50 Surf Cdy

fuosad Beach
C, 1 1 i A
N 1171'!
- A'11
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
tONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2260701 (B-3215)
BRIDGE NOS.118 AND 119 ON
SR 1410 OVER NORTHEAST CREED
it// 17/98 REV.8/'17/'99
RE'V. 01 / 00
SHEET J-- OF 17
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NUMBER NAMES ADDRESSES
(I? WILLIE HALL 444 GRANTS CREEK RD.
JACKSONVILLE, N.C. 28546
r
C2? D.L. PHILLIPS, ESTATE 800 BRIAR CREEK RD.
C/O TOM P. PHILLIPS SUITE AA501
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28502
© ONSLOW REALTY CORP. 931 KINSTON HWY.
RICHLANDS, N.C. 28574
LEO WESTON 643 CHURCH RD.
PINK HILL. N.C. 28572
0 TONY FRANZESE 1022 BEECHTREE RD.
JACKSONVILLE, N.C. 28546
The CI(C 1?d t?Un?be s phov? Co<<?(?or,-?
f-o the Ci(cled numbf-r' Lcatecl or, I h?
?ollot?It? pla - \`te,W sl-Beets.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLO`V COUNTY
PROJECT:8.2260701 (B-5215 )
REPLA(.'EMENT OF BRIDGES
NO. 1101 & 111) ON SR 1406
OVER NORTHE.-*.ST CREEK
11/'17198 REV.8/ 17/ 99
REV. 01 / 00

IZ
SHEET -)-OF
` -
`i JU
L_
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
WL
DENOTES L IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
i i SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® 4ENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
F!_L IN SURFACE
WATER
DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING
DITCH
FLOW DIRECTION
TIB
, TOP OF BANK
- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -c - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-M- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- - PL- - PROPERTY LINE
E - TEMP. CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOY, CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-4B"
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE
0
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
• DRAINAGE INLET
R00 14
0 RIP RAP
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
5 nR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
X X X X X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- - - COIR FIBER ROLLS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ONSLOW COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2260701, ( B-3215 )
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGES
NO. 118 & 119 ON SR 1406
OVER NORTHEAST CREEK.
11/17/98 REV. 8// 17/ 99
REV. 01 / 00
SHEET 3 OF I?

l
Co
t

O L'
c
r;
z L
>>
o?
om
ao c
JU U
-
-ON
aJ .•
LLJ
UJ J
{-
Oz
zz

U L
5 4-
O
O

Z 0
U
z
O
a
U=
O U
W p I /
W U?)
<
A /41
.1 ?-
O o
(2L C
1_ 7.
r'
LY
0
41

U
F--
O
J
a
W
F-
a
J
I,
' I
II
I
I
N
D
O
F-
2
9
E , ' w1f I
:w

C

I
9 ci Z ?
?z
° U
F
z U ? z?
0
E; ?7
9
c '-
I

U C) Ll
z ?' z
I
I
L - ?-
r
I
o>

CO
w

zW
CO
V)
?,
J y
1 I
13 X o
W I- W
F.
d

UJ I?-
N ? d
I
O O w
?I F A u"
x
I j m a z
I low z x z
O a'a
CL a-
<
I I ? (n
AN z z w z
I W G

C
. U in
0
kn
If
.a
d
cn
0
z
d
E-
V
3
z
z
0
F
d
d
U
>C
C1
F
0
z
C
Ld.
MATCH LINE STA 29+00 -L-
ON - Q ?
E-
`? C7 .:? o Z ? oo c
I J w °F®? w
?Uz 9
Iz0 eF.???®v®c
s I z c Q a o -4 H
O
III p Z ? cn
I +
III rn
N
I II z
I I ? f- a
I ?; ? s1
I\ "
U
I W ? ?
I + .a
Ln (00
O I I F, N
N
44
® cry
II, , co
1 = iI J ? o
O t?
+
II z ti-
N
w
I ,? J
?I w
J
? a
I z O
O p O
N

I
I
I
0
w ? a ?! 111
? i
32+00
? ?v I
z

a'+ c+ C ? '° n o
w

?.r X
zz 0 0
0
z
U ?.
z?
r
9 j'
I I, X
3 ? ? ? I
I
I
II 9
?14z zc
I
I II
w?0
W-4

N I I
I
0
i I I
I I II
I I II
``' I I I I
c?
° ° I I 13
°LIDJI UJ V)
I / I
o a I I / Iw
o N I I/
acv I I ? o°w
I II I m
II I °?
I I II I ?m
I ? II I ?
I I II i wo
i
I I ? I
-A -4 -A 41 I

•? I

<D

Q?

30+00

7>I T
7/ ? ?? I I i I O
/.
co
LLJ
CL
MATCH LINE STA 29+00 z
-L-
z
Q
F
m
z
F
0

? U
u
!J,
0
L-1
N
z
x
u
F z ?
O ?
D U
+ .., I I
+1

N O O L1
z
E-' n 9 U

I
I ? ? r1
?I
z
z? ®z u
O z -W,
O®
® c
2., ? 0 ^ t\
I >
t '
. 1 1- J v° p = w
' I uj O

I i I Z
N ?I O
+
1 I ??-o M
1-
I ___i
I
IC Q \
I I I O \

I 11 i

I I N,

M
M

M

^

z
O

± / II
? W I ?
• I
I ' i Z
O ?4? ? I S
Y
I' \

I j
I it lCl U
'-'-' (D
I I
f +
?'
cry
I
i ?

II N

J Z
C'
Z
O
O

0
N
O
N
O
O

1, J
V)
MATCH STA. 28+00
CL
a

o
I i i Q-

C)
2
w
I{
I
II
II
?H

I'
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
kill
t!a
c W "
?
cU
? a a
O J LO
w0- N
J CO
0
I
O
1
- o
Q M co
O Y
Q

O m
C-q
C
T
W
j
`-' H GC
O oC
O ?
O
Z Z m U. ?-
< o ° a o Ln
li o
U. O N Z , H 1-

O
J

N W
° N w '? z =
O a
O O
W H Q c O-
° H 0 CL >
° O

V
O 1= O
Z
z OC
a N
LO
Z
g
1 "000, 0 Z
LO w o >-
ooolw ' N H OC
' ? a o

Q > o Q

v 14..) tf)
w x 0 w w
w
Q
z
I- s
coZ ? Cl) J c» Z
/ LU w 1- ui
1- t?
O Q I--
O w
? H
O
J

=Q Z w N Z Z J
u w J o w z w H
Dal
O 0L) 0 0 U-
Q?
w o
w?

w Q, (n

U
N N LLJ * N Q

a J
s
L?
L` o
? M
Zto
0 13

0
0
o "
I N Lf)
J F ? ?
a to ccr)
_ F
5. 1 (D _
C +' a?moacaWC ?I
LO L p
V) ?, H m
?oj 0000"' a S 0 0 LL O O
/
M.?£,S
Z
ob£ F- LL 0 O O O w
_
_
g??
? LL
O D
O co Z r H H
W
NORTHEAST CRE K ?.. Z

----
a
??
Q
?
ac O
H V d r >
° o ow 0 cA
N
z (L
--- Ict W
I? co zN +Q a
cc z
?- ::? 4 I N W 0 CO m H
Fi x O W W
cc -
J L W z H- R::
?I
°CIO
0) Z tl)J CD z
W H W W ?--?
W - F-? J
a
`j? m-> Z O
Z J
W -? ?? J W W F-I
LLUJ
w W LL
z
_ iz
n O
V IJ
m
j a LL
`4' I .... CLIL
L-Li
O
I. ! +
Z
g
00+8Z 'd1S HOIVW
ca
N T v T
O
O
LO
t
V'
O
O
o
co
2
O ?
~ T (p
? N (? O
Q (p Cl) W IT Y
0 a m
M [C [

L
c O U
= U
O

0
O O
Q 0
LL
O 3 N Z~
O
F
LLI

-a
o CO =
Z
W
O O
G
W W
O
O
U B w Z
W
z a
o N
0

o
+
N O J
Q

O
~
J
Q
+
N IY ui
O c+
O
+
?--? W
J

0
?
J _
N.
0
T ? 0
o O

+
O
CL
O
oO

O
3nd
v?
I
L?J
)- co
{_ w
vJ ~
Q
M/a

J
Z
O
re
O
V
CL

J
V
W
J
V
CL
F-
z
O O
H
l
O
Q c
i W ?
CO CO Y
? Q o o r w
c
v U
CO 2 > 1=
O
= U tO o O Q

LL O O W
IL O N z T H

z
C14
Lu
Cc LLJ

O J W

co z

o co O O
z

N
LLI
° > ~ a r >
c
?
o O
. cc o
z

z a
?5

O
0

W

Z /J
O ..
H
~ 1' M

U) (D

U W W O
Q }
m
a H
p? U ol
tj U) F-
_
CL O)z Q O t-mOQj `
0
W
L)
CL 0 C) LL N
O o 2
? W U o
Oz
? 00 W CO0?
O
00 Z
r-
Z U
O
W
°? o
cU w a.
Z LU

H
W
w

0
Co

co co

F- C
to

65 C/) U N co U Cl)

I'- co Z

a ?
? c
o
?
0
0
U L
c
W U
.p
c
?
O U)
O ° LO
N
t

U

? X L
?

? ° 0 0
U ?
? 0
Q E
c ?- 0 0 0
W m-

? ?
o o o q
= a --
0
0 0

? m to o U')

? N c -o ...
'- co ? co

Q C
p U
f6 f6 ? (9 N
r C7 O
?
C

c ?
o 'p

U c
15 cC v
C,.)
o
c,)

- W O
D
= a
- U
lJ.I Q
?% O O O
E ? O O O

? C
U O
n O O
- f6 0 O O
LL j p ° O

d
v?
Q
n
v)
Q
o
?
N ? ? O Q
j
fn Q
J Q LO
J
O Z
` d CL
N N
Z
='
o t

M
(h
? g
w p 0 O W J
Q
v N N >
> Co
U
J
Q

N

.«. O
fn z

?

N 0
Q U) N (n O W LL
g°>
CL LU

0
F,-
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
r ,0/ .A,e/n
: Q'IS ? l? 3?)L ?r;J s 1 y tom-- /lrE_C'iCCC Date: 1.1?9
wner. AI&PQ county:
1?.+ s/o?
r. A'..c 1a.A- ?lc_ ?c G/ _ 4y State: AIC
Circumstances e)dst on the site? Q No
E Community ID: O ,6V
signficantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
i Transact ID: ?_
a potential Problem Area? Yes Q?Jo Plot ID:
ed, emlain on reverse.) I
e=iain
vcuc t rr rv?-
Strait Mtdkator
OorrongM R
Str atum tndrator
FACw 9. At?3r1 ,
10. Y".0..? ?. !r•
2 AC
r
_ _
C- A w
1US?v ca 12.f?1t'c/y If nw. ?/mi?I CNK r r}Gt
y ..
r
SAf' FfI 13

.

l
, FA C4 1s
y r G? AC.
f
- 1_.
?
c
,
Vv• 1b. -

perpnrer Dpmant Sondes that am OBI. FACW or FAC
le3clud' FAG-1.

MTUKULUUI
Recorded Oata (Describe in Remarks): Wetland hydrology M+dicam.
_
Stream. lake, or ride Gauge Primary tndfrators:
- Aenal Photog oft _ Yxndated
- Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 tithes
L,1* Recorded Data Awaft0le _ water marks
- Orin lines
Sediment Deposns
Oramage Pattems in Wetlands
Field Observatans:
i
I V14 Secondary txiicators (2 or more required):
0xKkzsd Root Channels in Upper 12 tithes
Depth of Surface Water. n.)
(
„ _
_ W atar-stairled Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit (n.) Data
Sad
_ Local
Test
a
utral
Depth to Saturated Solt 71 Z-' (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarm: /
?[/?• p?/u/d t) (? tJk S
?t I ,rrrlJtn
J?.
/VDr}ln S) p r R-61cc+ :
-- -- !^c I Sank and EXam01e Oata Farms
SOILS
Mao W wm. /n, 41c ?s..d?-e 4 a ti/
(Sows and Ph»eY `-/auri, SQ I.cl? ?QF- ? ? ?°S Field Obaenatioia ea?
Tae NNW (Subgroup)r i f ?1 /N C?.a / Con&- Mapped TYPa7 Yes Q
molt Color mom Calms Mottle Abundance! Testate. Concretions.
Gott ? ct?MeMee¦a SiCiGti1
/cYQ SI/
fyer;e Sod Indicators:
maloso! Con retoa:
Matle Eoioodo^ _ No Oromie Coeant in surface Lapp in Sardp Sao
SLdfdit Odor Orgaft ftom nq in Sandy Sass
AOuie MOOMM Regime _ Listed on Local 1*0 Soiw Lis:
Redudn0 Conditions _ Limed on mmumtst "Ate Sois Lis:
C,tayed or Low-Chra n Colors _ Ogler (6oWn in Remarks)
Reworks: y J f /r T ?r r
WETLAND DETERMINATION
NO (Cimie) (Circle;
Hysfropnyhc vegswari Present?
wetland Hydrom Present? Yes is this SamWiq Point Wtlhin s Wetland? Yss
0K Soils Prseant7 Yet
Remarks: JJ ( 0
Approved by MOUSACE YU
Appendct 9 Stank and E=mpw Oata Fdnms
i
i
i
i
d3
w
i
t
I
I
I
I
Y'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands ? ation Manual)
Date:
d t M 1?+ I I`3 snrr N. E . C?CcG County.
Project/Site: 32t)"?83? b
ApplicardOwne s/ 1 ac`c State:
Irnestigator.
??jj No Community ID: l•K{?-/? .
00 Normal Circumstances exist on the site? L?7O Transact y A
is the site significa * disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es Plot ed ID:
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ID:
VEGETATION
A _
2 Z., u ?-
On L
s. dC /u??r+?-
S.
a. S1
i-ri n 01.,?1?..Irµ.•r - -
a. Sn, %!.
Percerivet 00m nant Species OW are 08L. FACW or FAC
cam= xwwlator
10.
13
is -
t6.

Remarks:
VtGc?)r`-i ?'ttec?'l W
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Oescrbe in Remarks):
Stream. Lake. or Tdo Gauge
Ad(W PtCWgMphs
Odw
?Cb Recadad Data Available
Field ObseMdons:
NA cn)
Deom of Surface water
0apdt to Free Water in Pit
?-.-Cn )
pepdt to Saturated sot:
wetland t+y*ww vwbc tws:
Primary M+dicators:
hun"Itsd
ESavjmwd in upw 12 r+cnes
)noaw MBM
-t/ OCnR lines
ie ---- deposits
giy? paturns in WellsrWs
secondary tnGOamm (2 or more required):
O,ditsd Root Chwdws in UpW 12 a,ohes
7ZWaW.Stamsd Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAO-rMutral Teet
Other (Exploit it Remarks)
Remarks: /? we?/ C--f--(G '
/may f'°/dit 7e
-

82

JV ILJ
Foa)7
Mao L%w runs
(Seriesand P baser (n to'wec. I tai`-- ,50; l
or OrsssasOe ascu Ctsasw
Ta,orronry (Subgr-Pr T. _ .,. e M a " is Conkm Msoped Type? Yes O
L420 Caw M
DeO? ottle Colors Mot" Abundsnwl Torun. Concretbns.
Stn-eh,rm am
?bAmn 2L fktchosl
3 Ioya .7 7.S 3 y o c/q,4,
?MdriC So/ YWitsflors•
"Moo
-- HOW odon
Evo ? cenaettons
_ No OgWft Cor" M in Sudan Law in Strtdy Sois
?r,?,? OOOr
n OrOsnn Sues" in SwWw Sol:

_IeAauiC
e Reg-
Condk ons s Local t'"m Sots Lis
?CMed a
Lia"d an rltObrrel rlYdflt: So" 4s+ ?
Reduaft
.MyeO or Low Ctrtn a Colors ?.
_ older (Eden in Refflores)
Rensrks:
,So, l Mee Liyo%i?
Sd•(C'/r k ,e_'

i
i
t
i
f
Wt 1 LWARL.P vC r cr?m...r.. .
e (circle)
Mydropnyw vegsnobn Present? Y No (circle)
Wetland Mtm4y Present? is I* Samdig Po ft MW a Wetland? Yes No
Pwc Sae Present? No
Remarks:
'Wee-f- Ci?/ ? Crder,? ?Di we/?aH?S
mmmmmm?
Aopro ed by HOLISACE 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Projeet/Site 13-32» f Ql,??e/ I/8•A /l9 o?U A/ lv Date: /Z ZL 9
Applicant/Owner. A& t)T County: _ DH 0,1")
Investigator. ,', c d l a LIB i-4-ace, 0111 t State: /V t?
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Community ID: UPG.>ti?? '
Is the site significancy disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transed ID: L
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: Alb. r
(af needed, explain on reverse.

00"Mant Plant Species Straeim trtpi=r

2. "-'1, LS rt ?r . 5 h /Y
3. pactlnar? r law /.n..' h i.?• ??..?-
4.j'!!t!r_ brr5o...w ???

S. Akr'ee.._r w?elr.._?r.R S ?

7.yLM^pN?s ?1r•??n.wr.a ?a
_ .S?
y
?
??
?
?
?
00m1na.r Plant spews Stratum wCater
?.
1c.
1 t.
12.
13.
14.
ts.
16.
?V -
Pereanaet Oor wm" Species acct am OeL. FACW or FAC 5-0
Retrtsrta:
?ey,- r/7 h, 41o es `?, f- Ix-i -ei p eWt--04 elm/. a
HYDROLUU t
womm?
Recorded Oats (Oeseriba in Remarks Wei K"dr°logy ". lors:
_
Stream. Lake. or ride Gauge Primary i dicalors:
- Aenal P atop One
- _¢+?led
? Saeusted in Upper 12 Mimes
Other
je 1o Recorded Oata Available _
_ Water Malts
_ Orin Lines

Sediment 0600545
_
Ora nape Pattems in Wetlands
Field Observations: _
Secondary hdicators (2 or more required):
)
'n Oxid¢ed Root Channels it Upper 12 inches
Oepm of Surface Water. N//T (
. _
_ W atershned Leaves
Oepm to Free Water in Pit /I 0t) _ local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC•Alautrsl Test
Oepm to Saturated Sot -00 _ Other (Explton in Remarks)
Rematits:
r+. ee IT
olio ?a
c
6r ccl //
C!: lelr.a
f
,
Sou}?^ Sl QE-
SOILS !n! v•r k4 Pic//
Map Lw Herne Lfavc•?+ f7,1 f saved.,. /04 k_ Drainage Cls=
(Series and Ph*-r Field Observations
Tm onarry (SubWwpC Conlbm Mapped Type? Yes
K4W* Cabr Moab cows Moab Abundance/ To3dure.Concm0cris.
Doodl Mnr#f= l i?.....rtleiatl elA%#0 trsgf SG
u? (Afticid Will
Fyoric Sod inanow",
l`stoao: _ Coneretnnt
?istle gppeaor _ Pw Orparoc Comoro in Sulfaee Laver IN SandY Sots
Sualdb Ode. _ Organic. Sbeekbg it Sandy So'`
Aeuis Measure Regims Listed an Loal ffYdrtt: Sots L-
Reduanq Comoons _ Listed ee momw t"M Soil Lot
Gbyed or LowChror- Colors _ Other (dyobi M it Romero ,
Romance. d?, Tc,t o- 4-C lu5lti? S O ?- !?`?d?clClce 1 b d^
v?? it. e ? V<<,
R ? e_ . (-buti. c1 l ? S
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Yes ??Circb)
My?opnybe yegstation Present? (Circle)
W W eased "Awoiow Present? Y No
Yes is on samoing Point Wow a Wedww Yes No
Pwc sods Present?
Remarks: /
seyy? /JI7 S /r?01 • /+ O r/0 C ?t? /'t GJ ! ?/k tio!'?
Approved by
392

i
i
t
i
i

f
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
/ /.1/.4e n
Project/Site: Date: Z Zz 5
Applicant/Owner: Ale o i County:
Investigator. l /a rur, / r State:
Do Normal Circumstances east on the site? E No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 18) Transect ID: C
Is the area a potential Problem Areal Yes fZ? Plot ID: A6. L
Flf needed. emtain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
porrin-rw R t Stratum tndiotor
1.
2. rAX.nuc ?tnns?l?e.?n'e..- n '?CC ?nL
a. W r r l . b, r, - ?r s 4;A 9e Dommot Rant Snadeta Stratum tndintor 10. Ce,. l ?,. lew: lie /..s •?„?? ...LLB
4.Riicre- ?o•b.,.... L....
6.
c
7. `S,•,L_ ._ Srnl?L.aL !/9 Car
t L?
12.
13.
la.
15. `
16. ?a
Partarwof Coei nt Spa=** that are 06L. FACW or FAC / ')// v or) i
Ramartts'
j%lCje%>9dJ?j vJi¢c'3 1,je-11o rp? Gr. c..
MTNrCVL.%JV i
Recomw Data (Describe in RemaAcs): waned l•lyovopy ktdicamrs:
- Stream. Lake. or rde Gauge Primary kxkatars:
trxaloated
As" Photopraptts
- Ottw , j dasrrated in tipper 12 aches
,, ?
l/r?o Recorded Data Availade _ Wow Marks
Drift Liras
Sediment Deposits
_
7,26wmige Padems in W edwos
Foo Obsenatiow Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water (n.) _ Oxidked Root CtwmMs in Upper 12 tholes
t?WaiierStauusd Leaves
Oepth to Free Water in Pit Local Sod Survey Data
FAC•Noutral Test
Oapth to Saturated Soi: _
Dow (Explain in Remartt )
Remarks:
f7

.. .. ? - _, . •n Puma

SUILs
Map Unit Name C 12 /a UCH ?a S7n ?? ??'t Drainage aria:
(Sena snd FTMN): `/ Field Observations
Tamnor y (Subgroup); Confirm Mopped Type? Yes
Depth Metric color woo Colors Moto. AbundenoN Texture. Concretions.
?r,nzsn Lf MingaNWIntstl_ et..x-nntr1.. Cteteture_ P
finem2l k ? 51/
14- 1 as 'P- S./
2 /o A 3 /algi,_
/
N/dre Sol atdi=Wm:
mmosot - Concretions
gait: Epip.don - high Orpanlc Corrupt in Surface Layer N Sandy Sole
- Sut?ek odor pManic Straworm in Sandy Sol$
ked an Local Hpne Soils test
_ Aquic btoisbrr. R.pNr ?u
trc" Conditions - Obw on sin in emr Sots lYt
_ Outer (F?ouN N iWrNrks)
_, GMyad or LowCnmma Colon
If /".S.,41 ti-f 4 i h r
R.marlcs: 1? Ovt ?C J C k /
PA4 C e I C e. leak- ; r1 C. "ks 11-, s
•Nt I LfWtJ VC t cRmmr+..v..
l ydrophytb vepetsbon Proa.tu? (YOW No (Cktk, (Cirdsl
Wetland P4%Voi 9y Proses? No ,?`
! iyonc soils Present? /f No b tltis.Sampbv Point WWm a Wetland? ? No
Remarks

Anorored by mQUSNCE 3192
'11
i
i
i
i
i
f
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

?? ,sdu sus
Road S? feet
i I iIq pjc? N t , G?c?N we and Width Da s '.
6 &"j cs -? acres
Area
e Q S ?retland
rojeCt Nam
I Inty 4 C-
evaluator d ose a or rad
lam ius)
e of p('djacent lanncule up ..?' up?1oP.
112 0/0
Location VeSetanon
0/0
Wetland forested an
aOculture, urbanlsub? % '.
on pond or lie 1 impervious surface
"al str
on perenfu
on intermittent stream vegetation
divide inapt within interstream Dom II
other e1i lu7/ n- l
0 61,
Soil series
_ h?us, muck, n „
predominantly organic (3)
l 0°-sandy
or pez-- eral n
- "
fly min Q and wetn? I
predomin= d, Flooding ermanent'Y
? pfedodmantly ' se?Permaneatly to p
tors ? flooded or mun flooded or ?ndatea ?
gydraulic fac ? $easOui flooded or temporarw'
I
`steep topography euyed ? water ding or surface water surface ditched or z100 feel, e?denCe of flpO
total wetland Width no
Pine saves
Pe (select one) dwood forest freshwater marsh
W etland BottOand har rBoglfen
-Bpheme Bwetland
<1& ter fort
wamp forest Carolina Y
Wet flat _ ether _ chanels _r---------
pocostn brad h arm s-offstr Wetland -tro
`Bog for?.eas'-tLLw, be apIl ed? alt vcio ? ? .
_?---
Wes- -- • oo
*+,he_ t_atl mss` --- X 4.00 s
---- W storage X 0
ater
* x S _0
0
on
R Shoreline staba %2.00 A B pollutant rem° 3 4.00 t
T Wildlife habitat x
j x 1:00
stream,
Aquatic life value
Within 112 mileuP
t ----------------
N RecreationlEducItion % nonpoiat disturbance
G sensitive watershed and -10- -.-?_.?---
*Add 1 point if in
Of
4
E

Tye,,. SfATFd
N N°M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 28, 2000
Willie Hall
444 Grants Creek Rd.
Jacksonville, NC 28546
Dear Mr. Hall:
Subject: Onslow County, Replacement of Bridges Nos. 118 and 119 over Northeast
Creek on SR 1406. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1406(2). State Project No. 8.2260701.
TIP No. B-3215.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridges 118 and
119 over the Northeast Creek overflow and Northeast Creek on SR 1406 in Onslow
County. The proposed project will involve replacing the existing structures with two new
bridges 80 ft long and 52 ft wide, and 100 ft long and 52 ft wide respectively. This
replacement will take place north of the existing alignment and local traffic will be
maintained on site while the project is built in stage construction.
The project will require permanent wetland impacts of 0.079 acres of fill, 0.038 acres of
excavation, and 0.498 acres of mechanized clearing. Temporary wetland impacts
associated with the installation of a new water line will include 0.07 acres of fill and 0.07
acres of excavation. Permanent stream impacts will consist of 130 feet of fill in the
Northeast Creek overflow. Approximately 65 ft of channel will be relocated. Temporary
stream impacts consist of 8 feet of stream excavation due to the water line installation.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management is required for this
work. This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). In that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a
copy of the permit application is being provided for your review; however, no action is
required on your part.
If you have any questions, please contact appropriate CAMA representative, or call Mr.
Eric Black, NCDOT at [phone].
Sincerely, &-'?
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
e ` -
aw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
January 28, 2000
D.L Phillips Estate
C/O Tom P. Phillips
800 Briar Creek Rd.
Suite AA501
Charlotte, NC 28502
Dear Mr. Phillips:
SECRETARY
Subject: Onslow County, Replacement of Bridges Nos. 118 and 119 over Northeast Creek on SR
1406. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1406(2). State Project No. 8.2260701. TIP No. B-3215.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridges 118 and 119 over
the Northeast Creek overflow and Northeast Creek on SR 1406 in Onslow County. The proposed
project will involve replacing the existing structures with two new bridges 80 ft long and 52 ft
wide, and 100 ft long and 52 ft wide respectively. This replacement will take place north of the
existing alignment and local traffic will be maintained on site while the project is built in stage
construction.
The project will require permanent wetland impacts of 0.079 acres of fill, 0.038 acres of
excavation, and 0.498 acres of mechanized clearing. Temporary wetland impacts associated with
the installation of a new water line will include 0.07 acres of fill and 0.07 acres of excavation.
Permanent stream impacts will consist of 130 feet of fill in the Northeast Creek overflow.
Approximately 65 ft of channel will be relocated. Temporary stream impacts consist of 8 feet of
stream excavation due to the water line installation.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management is required for this work.
This.permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). In
that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy of the permit
application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions, please contact appropriate CAMA representative, or call Mr. Eric
Black, NCDOT at [phone].
Sincerely,

??- William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
OMSGJFo
•® Orr +?9•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
January 28, 2000
Mr. Leo Weston
643 Church Road
Pink Hill, NC 28572
Dear Mr. Weston:
SECRETARY
Subject: Onslow County, Replacement of Bridges Nos. 118 and 119 over Northeast Creek on SR
1406. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1406(2). State Project No. 8.2260701. TIP No. B-3215.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridges 118 and 119 over
the Northeast Creek overflow and,Northeast Creek on SR 1406 in Onslow County. The proposed
project will involve replacing the existing structures with two new bridges 80 ft long and 52 ft
wide, and 100 ft long and 52 ft wide respectively. This replacement will take place north of the
existing alignment and local traffic will be maintained on site while the project is built in stage
construction.
The project will require permanent wetland impacts of 0.079 acres of fill, 0.038 acres of
excavation, and 0.498 acres of mechanized clearing. Temporary wetland impacts associated with
the installation of a new water line will include 0.07 acres of fill and 0.07 acres of excavation.
Permanent stream impacts will consist of 130 feet of fill in the Northeast Creek overflow.
Approximately 65 ft of channel will be relocated. Temporary stream impacts consist of 8 feet of
stream excavation due to the water line installation.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management is required for this work.
This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). In
that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy of the permit
application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions, please contact appropriate CAMA representative, or call Mr. Eric
Black, NCDOT at [phone].
Sincerely,
'U • C , JUZL
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GoVERNOR
January 28, 2000
Mr. Tony Franzese
1022 Beechtree Road
Jacksonville, NC 28546
Dear Mr. Franzese:
SECRETARY
Subject: Onslow County, Replacement of Bridges Nos. 118 and 119 over Northeast Creek on SR
1406. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1406(2). State Project No. 8.2260701. TIP No. B-3215.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridges 118 and 119 over
the Northeast Creek overflow and Northeast Creek on SR 1406 in Onslow County. The proposed
project will involve replacing the existing structures with two new bridges 80 ft long and 52 ft
wide, and 100 ft long and 52 ft wide respectively. This replacement will take place north of the
existing alignment and local traffic will be maintained on site while the project is built in stage
construction.
The project will require permanent wetland impacts of 0.079 acres of fill, 0.038 acres of
excavation, and 0.498 acres of mechanized clearing. Temporary wetland impacts associated with
the installation of a new water line will include 0.07 acres of fill and 0.07 acres of excavation.
Permanent stream impacts will consist of 130 feet of fill in the Northeast Creek overflow.
Approximately 65 ft of channel will be relocated. Temporary stream impacts consist of 8 feet of
stream excavation due to the water line installation.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management is required for this work.
This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of Tran$portation (NCDOT). In
that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy of the permit
application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions, please contact appropriate CAMA representative, or call Mr. Eric
Black, NCDOT at [phone].
?Siinncerely, /?
lv William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
jj' Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
n ^` SUTF °
raA?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
January 28, 2000
Onslow Realty Corporation
931 Kinston Highway
Richlands, NC 28574
Dear Sir or Madam:
SECRETARY
Subject: Onslow County, Replacement of Bridges Nos. 118 and 119 over Northeast Creek on SR
1406. Federal Project No. BRSTP-1406(2). State Project No. 8.2260701. TIP No. B-3215.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridges 118 and 119 over
the Northeast Creek overflow and Northeast Creek on SR 1406 in Onslow County. The proposed
project will involve replacing the existing structures with two new bridges 80 ft long and 52 ft
wide, and 100 ft long and 52 ft wide respectively. This replacement will take place north of the
existing alignment and local traffic will be maintained on site while the project is built in stage
construction.
The project will require permanent wetland impacts of 0.079 acres of fill, 0.038 acres of
excavation, and 0.498 acres of mechanized clearing. Temporary wetland impacts associated with
the installation of a new water line will include 0.07 acres of fill and 0.07 acres of excavation.
Permanent stream impacts will consist of 130 feet of fill in the Northeast Creek overflow.
Approximately 65 ft of channel will be relocated. Temporary stream impacts consist of 8 feet of
stream excavation due to the water line installation.
A permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management is required for this work.
This permit is being obtained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). In
that your property is adjacent to the site where this permit is required, a copy of the permit
application is being provided for your review; however, no action is required on your part.
If you have any questions, please contact appropriate CAMA representative, or call Mr. Eric
Black, NCDOT at [phone].
Sincerely,
I/. C - 41,-
kVA.' William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
•
Onslow County
SR 1406
Bridge No. 119 Over Northeast Creek
and
Bridge No. 118 Over Northeast Creek Overflow
Federal-Aid Project Nos. BRSTP-1406(2) and BRSTP-1406(3)
State Project Nos. 8.2260701 and 8.2260801
T. I. P. Nos. B-3215 and B-3216
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
TE H. Franklin VA, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
71 7
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
{(`° Division Administrator, FHWA
Onslow County
SR 1406
Bridge No. 119 over Northeast Creek
and
Bridge No. 118 over Northeast Creek Overflow
Federal-Aid Project Nos. BRSTP-1406(2) and BRSTP-1406(3)
State Project Nos. 8.2260701 and 8.2260801
T. I. P. Nos. B-3215 and B-3216
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1997
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
lXJ ,
Pamela R. Williams
Project Engineer
J s Wang, h.D., P.E.
tpudsident
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit e d
Consultant Engineering Unit
SEAL '
7521
Onslow County
SR 1406
Bridge No. 119 over Northeast Creek
and
Bridge No. 118 over Northeast Creek Overflow
Federal-Aid Project Nos. BRSTP-1406(2) and BRSTP-1406(3)
State Project Nos. 8.2260701 and 8.2260801
T.I.P. Nos. B-3215 and B-3216
Bridge Nos. 118 and No. 119 are included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). Figure 1 shows the
location of the bridges. No substantial impacts are anticipated as a result of this bridge
replacement project. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. This section of SR 1406 is part of the Jacksonville City to the Sea Bicycle Route, and
the replacement bridge will include AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodations.
3. Construction will be scheduled to avoid the
spring months (February 15 - June 15) to
passage.
necessity of instream activities during the
minimize the impacts to anadromous fish
4. Waste and borrow sites will be kept out of wetland areas. Compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
5. During the design phase of this project, provisions will be made for a future five lane
roadway and structure, and coordinated with T.I.P. Project U-3810.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 119 over Northeast Creek on SR 1406 will be replaced with a new bridge and Bridge
No. 118 over Northeast Creek Overflow on SR 1406 will be replaced with a triple barrel 3.6 x 3.6
meter (12 ft x12 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. The new bridge for Bridge No. 119 will
have a 15.6 meter (52 ft) clear roadway width, including a 10.8 meter (36 ft) travelway with 2.4
meter (8 ft) shoulders and will be approximately 21 meters (70 ft) in length.
The proposed approach roadway for the project will have a 10.8 meter (36 ft) travelway with 2.4
meter (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2 m (4 ft) paved and where guardrail is warranted the
shoulders will be 4.0 meter (13 ft) shoulders. The approach work will extend approximately 290
meters (950 ft) northwest of proposed Bridge No. 119 and 414 meters (1350 ft) southeast of
proposed Bridge No. 119 to the existing three lane roadway section northwest and southeast.
Stage construction will be used to replace the existing structures and traffic will be maintained
on-site during the construction period.
The estimated cost to replace Bridges No. 118 & 119 based on current prices is $1,432,000
including $82,000 for right-of-way and $1,350,000 for construction. The estimated cost to
replace bridge No. 118 as shown in the NCDOT 1998-2004 T.I.P. is $330,000, including
$30,000 for right-of-way and $300,000 for construction. The estimated cost to replace bridge
No. 119 as shown in the NCDOT 1998•-2004 T.I.P. is $330,000, including $30,000 for right-of-
way and $300,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1406 (Piney Green Rd.) is classified as an urban minor arterial route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. The project vicinity consists of primarily forest and residential
areas. SR 1406 intersects SR 1715 approximately 162 meters (530 ft) northwest of Bridge No.
118, and intersects SR 1410 approximately 130 meters (425 ft) southeast of Bridge No. 119.
This road is an important link between NC 24 to the south and US 17 to the north. This section
of SR 1406 is also part of the Jacksonville City to the Sea Bicycle Route.
The bridges are located in a tangent section of SR 1406. Both bridges have a clear roadway
width of 7.3 meters (24 ft) including 0.3 meter (1 ft) shoulders.
Near the bridges, SR 1406 pavement width is 6.6 meters (22 ft) with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders
including 0.3 meter paved. The roadway at Bridge No. 119 is approximately 3.4 meters (11.0 ft)
above the bed of Northeast Creek, and the roadway at Bridge No. 118 is approximately 4.1
meters (13.5 ft) above the bed of Northeast Creek Overflow.
The projected traffic volume for SR 1406 is 19,700 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1998 and 26,800
vpd for the design year 2018. These volumes include 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailers
(TTST), 3 percent dual-tired (DT) vehicles, a design hourly volume of 10 percent, and a
directional volume of 55 percent. The speed limit is posted 70 km/h (45 mph) at the project
site.
Bridge No. 118 is located approximately 48 meters (150 ft) northwest of Bridge No. 119. The
existing bridges were built in 1951. Both bridges are approximately 16 meters (53 ft) in length,
and have widths of 7.9 meters (26 ft) between the rails. The superstructures consist of
reinforced concrete decks with asphalt wearing surfaces; the substructures consist of timber
caps and piles.
Bridge No. 119 and Bridge No. 118 have sufficiency ratings of 2.0 and 37.8, respectively, based
on a rating of 100 for a new structure.
The posted weight limit for Bridge No. 119 is 23,587 kilograms (26 tons) for single vehicles and
29,937 kilograms (33 tons) for truck tractor semi-trailers. The posted weight limit for Bridge No.
118 is 24,494 kilograms (27 tons) for single vehicles and 28,123 kilograms (33 tons) for truck
tractor semi-trailers.
2
Twelve accidents were reported near the bridges between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1996.
Seven of the accidents involved two vehicles. One accident involved a vehicle exceeding the
speed limit. None of the accidents occurred on or between the bridges.
Telephone and power lines cross the creek and the overflow aerial and parallel to the bridges
on the North (upstream) side. On the south side, telephone cables come from underground
approximately 6 meters (20 ft) from the end of Bridge No. 118, cross the creek and the overflow
aerial, and return underground approximately 21 meters (70 ft) from Bridge No. 119. A 300 mm
(12 inch) water line cross the creek and the overflow parallel to the bridges on the south side. A
fire hydrant is located at the intersection of SR 1406 and SR 1715, 0.6 meters (2 ft) from the
edge of pavement. Impacts to utilities should be considered low.
Approximately twenty-five Onslow County school buses cross the bridges twice daily, and six
Onslow County special needs buses cross the bridges four times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge Nos. 118 and No. 119. Each alternate
consists of a triple barrel 3.6x3.6 meter (12 ft x12 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert and a new
bridge 21 meters (70 ft) in length, with a clear roadway width of 15.6 meters (52 ft), including a
10.8 meter (36 ft) travelway and 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders on each side.
The approach roadway section will be three lanes, 10.8 meter (36 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8
ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved and connect to the existing three lane section
approximately 155 meters (510 ft) northwest of Bridge No. 118 and to the existing three lane
section 414 meters (1350 ft) southeast of Bridge No. 119. This three lane section will allow for
left turn lanes for the intersections that are approximately 120 meters (400 ft) and 320 meters
(1050 ft) southeast of Bridge No. 118.
The typical section proposed on the structure consists of three lanes. With the existing traffic
volumes which are near 20,000 and projected volumes of 26,000 average daily traffic, SR
1406, Piney Green Road will need to be widened to five lanes in the future. The widening of
Piney Green Road to five lanes has been included for a feasibility study in the 1998 T.I.P.
(Project U-3810).
The alternates studied (shown in Figure 2) are as follows:
Alternate A: Replace Bridges No. 119 and No. 118 at the existing locations with a temporary
on-site detour on the north side. The roadway grade will be approximately the same as the
grade on the existing bridges. The approach work will extend approximately 223 meters (730 ft)
northwest of Bridge No. 119 and 414 meters (1350 ft) southeast Bridge No. 119. The
temporary detour will consist of two 3 meter (10 ft) corrugated metal pipes for the overflow and a
temporary structure of approximately 16.8 meters (55 ft) over the creek.
Alternate B (Recommended): Replace Bridges No. 119 and No. 118 on new alignment north
of the existing bridges with the centerlines offset approximately 6.3 meters (21 ft). The bridge
and culvert will be built in stage construction. The approach from the northwest will have a 440
meter (4 degree) curve and the approach from the southeast will have reverse 1750 meter (1
3
degree) curves. The approach work will extend approximately 290 meters (950 ft) northwest of
Bridge No. 119 and 414 meters (1350 fit) southeast of Bridge No. 119.
Alternate C: Replace Bridges No. 119 and No. 118 on new alignment north of the existing
bridges with the centerlines offset approximately 14 meters (46 ft). The approach from the
northwest will have a 440 meter (4 degree) curve and the approach from the southeast will
have reverse 1750 meter (1 degree) curves. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridges
during construction. The approach work will extend approximately 290 meters (950 ft)
northwest of Bridge No. 119 and 414 meters (1350 ft) southeast of Bridge No. 119.
Other Alternates:
Replacing the bridge at the existing location with road closure was considered, but due to the
high volume of traffic (20,000 vehicles per day) that SR 1406 presently services it was not
recommended to detour traffic onto existing roads during the construction of the new bridge.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridges. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1406.
Investigation of the existing structures by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that the
rehabilitation of the old bridges is not feasible due to their age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied based on current prices are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Structure Removal (existing) $ 19,300 $ 19,300 $ 19,300
Structures (proposed) 451,300 451,300 451,300
Temp. Detour Structure and Approaches
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
131,700
568,900
353,800
225,000
18,800
414,200 529,800
265,200 299,600
200,000 200,000
82,000 72,000
1,768,800 1,432,000 $ 1,572,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate B with a three lane section is recommended with provisions for a five lane section in
the future. Alternate B has the less overall environmental impacts, costs less, and by widening
to the north, the water line on the south side will not be relocated.
Bridge No. 119 will be replaced with a bridge of approximately 21 meters (70 ft) in length.
Bridge No. 118 will be replaced with a triple barrel 3.6 x 3.6 meter (12 ft x12 ft) reinforced
concrete box culvert.
4
A 15.6 meter (52 ft) clear roadway width is recommended for the replacement bridge. The three
lane travelway will have a width of 10.8 meters (36 ft) and 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders.
A 10.8 meter (36 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved will
be provided on the proposed approaches.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that traffic needs to be maintained on-
site due to the heavy volume of traffic.
The proposed bridge will included AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodations as follows:
approaches to the bridge will have 1.2 m (4 ft) paved shoulders; there will be a 1.2 m (4 ft)
lateral offset from the travel lane edge stripe to the vertical rail; and the bridge railing height
should be 1372 mm (54 inches) for bicycle safety.
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 50 year design storm; the new structure
replacing Bridge No. 119 is recommended to have a length of approximately 21 meters (70 ft),
and a triple barrel 3.6 x 3.6 meter (12 ft x12 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert is recommended
to replace Bridge No. 118. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as
the existing bridge elevation. The replacement structure will maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to
facilitate deck drainage. The lengths and heights may be increased or decreased as necessary
to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province in a
residential area of Onslow County, just north of Jacksonville, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Kellum, 1977); Soil Survey of Onslow County (SCS, 1992); United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map (Kellum, 1994);
USFWS list of protected species and federal species of concern (1997); North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (1996); NCDOT
aerial photography of the project area (1:1200); North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) water resource data; and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) proposed critical habitat information. Research using these resources
was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project area on November 5, 1996.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 24.4
meter (80.0 foot) wide right-of-way limits, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the
length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without
5
specific replacement structure design information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case
was assumed for the impact calculations.
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area," "project
area," and "project corridor' denote the specific area being directly impacted by each
alternative. "Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) radius of the
project area.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills to flat with gently sloping
banks along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 1.5 meters (5.0 feet).
According to the Soil Survey of Onslow County (SCS 1992), the area within the creek bed
consists of Muckalee-Dorovan association and the surrounding area consists of Norfolk-
Goldsboro-Onslow association. Muckalee-Dorovan association includes nearly level, poorly
drained soils that are loamy, mucky and found on flood plains. Norfolk-Goldsboro-Onslow
association contains nearly level and gently sloping, well drained, moderately well drained, and
somewhat poorly drained soils that have a loamy subsoil found on uplands. The soils in the
project area are mapped as Muckalee loam and Craven fine sandy loam. Muckalee loam is a
nearly level, poorly drained soil found on floodplains. Muckalee loam is on the local hydric soils
list. Craven fine sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil found on uplands. Craven fine
sandy loam has hydric inclusions of Muckalee. These soil types were confirmed in the field by
taking soil borings with a hand auger.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a
system used by NCNHP (Schafale and Aleakley 1990). Scientific nomenclature and common
names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent
references to the same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined
through field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other
documentation (Conant 1958; Farrand 1993; Robbins et al. 1966; and Whitaker 1980).
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated,
coastal plain bottomland hardwoods, mesic; mixed hardwood forest, coastal plain small stream
swamp, and a planted pine area. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
6
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the road shoulders and a
disturbed vegetated area (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and
regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders are
dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), aster (Aster spp.), wild onion (Allium
cemuum), plantain (Plantago spp.), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
On the south side of SR 1406 between the bridges, a 9.1 meter (30.0 feet) wide disturbed
vegetated area exists between the road shoulder and the coastal plain small stream swamp.
The area contains piles of asphalt and fill material. The vegetation includes privet, red maple
(Acer rubrum) saplings, tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), albizia (Albizia julibrissen), and
groundsel tree (Bacchans halimifolia). This area is also very thick with vines such as Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine grape (Nibs rotundifolia), and greenbrier (Smilax
spp. ).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. On the day of the site visit, a dead Eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) and rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) were
observed. Other animals which may occur in this community include the Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotoo, several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.),
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), brown headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American toad (Bufo americanus), and
Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina).
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods
This forested community occurs north of the bridges along the creek and overflow. The
dominant canopy trees include sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsy/vanica), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), and scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). The
understory consists of slippery elm (U rnus rubra), black willow (Salix nigra), and ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub layer includes red bay (Persea palustris) and American holly
(Ilex opaca). The herbaceous layer includes common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle, and muscadine grape. The soil
consisted of a black (10YR 2/1) loam. Hydrologic indicators included drift lines and standing
water.
On the day of the site visit, whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) tracks, raccoon tracks, and a
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) were observed. Animals previously listed above may also
be found in this community along with the Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Eastern
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), common screech owl (Otus asio), pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), Carolina chickadee
(Pares caro/inensis), tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor}, common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula),
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), stinkpot (Stemotherus odoratus), gray treefrog
(Hy/a versicolor), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), and the Northern black racer (Coluber
constrictor constrictor).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This forested community occurs in the southeastern quadrant. The dominant canopy trees
include red maple, sweetgum, loblolly pine, laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak, green ash, and
American elm (Ulmus americana). The understory contains ironwood, tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) saplings, and American holly. The herbaceous layer consists of greenbrier, Japanese
honeysuckle, muscadine grape, and poison ivy.
The animals listed above may be found in this community along with the southeastern shrew
(Sorex longiroshis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus),
white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivaceus), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), Eastern spadefoot (Scaphiopus
holbrooki holbrook?), and Eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis).
On the day of the site visit, a yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) was observed as
well as deer and raccoon tracks.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
This forested community is found in the southwestern quadrant. The dominant canopy trees
include bald cypress, green ash, sweetgum, red maple, swamp chestnut oak, and laurel oak.
The understory contains ironwood, red maple, and sweetgum. The herbaceous layer consists
of greenbrier, muscadine grape, and poison ivy. The soil consisted of a dark grayish brown
(10YR 4/2) saturated loam. Hydrologic indicators included standing water and buttressed
trunks.
Animals which may be found in this community include the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
a/cyon), Carolina wren (Thryothurus ludovicianus), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas),
Eastern phoebe (Sayomis phoebe), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), hairy
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), marsh rabbit (,Sylvilagus palustris), Eastern cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus), brown water snake (Natrix taxispilota), red-spotted newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens viddescens), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), and bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana).
Planted Pine Area
This forested community is found in the northwest quadrant. This area consists of an
approximately 0.40 hectare (1.0 acre) stand of young loblolly pines with a sparse understory
consisting of a few scattered sweetgum and Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) saplings
as well as some Japanese honeysuckle.
Animals which may be expected to be found in this area include the animals from the
surrounding communities (listed above) as well as the pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee (F'arus carolinensis), Southern copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix contortrix), Southerr, toad (Bufo terrestris), and several species of mice
(Peromyscus spp.).
8
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Northeast Creek and Northeast Creek
Overflow. Within the area under Bridge No. 119, the creek is approximately 9.1 meters (30.0
feet) wide. On the day of the field investigation the creek was flowing slowly. The water was
slightly turbid and colored with tannins. The creek was approximately 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3.0 to
5.0 feet) deep. The bottom consisted of sand with some silt. Within the area under Bridge No.
118, the overflow is approximately 7.6 meters (25.0 feet) wide. On the day of the field
investigation, the water was silt laden and not moving. The overflow was approximately 0.9
meters (3.0 feet) deep. The bottom consists of sand.
Vegetation along the creek banks includes ironwood, black willow, and bald cypress. Animals
such as the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utriculaiia) may reside along the waters edge. Due
to the siltation and slow moving water, a diverse macroinvertebrate community is not expected.
Any macroinvertebrates within the creek and overflow would be restricted to the shallow areas.
The macroinvertebrate community may include mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies
(Plecoptera), and dragonflies (Odonata); however, no macroinvertebrates were found from dip
netting in the creek within the project area.
According to Brad Hammers, District 2 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), the following fish species are found within the Northeast Creek:
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin pickerel (Esox
americanus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in wetland areas and in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic
community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. The NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented.
9
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL_ AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE(ACRES)
Bridge No. Man- Coastal Coastal Mesic Planted Aquatic Combined
118 & 119 Dominated Plain Plain Mixed Pine Area Community Total
Replace- Community Bottomland Small Hardwood
ment Hardwoods Stream Forest
Impacts Swam
Alternate 0.47(l.16) 0.0 (0.0) 0.08 (0.20) 0.05 (0.12) 0.02 (0.05) 0.04 (0.10) 0.66(l.63)
A
Temporary 0.45 1.11 0.11 0.27 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.12 0.67 1.65
* Alternate 1.03 (2.55) 0.08 (0.20) 0.04 (0.10) 0.0 (0.0) 0.06 (0.15) 0.05 (0.12) 1.26 (3.11)
B
Alternate 0.78(l.93) 0.23 (0.57) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.11 (0.27) 0.05 (0.12) 1.17 (2.89)
C
NOTES: ' Recommended
Impacts to the Terrestrial Communities
The coastal plain bottomland hardwoods, coastal plain small stream swamp, mesic mixed
hardwood forest, planted pine area, and the man-dominated communities serve as nesting,
foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. The loss of these habitats will result in the displacement
and mortality of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial
animals from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions
of these communities. Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way,
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Alternate B has the least amount of
wetland impacts with a combined total of 0.12 hectare (0.30 acre) for the coastal plain
bottomland hardwoods and coastal plain small stream swamp. Alternate C has the least
amount of overall impacts (1.17 hectares/2.89 acres), but it has the most wetland impacts at
0.23 hectare (0.57 acre) for coastal plain bottomland hardwoods.
Impacts to the Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Northeast Creek and Northeast Creek
Overflow. Alternate B and C will result in the least amount of disturbance of stream bottom:
0.05 hectare (0.12 acre) for each alternate. Alternate A (which includes a temporary detour) will
result in the most stream bottom disturbance: 0.04 hectare (0.10 acre) permanent disturbance
and .05 hectare (0.12 acre) temporary disturbance. This represents worst case conditions;
actual disturbance area will be less. The new replacement structure construction and approach
work will likely increase sediment loads in the creek in the short term. Construction related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important part
of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
10
applicable. Since Northeast Creek is potentially anadromous fish spawning habitat, the
NCDOT's Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to for this
project. In-stream activities should be avoided during the spring migration period between
February 15 and June 15. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance to ensure
that replacement of existing and new highway stream crossing structures will not impede the
movement of anadromous fish.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the White Oak River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Northeast Creek is a perennial tributary to the New River in the White Oak River drainage basin.
Northeast Creek and Northeast Creek Overflow flow south through the proposed project area.
On the day of the field investigation, the creek was approximately 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3.0 to 5.0
feet) deep and the overflow was approximately 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) deep. Within the project
area, Northeast Creek and Northeast Creek Overflow have a classification of Class SC NSW by
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
Class SC indicates saltwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival, and wildlife. NSW indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs. The stream index number for Northeast Creek is 19-16. .
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Onslow
County (1987) indicates the project area lies in Zone A6, which is the area of the 100 year flood
boundary where base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have been determined.
The NCDEM has sampled the macroinvertebrate community throughout the state. Benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been
developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic sample
based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains,
piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. There is no benthic macroinvertebrate data from
Northeast Creek.
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a stream's
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. There is no
NCIBI data from Northeast Creek.
No waters classed by NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within the project vicinity.
The Onslow County Planning Department indicated that the project area is not within a
protected watershed.
11
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to
register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers located in the project vicinity.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project area, stormwater runoff from SR 1406 as well as the
residential area which surrounds the bridges appear to be the main sources of water quality
degradation.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of bridge support structures and
a reinforced concrete box culvert in the creek channel and overflow. In the short term, if canopy
trees in the adjacent coastal plain bottomland hardwoods, coastal plain small stream swamp,
and the mesic mixed hardwood forest (which currently offer shading) are removed for
construction, there will likely be an increase in water temperature. In addition, construction of
the bridge and approach work will increase sediment loads. Although flow is slow in these
areas, additional sediment loading can reduce flow further and result in a decrease in oxygen
levels. The NCDOT, in cooperation with NCDEM, has developed a sedimentation control
program for highway projects which adopts formal Best Management Practices for the
protection of surface waters. The following are methods to reduce sedimentation and water
quality impacts:
strict adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters during the life of the project.
reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams.
- placement of temporary ground o:)ver or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings.
reduction of clearing and grubbing along streams.
SPECIAL TOPICS:
Jurisdictional Issues
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 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as bottomland hardwoods exist north of the
bridge and swamp exists south of the bridge. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the
project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.
12
Wetland impacts due to the recommended Alternate B will be up to 0.12 hectare (0.30 acre).
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Up to 0.05 hectare
(0.12 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the recommended Alternate
B replacement of Bridge No. 118 and No. 119.
Permits
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 USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classed as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project will
be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.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 USACOE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), 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.
The subject project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), which is administered by the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM). DCM is the lead permitting agency for projects located within its jurisdiction.
CAMA directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) 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:
- it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
- it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC;
- it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act;
- it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by CRC.
According to Mr. Charles Jones, District Manager of the Morehead City field office, CAMA
permits will be required for the project. Mr. Jones stated the type of permit will depend on
whether the replacement will be a bridge or a culvert.
Mitigation
Since the recommended Alternate B wetland impact is less than 0.45 ha (1.0 acre) and fill or
alternation of the streams are less than 45.7 meters (150 linear feet), compensatory mitigation
will not be required, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h).
13
Wetlands will be delineated prior to submittal for permit application. Mitigation for impacts to
surface waters may be required by the USACOE. A final determination regarding mitigation to
waters of the U.S. rest with USACOE.
All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Solid waste will be
disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways "Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures". The Contractor will observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be
placed into any existing land disposal sites that is in violation of state or local rules and
regulations. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside the right-of-way and
provided by the Contractor. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining borrow sites,
delineating wetlands in borrow sites and obtaining written concurrence on delineated wetlands
in borrow sites from the Corps of Engineers. Borrow material will not be stockpiled or disposed
of adjacent to or in areas where they may runoff with stormwater into streams and
impoundments. Where it is absolutely necessary to store materials adjacent to streams, they
will be stored above the mean highwater mark in such a manner that they would not runoff with
stormwater. Disposal of waste and debris will not be allowed in areas under the Corps of
Engineers regulating jurisdiction. In the event that COE jurisdictional areas cannot be avoided,
the Department will be responsible for mitigation.
The Contractor will maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the construction
phase and until the completion of all seeding and mulching, or other erosion control measures
specified, in a manner that will effectively control erosion and siltation into areas under the
Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction, streams and impoundments.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due either
to natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for
Onslow County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
14
The USFWS lists ten federally protected species for Onslow County as of the May 2, 1997
listing. These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ONSLOW COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
American alligator)
Caretta caretta T
(Loggerhead sea turtle
Charadrius melodus T
(Piping lover
Che/onia mydas T
Green sea turtle
Dermoche/ys coriacea E
Leatherback sea turtle
Felis concolor couguar E
Eastern cougar)
Picoides borealis E
Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Amaranthus pumilus T
Seabeach amaranth
Lysimachia asperu/aefolia E
(Rough-leaved loosestrife
Thalictrum cooleyi E
Coole 's meadowrue
NOTES: "E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range)
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range)
"T(S/A)" Denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (species which are
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and are
listed to protect these species)
The American alligator is a large (1.8 to 3.7 meters / 6 to 12 feet long) rough-backed reptile
with a broad, rounded snout. Its fourth tooth on the lower jaw fits into a notch in the lower jaw.
This distinguishes the American alligator from the American crocodile which has its fourth tooth
exposed when the jaw is closed. American alligators are sexually mature at about 6 or 7 years
of age. Nesting occurs in late spring or early summer when females produce approximately 35
to 40 eggs. American alligators inhabit fresh to slightly brackish river systems, canals, lakes,
ponds, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes.
The American alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section
7 consultation.
15
The Loggerhead sea turtle is characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. The carapace
and flippers are a reddish-brown color; the plastron is yellow. Adults grow to an average weight
of about 200 pounds, although some specimens may occasionally reach 1000 pounds. The
species feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish and other marine animals.
The Loggerhead is typically found at sea and may enter bays and lagoons, as well as be found
nesting on beaches.
Habitat does not exist for this species since no beaches are within the project area. A
search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project
will not impact the Loggerhead sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Piping plover is a small, stocky shorebird resembling a sandpiper. The plover is pale
brownish above and white below. A black band across the forehead over the eye, and a black
ring around the base of the neck are distinguishing marks in adults during the summer, but are
obscure during the winter.
The Piping plover nests on sand beaches. They prefer to nest in sparsely vegetated areas that
are slightly raised in elevation (like a beach berm). These birds are primarily coastal during the
winter, preferring areas with expansive stand or mudflats for feeding in close proximity to a
sandy beach for roosting.
Habitat does not exist in the project area for this species since no tidal flats or sandy
beaches are in the area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
construction of the proposed project will not impact the Piping plover.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about four feet and a weight of 440 pounds.
It has a heart-shaped shell, small head, and single-clawed flippers. The adult carapace is
smooth, keelless, and light to dark brown with dark mottling. The plastron is whitish to light
yellow. Adult heads are light brown with yellow markings. Adult green turtles feed mainly on
marine algae and grasses in shallow water areas.
Green turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs,
bays, and inlets. Open beaches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance are required
for nesting.
Habitat does not exist for this species since no beaches are within the project area. A
search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project
will not impact the Green sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
16
The Leatherback sea turtle is the largest of all sea turtles and is easily distinguished by its
leathery skin. Adults generally weigh from 640 to 1300 pounds. The neck and limbs are thick
and feebly retractible. The triangular - shaped carapace is covered with a layer of rubbery skin
rather than horny shields. The head and neck are black or dark brown with a few white or
yellow blotches.
The Leatherback sea turtle is typically found at sea. They require sandy nesting beaches
backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so that the crawl to dry sand is not too far. The
preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and generally rough seas.
Habitat does not exist for this species since no beaches are within the project area. A
search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project
will not impact the Leatherback sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Eastern Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle, the backs of the ears,
and the tip of the tail, which are black. In North Carolina, the Eastern cougar is thought to occur
in only a few scattered areas, possibly including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian
mountains. The Eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an
abundance of their primary food source, whitetail deer. A Eastern cougar will usually occupy a
range of 40 kilometers (25 miles), and they are most active at night.
No habitat exists for the Eastern cougar since the proposed project is within a residential
area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed
project will not impact the Eastern cougar.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Red-cockaded woodpecker is a small (18 to 20 centimeters / 7 to 8 inches long) bird with
black and white horizontal stripes on its back, a black cap and a large white cheek patch. The
male has a small red spot or "cockade" behind the eye.
The preferred nesting habitat of the Red-cockaded woodpecker is open stands of pines with a
minimum age of 60 to 120 years. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are preferred for nesting;
however, other mature pines such as loblolly (Pinus taeda) may be utilized. Typical nesting
areas, or territories, are pine stands of approximately 81 hectares (200 acres), however, nesting
has been reported in stands as small as 24 hectares (60 acres). Preferred foraging habitat is
pine and pine-hardwood stands of 80 to 125 acres with a minimum age of 30 years and a
minimum diameter of 25 centimeters (10 inches). The Red-cockaded woodpecker utilizes
these areas to forage for insects such as ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, as well
as seasonal wild fruit.
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no stands of old growth
pines within or adjacent to the study area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no
17
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
the construction of the proposed project will not impact the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant on Atlantic Ocean beaches. The stems are fleshy and
pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves. The leaves are clustered toward the tip of the
stem and have a small notch at the rounded tip. Flowering occurs in July and continues until
the death of the plant in late fall.
Seabeach amaranth is found on the upper beach and lower foredune of coastal barrier islands.
The species is an effective sand binder, building dunes where it grows.
Habitat does not exist for this species since no beaches are within the project area. A
search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project
will not impact the Seabeach amaranth.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial herb with whorls of three to four
leaves encircling a slender stem. This plant reaches 0.3 to 0.6 meters (1.0 to 2.0 feet) in height.
Showy yellow flowers are produced from mid-May through June and fruits are present from July
through October.
The Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic; to the coastal plain and sandhills of North Carolina
and South Carolina. It occurs in open ec:otones (edges) between longleaf pine uplands and
pond pine pocosin, on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. It has also been found on deep peat in the low shrub community of large
Carolina bays.
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no areas of longleaf pines
or adjacent pond pine pocosins. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
construction of the proposed project will not impact the Rough-leaved loosestrife.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Cooley's meadowrue is a perennial herb which grows from an underground rhizome. Under
ideal conditions, in full sun, the stems are erect; in the shade they are lax and may trail along
the ground. The the leaflets are green and the leaves are usually in groups of three. Cooley's
meadowrue flowers in mid- to late June.
Cooley's meadowrue is found in moist to wet bogs and savannahs. It grows along fireplow
lines, roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powedine rights-of-way, and needs some type
18
of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. Plants often found growing with the meadowrue
include tulip poplar growing with cypress and/or Atlantic white cedar.
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no wet bogs or wet pine
savannahs. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this
species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the
proposed project will not impact Cooley's meadowrue.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species
or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by
the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT
activities.
19
Table 3 includes listed FSC species for Onslow County and their state classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
ONSLOW COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Aimophila aestivalis SC No
Bachman's sparrow)
Ammodramus henslowii SR No
HensloWs sparrow)
Heterodon simus SR No
Southern ho nose snake
Laterallus jamaicensis SR No
Black rail
Ophisaurus mimicus SC No
Mimic lass lizard
Passerina ciris ciris* SR No
Eastern painted bunting)
Rana capito capito SC No
Carolina gopher fro
Procambarus plumimanus SR Yes
Croatan crayfish)
Asplenium heteroresiliens E No
Carolinas leenwort
Carex chapmanii WL Yes
Cha man's sedge)
Dichanthelium sp. 1 C/PE No
Hirst's panic grass)
Dionaea muscipula C-SC No
Venus flytrap)
Litsea aestivalis C No
Ponds ice
20
TABLE 3 (cont.)
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
ONSLOW COUNTY
Scientific Name North Habitat
(Common Name) Carolina Present
Status
Lobelia boykinii C No
Bo kin's lobelia
Myriophyllum laxum T No
Loose watermilfoil
Oxypolis temata WL No
Savanna cowbane
Pamassia caro/iniana E No
Carolina grass-of- arnassus
Rhexia aristosa T No
Awned meadowbeaut
Rhynchospora thomei C/PE No
Thorne's beaksed e
Solidago pulchra E No
Carolina goldenrod)
Solidago vema E/PT No
S dn -flowedn goldenrod)
Tofie/dia g/abra C No
Carolina asphodel)
Notes: * Indicates species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state
laws).
PE Denotes Proposed Endangered (species which are proposed for official
listing as endangered).
PT Denotes Proposed Threatened (species which are proposed for official
listing as threatened).
C Denotes Candidate (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation
action is recommended).
WL Denotes Watch List (species not warranting active monitoring, but
believed to be of conservation concern).
A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of any FSC within the
project vicinity.
State Protected Species
Organisms which are listed by NCNHP as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given
to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
21
Table 4 includes state protected species for Onslow County.
TABLE 4
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ONSLOW COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
Common Name Present
Malaclemys terrapin centrata SC No
Carolina diamondback terrapin)
Neotoma floridana floridana T Yes
Eastern woodrat
Rynchops niger SC No
Black skimmer
Stema nilotica T No
Gull-billed tern
Cystopteris tennesseensis E-SC No
Tennessee bladder-fem
Muhlenbergia ton'eyana E No
Pinebarren smoke rass
Platanthera integra T No
Yellow fringeless orchid
Utricularia o/ivacea T No
Dwarf bladderwort
Notes: E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Sc Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of state protected species
within the project vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present in the project area for the American alligator, however, this species is listed as
threatened by similarity of appearance to a rare species. It is not biologically endangered or
threatened and it is not subject to a Section 7 consultation. No individuals were observed at the
time of the site visit. No habitat is present for any federally protected species. Habitat is
present for two FSC (Croatan crayfish and Chapman's sedge) and one state protected species
(Eastern woodrat).
22
IX. CULTURAL EFFECTS
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a Concurrence Form, dated January 16 1997, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy
of the SHPO letter is included in the appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated November 22, 1996, stated that there are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. No archaeological investigation will be
conducted in connection with this project. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the
appendix.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge and improved approaches will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment, provided that current NCDOT standards and specifications are used.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No home relocations are
expected with implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Since the bridge will be replaced at the existing location, the
Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply.
23
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, therefore not required for inclusion in the"regional
emission analysis or a project level' CO analysis. The project is located in Onslow County,
which is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not increase or decrease the traffic volumes in the area. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project area. Impacts on noise and air quality will not be significant.
Noise levels may increase temporarily during construction. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality
(1990 CAAA and NEPA). No additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Onslow County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The approximate 100
year floodplain for the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain fringe to be
affected is not significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
24
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America.
Chanticleer Press, New York, New York.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Feb. 1996. List of Rare Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1996.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the White Oak River
Basin. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Preston, R.J. and V.G. Wright. Identification of Southeastern Trees in Winter. North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Soil Survey of
Onslow County, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
25
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. May 2, 1997. List of Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southeastern Region,
Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994 National Wetlands Inventory Map.
Kellum Quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1977. Topographic map - Kellum quadrangle.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
26

•
? a
•
? .,?p_ wuNOAAr ? •?r? ' ?

..,> . v
' 46 ?r
.', JACKSONVILLE O

':Jq

G

BRIDGE N0. 119 r '
H1
BRIDGE N0. 1 18 `? ?` ,. , r/
?o, •
/,
fitters ,
'ill
.i. 4
Calher
7...? L
Cathennr a la1
i 0
+?
I/
?\ H
A
t 1
Holly R
172 - Bear Inlet
Brown s Inlet
2
Ot''

s
Fe
r Nett•Rir¢rlnfet
egio-i 8-ch A-
North Topsail Beach
1 a.ocn Access
IL MAND
uepartment of i ronsportation
Division of Highways
k!N)Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 119 AND 118
OVER NORTHEAST CREEK AND OVERFLOW
ON SR 1406
ONSLOW COUNTY
TIP NO. 8-3215 & B-3216
0 500m 1 kilometer
f 11111111
SCALE 1:30 000 FIG . 1

t
Y
104
3 y ¢k
461 AS
Sit t ","!

its AS 14
., ?, ?; ?a.n a s mF

?f Y
"Ohl
10,
two

A a t£
vll
r3
Ar.
?d Nis,
' a y
i'
P
'? d i ?F F 4 G
st`?Sid' 2 n_Y. ..x 'Y•' a ... 4_ S?
ty,
ONSLOW COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 118
B-3216
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
NORTH OF BRIDGE
FIGURE 3
ONSLOW COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 119
3215
LOOKING EAST
.: r
LOOKING WEST
NORTH OF BRIDGE
FIGURE 3
ONSLOW
COUNTY
B-3215
B-3216
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
SCALE 1:12000
0 500 1000
meters
FIGURE 4

Superintendent Onslow Countu Schools
Ronald B. Singletary P.O. Box 99, Jacksonville, North Carolina 28541-0099
Deputy Superintendent Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
Freddie S. Candy
Asst. Superintendents
Charles T. Hoyt, Jr.
Barbara B. Newman November 14, 1996
Board of Education
Gary Lanvermeier, Chm.
Fred A Holt, V.Chm.
Vicki Davis
Robert B. Gaskins
Fred W. Hargett
Lois C. Meadows
Mary Ann Sharpe
?,C- Cj ! ',
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
NC Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-6201
Dear Mr. Vick:
NOV 1 A 1996
L DIVISIC*? r
G' H;GI sV.'A., e
Subject: Schools Buses that travel over Bridge No. 118
on State Road 1406 in Onslow County's
As per your letter concerning school buses that travel State Road
1406, please be advised that approximately 25 regular school buses
travel this road twice daily and 6 special needs buses travel this
road four times daily.
I would like to suggest that if you are planning to close this road
for an extended period of time, that the closing might be scheduled
during the middle of June through the middle of August when school is
not in session. By scheduling the closing during the summer months,
our bus schedules could stay in tact and our routes would remain the
same and not become longer. Our Transportation Department would also
save money on added fuel costs and drivers' salaries that would be
increased should you do the closing when schools are in session.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If I can supply you
with any further information, please feel free to give me a call at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Jeff Smith
Transportation Director
JS/jdb
c: Ronald Singletary, Superintendent
Charles Hoyt, Asst. Superintendent
Roger Dixon, Director, Support Services
Marcie Kellum, Transportation Coordinator
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
r4i
mom
C) F= F1
January 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
Tc : Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality G L6
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
X23,
1 .- I
j
Reference your correspondence dated November 5, 1996, in which you requested comments concerning
the scope of work to be performed by Wang Engineering Company, Inc. The Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT and its consultant consider the following generic environmental commitments for
design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure. If an on-site
detour or bridge/approach road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be removed to
pre-construction contour and revegetated with native vegetation. Tree species should be planted
at 320 stems per acre.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by
the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than directly flowing into
the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should
be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed one
acre. Smaller impacts may soon require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 6016 recycled/109/6 post consumer paper
Mr. Joe Westbrook Memo
January 16, 1997
Page 2
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2806.DOC
?- 0?.
N N
$ $ N
D-643 N
g $ N N
00$ O 'J
Z m N k
_m t5 N N
a °o N N
_m ?$ N N
Coo
E E m 'E m E y c
` !o
` `- .
$ cm? vm$ 'om$ m$ vm$ vm$ $?> vm
$ am$ ?m$
E
CL w
a
s
E

a m
?r

E
W >t
a,
E
Q >r

E
N
> 0
E
? >L

E
mkt

E
'a5

E
°C
co
E
W >t

10 cy)
E
m Zt

E
S >t

E
U m o
m m'o
m m o
m m'o
m m o
m m o
m °
m m o
L m
o
m
S m o
m m o
m
Z
t Z
s Z Z Z
= Z y z CD Z
- Z ts
Z
c O
U_ °
U °
U

u
Y
m E y LOL E O
..
> a m
Z E
J E
J E
J ?
l9 E
J a a m m
¢ F- U F F-

e
fe "0

N Z U
Z U V) to r/yj Q 2 U
Z Z Cl)
p N
3 A U
Yn
U C? U U v z U
U
U J
U U
to
D V
A p _ Ci N to
O
tD
t°
(A X N O O N Q N

C Cl)
N

N
D N N
C .°r N N N N N O O x
U

0
= 0 mn n CD

o CL
E
m
n

E
=
Z
O
O
0
? ¢ ¢ ¢ cn U V
co
0
00

m
m
CD
Y
m
E
a

a

a
m
m
m
m

Y
m .19
m
m
m C\j
m
Z N to cEa U U` m U U`
cn N Z °
m

m
d
N Y
j c

¢ A

¢ ¢

X R

U 3
U £ £

U =
C7
N
U O
Z O
Z
C
O
V

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U
m a m as m m m to m to
m
m

a m m m m m m m m (D m m
? ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
rn
rn Ul)
v
c
o

z m 0)
ch
o

U
cq
o

`$

`8

p
J N ¢
co Z Z ¢
!n ¢
co ¢
!A N ¢
lA ¢
CO ¢
U
U U
D
G
Z ?

t , ?n co N T N
.? C) co
` Ch
cl)
m '
C
Z ?p
O
?
N
N
l7
?
U)
00)
N
N
d N p
?
N
m CC?
m N m p
C
l0 C'7 W C?
m C?
m M
m
P to co m m m co
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Joe Westbrook
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Progra /
DATE: January 6, 1997 J
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 119 on SR 1406 over Northeast Creek, Onslow
County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3215.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided regarding potential impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
We recommend replacement of the existing structure with a bridge, on-site with an off-
site detour, if possible. If an on-site detour is required we request that NCDOT biological staff
visit the site and make a wetland determination to choose the location of the detour.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC requests NCDOT routinely
minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements.
The NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of
the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
Any channel relocations should be done using state-of-the-art stream relocation techniques and
should be coordinated with the NCWRC.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project.
- ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Joe Westbrook
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor' for
Habitat Conservation Program/
DATE: January 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 118 on SR 1406 over Northeast Creek overflow,
Onslow County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3216.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided regarding potential impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
We recommend replacement of the existing structure with a bridge, on-site with an off-
site detour, if possible. If an on-site detour is required we request that NCDOT biological staff
visit the site and make a wetland determination to choose the location of the detour.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC requests NCDOT routinely
minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements.
The NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of
the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
Any channel relocations should be done using state-of-the-art stream relocation techniques and
should be coordinated with the NCWRC.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project.
J 0-f
SEAT(o-
r 1 n
,yr- „
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
h
FROM: David Brook !
Deputy Statj ist'oric L!? ?tv
Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group 14, replace Bridge 119 on
SR 1406 over Northeast Creek, Onslow
County, B-3215, State Project
8.2260701, ER 97-7780
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1996, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. We look
forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project
area so we can make our survey recommendation.
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 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
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
you have questions
Gledhill-Earley, environmental
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 q1P

? „u. STATE o
ti R n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
l-'
FROM: David Brook I'eno1z, h.? 46'r
Deputy State Historic Preservation OffSUBJECT: Bridge Group 14, replace Bridge 118 on
SR 1406 over Northeast Creek overflow,
Onslow County, B-3216, State Project
8.2260801, ER 97-7782
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1996, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. We look
forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project
area so we can make our survey recommendation.
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 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: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett

Federal Aid ?r VVhT'P- 140(o ('0 TIP Tr &' 32ns County

CONCURRENCE FORIM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description ?-EP1.Ac.f?- &VLtPFE We. 1,11 o1J 52. 14o4, ova-p_
1J•R_T1AeAST G2EEiG ritj0.? uXT -
On i i!v `1 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 tic project's area of potential c: ccts.
? the-.- arc no proocrtics less than fifty years old which are considcrcd to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there arc properties over fifty -cars old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each prooerty, properties
idc, iftcd as are considcrcd not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is ncccssan•.
there are no National Re ister-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
S isncd:
ell-
t/i&/??
Rcprescn ati • , t DOT D to
104A
FHw r the Division dministrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Date
! In
"State Historic Preservation 0 tcer / Date
If a survey report is prepared, a tint copy of this fonn and tlic attrchc d list %%ill be included.
Federal Aid # ORSTP- 1406. 3 TIP 32t(o
County O?JSt?ol-.1
CONCURRENCE FOR?NI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V-F-PL-Ae?e, gR-tPc.E w,. lt* oN SR 14a (v mvo4?-
nIo(ztHEA?iT' GizEEK oJt:fLF?,oW, r; 40_ Le p XIV
On I ti, `r-1 representatives of the
,i North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Fcdcral 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 agrccd
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the projects area of potential cf ects.
there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the projects area of potential of ccts.
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) «ithin the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as v arc considered not eligible
for National Rcaister and no furtlier evaluation of them is ncccssan•.
? there are no National Rea.ister-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
SiQncd:
??
DOT
1 i rG 7
Date
UVP;
FHwIP J`r the Division administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SHPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer ate

If a survey report is prepared, a tinaI copy of this form and the attached list «ill be included.
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
January 9, 1997
Action ID Nos. 199701747, 199701748, 199701749, 199701750, 199701751,
199701752, and 199701753 (Various bridge replacement projects)
C E
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch QAAV
Division of Highways Z l y,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201,i?? p
Raleigh,. North Carolina 27611-5201 E` ? .
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference the letters dated November 5, 1996, requesting comments on
potential environmental impacts and scope of work that should be performed for
the bridge replacement projects listed below (please reference our Action ID.
on any future correspondence regarding these projects):
a. Action ID. 199701753, TIP B-3028, Robeson County, Bridge No. 51 on NC
210 over Gallberry Swamp.
b. Action ID. 199701752, TIP B-3043, Sampson County, Bridge No. 139 and
141 SR 1919 over Six Runs Creek.
c. Action ID. 199701751, TIP B-3031, Robeson County, Bridge No. 233 on SR
1318 over Big Raft Swamp.
d. Action ID. 199701750, TIP B-3155, Cumberland County, Bridge No. 194
over CSX Railroad.
e. Action ID. 199701749, TIP B-3215, Onslow County, Bridge 119 on SR 1406
over Northeast Creek.
f. Action ID. 199701748, TIP B-3216, Onslow County, Bridge No. 118 on SR
1406 over Northeast Creek overflow.
g. Action ID. 199701747, TIP 3029, Robeson County, Bridge No. 58 on NC 71
over Big Raft Swamp.
r
•
-2-
Although these projects may qualify for Nationwide Permit Authorization
(NWP 23) as a categorical exclusion, the project planning report should
contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does not
have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic
environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and recommendations
to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary
impacts to waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat
that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours
in wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification
should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills
from waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for
temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to
restore the site.
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any)
if a bridge span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage
if a bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment during this phase of planning
for these projects. Questions or comments may be addressed to me in the
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office at [phone].
Since ly,
Scott McLendon
Regulatory Project Manager
Copy Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687