19950253 Ver 1_Complete File_19950308

wt, ..ma y
?i
G
MAR 8 191
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 1.3, 1995
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Onslow County, TIP No. B-2157, State Project No. 8.2260501, Federal
Aid No. BRZ-1225(1),
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and'Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their
review. We also anticipate that a permit will be required from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Management, for this project. NCDOT will apply directly to DEHNR
for that permit when plans have been developed.

February 13, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincer Y.
ranklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Z
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gec
Attachments -
cc: Mr. Jeff Richter, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. J. Bowers, PE, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Philip Edwards, Project Planning Engineer
i
4
r ,
Onslow County
SR 1225
Bridge No. 49
Over Branch of New River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1225(1)
State Project No. 8.2260501
T.I.P. No. B-2157
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
A4.Z1,1q4- - 9. .1 -"/' /?,- L
AT kHrr:a:?nklin_Vick, .E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
(?L3
AT Nich s L. Graf, P.E.
',a) Division Administrator, FHWA

..
Onslow County
SR 1225
Bridge No. 49
Over Branch of New River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1225(1)
State Project No. 8.2260501
T.I.P. No. B-2157
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1994
Documentation Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates

L ? - vac
Michael E. Kranni , P.E.
Project Manager
C ARp',*%
,
SEAL I
10926
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
.
L. G I Grimes .E., Unit Head
Cons tant En ' eering Unit
Philip D. Edwards
Project Planning Engineer

Onslow County
SR 1225
Bridge No. 49
Over Branch of New River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1225(1)
State Project No. 8.2260501
T.I.P. No. B-2157
Bridge No. 49 is located on SR 1225 over a Branch of New River and is scheduled for
replacement in the NCDOT 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated
as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures including NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impact. Basic sedimentation and erosion control measures
in accordance with the NCDOT "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures"
will be utilized throughout construction. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 49 will be replaced on the existing alignment as shown in Figure 2.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roadways during construction as shown in
Figure 1.
The existing alignment on the bridge and roadway approaches will be maintained.
Minor grade adjustments will be made to accommodate an increased superstructure
depth.
The replacement structure will have a length of 26.8 meters (88 feet) and provide a
deck with a 9.2 meters (30.17 feet) clear roadway width. The travelway is 7.2
meters (23.6 feet) with a 1.0 meter (3.28 feet) shoulder on each side.
The design speed for Bridge No. 49 is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour).
The estimated cost based on current prices is $326,500. The estimated total cost
of the project as shown in the 1995-2001 TIP is $173,000.
1

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1225 is classified as a local roadway in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The roadway serves as a primary crossing of a Branch of New River
connecting route SR 1229 with route SR 1238. The land use in the vicinity
consists of residential, scattered woodlands, and cultivated fields. SR 1225 is a
single lane facility providing a total pavement width of 5.2 meters (17 feet) with
2.4 meters (8 feet) unpaved shoulders at the bridge. Beyond the limits of the bridge
SR 1225 is a two lane roadway. This transition occurs in 137.2 meters (450 feet)
and 76.2 meters (250 feet) of the south and north roadway approaches,
respectively. The existing structure has an overall length of 21.2 meters (69 feet -
6 inches) and provides a clear roadway width of 5.8 meters (19 feet - 2 inches)
and a total bridge width of 6.0 meters (19 feet - 10 inches) face-of-rail to face-of-
rail. The existing right-of-way along SR 1225 near the bridge site is estimated to
be 18.3 meters (60 feet).
The horizontal alignment across Bridge No. 49 is tangent with 320 meter radius
(5°30') curves on each approach. The existing grade is level across the bridge and
onto both roadway approaches. See Figure 3, 3A and 3B.
The existing (1994) traffic volume is 800 Vehicles Per Day (VPD). The traffic
volume is projected to increase to 1,400 VPD for the design year 2014. The
volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TT/ST) and two percent dual
tired (DT) with a 60 percent directional split. There is presently no posted speed
limit. The bridge has a posted load limit of 15,450 kilograms (17 tons) for single
vehicles and 23,650 kilograms (26 tons) for truck-tractor, semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 49 was built in 1955. It has four spans with the superstructure
consisting of a timber deck on timber stringers with an asphalt wearing surface.
The substructure consists of timber piles and caps. The end bents include vertical
abutment walls of timber planks. Generally, all structure units have experienced
repairs.
The sufficiency rating for Bridge No. 49 is 28.3 out of a possible 100 for a new
bridge. This rating is below the minimum criteria level of 50 established by the
Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program for structure replacement. The bridge has
an estimated remaining life of eight years.
No utilities are attached to the existing structure. Overhead electrical lines run
parallel to the structure and on the upstream side of the bridge.
No traffic accidents occurred between May 1990 and April 1993 near the bridge.
2

The Onslow County School System reports that three buses currently use the
structure, however, re-routing on existing roadways during construction will cause no
problems for the school system.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Alternative alignments were not considered for replacement of Bridge No. 49 over a
Branch of New River. The existing bridge and roadway provide the best alignment
and lowest cost with minimal environmental impacts. See Figure 2.
The existing bridge will be closed during construction. Existing roadways will serve
as suitable detour routes. The off-site detour length will be 8.1 kilometers (5
miles). See Figure 1.
A relocation alternative is not reasonable due to the resulting undesirable
alignment, additional costs and greater environmental impacts.
Alternatives providing an on-site detour are undesirable due to the resulting
environmental impacts, higher costs, and low traffic volumes.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually require closure of the bridge. This is
not a desirable alternative due to the level of traffic service provided by SR 1225.
Investigations by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicate that rehabilitation is not
feasible due to the age and deteriorated condition of the existing bridge.
The design criteria for this bridge site is as follows: See Figure 4.
The approach roadway width is a 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) travelway with
1.8 meters (6.0 feet) shoulders.
The clear roadway width across the bridge is 9.2 meters (30.17 feet).
The bridge width accommodates a 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travelway with
1.0 meters (3.28 feet) shoulders.
The design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) with a
posted speed limit of 73 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour).
3
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternative studied, based on current prices, is as
follows:
Structure Removal
Pavement Removal
New Structures
Construct/Remove Detour Structures
Roadway & Detour Approaches
Traffic Control
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements
$ 6,900
1,250
145,750
0
54,500
3,000
42,600
46,000
26,500
TOTAL
$326,500
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 49 over a Branch of New River will be replaced on the existing location
as shown in Figure 2. Traffic will be detoured on existing roadways during
construction. The existing horizontal alignment across the bridge and on the
approaches will be maintained. Minimal grade adjustments will be made on the
approaches to accommodate an increased superstructure depth. Approximately
137 meters (450 feet) and 76.2 meters (200 feet) of roadway work will be
required on the south and north approaches, respectively to provide a two lane
travelway. Temporary construction easements will be necessary. The NCDOT
Division Engineer concurs with this recommendation.
A 6.6 meters (21.6 feet) wide pavement with 1.8 meters (6 feet) shoulders will be
provided on the approach improvements to the bridge. In accordance with current
NCDOT Bridge Policy, the replacement structure will provide a clear width of 9.2
meters (30.17 feet). This will allow for a 7.2 meters (23.6 feet) travelway and 1.0
meters (3.28 feet) shoulders across the structure.
Based on the field reconnaissance of the site and preliminary hydraulic analysis, an
estimated replacement structure with a length of 26.8 meters (88 feet) is
proposed. The proposed bridge opening is based on the historic performance of
the existing structure and on field observations. The proposed bridge opening may
be adjusted during final hydraulic design as determined appropriate to
accommodate design flows. The replacement structure will improve flow
characteristics at the site and will not impact adjacent properties by altering the
existing floodway from roadway encroachment.
4
10
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project replaces Bridge No. 49 on SR 1225 over a branch of the New
River in Onslow County. The preferred alternative will replace the existing
structure in place. An off-site detour will maintain traffic during construction.
The project area is in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. It lies just south of
the town of Richlands. The project area is relatively flat, with highly altered
communities and topography.
METHODOLOGY
A natural resources investigation was undertaken to search for evidence of
protected plants and animals and unique or high quality natural communities, to
describe current vegetation and habitats, identify wetlands, and provide information
to avoid or minimize the adverse environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement project.
During the period of December, 1993 through March, 1994 correspondence
relative to the project was initiated with the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, the North Carolina Wildlife Commission, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
the U.S. Geological Survey, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the county Soil
Conservation Service office. Data on protected species, soil types, and stream
characteristics were gathered.
Biologists visited the bridge site on 6 February and 19 March, 1994 to gather data
and verify documented information to complete an assessment of potential impacts
incurred by the bridge replacement proposal.
The area was divided into four quadrants, with the road dividing the east-west
parameters and the water channel dividing the north-south parameters.
Information on tree ages was gained using a 5.15 millimeter increment borer.
Basal Area data was gained using a ten factor prism. No canopy cover estimations
were made since the work was accomplished before the leaves were fully open.
Wetland determinations were made using the 1987 Corps Of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and Munsell color charts. Precise delineation was not
performed, but area estimates and descriptions of wetlands are included.
5
Forest community types follow Schafale and Weakley (1990). Plant nomenclature
follows Radford (1981). Status of listed animals follows LeGrand ( 1993) and the
1993 US Fish and Wildlife Service's "Listed and Candidate Species of North Carolina,
by County" publication. Status of listed plant species follows Weakley (1993) and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service list.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Plant Communities
One community type occurs within the study area: disturbance community. This
community type is the product of human disturbance. It is not a natural community
and is therefore not classified in Schafale and Weakley (1990). The site is partially
forested, but the entire area has been highly disturbed.
Disturbance Community
The disturbance community occurs throughout the site. No canopy is present
throughout much of the site. It is generally composed of weedy, invasive species, the
majority of which are non-native. The community found at this location included
species such as pasture grasses (Festuca sp., Poa sp.), purpletop grass (Tridens
fl v s), chickweed (Stellaria media & Cerastium glomeratum), lespedeza (Les en deza
Ag), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), butterfly violet (Viola papilionacea),
mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thalania), dock (Rumex crispus), poke weed (Phytolacca
americana), goldenrod (Solidago sp), mugwort (Artemisia vulgare), corn salad
(Valerianella radiata ), vetch (Vicia angustifolia), lyre leaf sage (Salvia Ivrata), field
garlic (Allium vineale), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), curly dock (Rumex
ris us), smartweed (Polygonum sp), pennywort (Hydrocotyle sp), wild chervil
(Chaerophyllum tainturieri), cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), Queen Anne's lace (Dau u
carota), panic grass (Panicum sp), avens (Geum canadense), plantain (Plantago rugglii),
gill-over-the-ground (Glecoma hederacea), verbena (Verbena sp.) and dandelion
(Taraxicum officionale), with shrubs and vines such as blackberry (Rubus s12), red
maple saplings (Acer rubrum), boxelder saplings (Ater neaundo), greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia & Smilax sp), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), sumac (Rhus copallina), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Wildlife
The project area occurs in close proximity to development and is therefore of low
value to all but the most common wildlife species. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks
were found. Robins (Turdus migratorius), chipping sparrows (Spizella passerina), and
a kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) were observed.
6
Other wildlife likely to occur in the project area include amphibians such as the spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer), southern leopard frog (Rana snhenoce hp_a), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), southern toad (Bufo terrestris), and southern dusky salamander
(Desmoanathus auriculatus). Reptiles include the banded water snake (N r i
fasciata), rat snake (Elaphae obsoleta), eastern fence lizard (Sclerogsis undulatus),
five-lined skink (Eumeces laticeps) and eastern boxturtle (Terraoene caroling).
Birds include the indigo bunting (Passrina cyanea), common crow ( rv
brachyrhvncos), turkey vulture (Coragvos atratus), common grackle ( i I
guiscula), towhee (Pipilo erxthrophtyalmus), common flicker (Colantes auratus), red-
eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Mammals
include the opsossum (Didelphis virginiana), marsh rabbit (Svlvilagus palustris), striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), house mouse (Mus musculus) and grey squirrel ( i r
carolinensis
Fish likely to be found in the project area include the bowfin (Amia calva), carp
(Cyprinus cargio), brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus
n talis), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus).
Biotic Community Imoacts
For the disturbance community, 0.24 hectares (0.6 acres) of land will receive impacts
in the temporary easement.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
oil
This site occurs in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. One soil series is
present throughout the site: Muckalee Loam. It is a poorly drained soil formed in
loamy and sandy alluvial sediments in floodplains. Low chromas, which are typical
of wetland soils occur at all horizons. At this site, the horizons have been modified
by human activity.
Water Resources
The headwater reaches of the New River are in Onslow County near the Jones and
Duplin County lines. Much of the catchment appears to be in agricultural use,
primarily row crops and pasture. The New River flows into the euryhaline section
of the New River Estuary near Jacksonville, North Carolina.
7
It has no special designation for Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Wild and
Scenic River status. It has a usage classification of C NSW, The "C" designates that
the water body is suitable for agricultural uses, fish and wildlife propagation and
secondary recreation, but is not rated for human consumption or contact recreation
(State of NC, 1993). The "NSW" denotes that nutrient sensitive waters are present,
which require limitations on nutrient inputs. The average flow rate for the water body
at the project area is 1 cubic meter per second (34 cubic feet per second) (US
Geological Survey).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is a program that is used to
monitor water quality. It has been incorporated into the Basin Wide program being
established by the state. There are no known monitoring stations at this particular
site, but there are sites located downstream (DEM, 1994). Data from these sites
show the water quality to be good. The total number of taxa (genera, species, or
varieties) of organisms recorded ranged between 87 and 96.
TABLE I Aquatic Conditions Observed
Substrate sand, clay
Current flow low
Channel width in meters 16.00 (52.5 feet)
Bank height in meters 0.5-2 (1.6-6.5 feet)
Water depth in meters 0-2 (0-6.5 feet)
Water color clear
Water odor none noted
Aquatic veg none noted
Adjacent veg disturbed land
Wetlands Assoc. disturbed areas that used to
have wetlands
8

Water Resource Impacts
No impacts to the water reources are expected for this project. NCDOT's "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Water" will be implemented.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Wetlands are designated as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3) and are
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US COE). No wetlands were noted
during this study, thus no impacts to wetlands are expected with this activity. There
may have been wetlands at this site at one time (the soil classification indicates a
hydric soil series), but the land has been highly altered. The most likely area for
wetlands is in the southwest quadrant. This location has remnants of wetland
characteristics, though alteration (filling) has occurred. Vegetation, hydrology and soil
profile have been altered. Final authority for wetland determination rests with the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
Permits
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 US COE
1344), a permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers (US COE) for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since this project is classified as a categorical exclusion it is likely that this project will
be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. However,
final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the US COE.
This project requires a Coastal Area Management Act permit. The CAMA major
development permit application form serves as an application for three other state
permits and for permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers required by Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The state
permits include: 1- a permit to excavate and/or fill, 2- an easement in lands covered
by water and 3- a 401 Water Quality Certification.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NC Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued
for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit
is required.

Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is usually not be required under a Nationwide Permit. Final
authority rests with the US COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to
federally protected plants or animals is subject to review by the US Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973. The US Fish and Wildlife Service and other resource agencies also exercise
jurisdiction in accordance with the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect
certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in decline.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the following species occur in
Onslow County and could occur in the project area (see Table II below).
TABLE II Federally Protected Species
Scientific name Common name Status* Habitat
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded
woodpecker E mature long leaf pines
Felis concolor cougar eastern cougar E large forests
Charadrius melodus piping plover T beaches
Lepidochelys kempi Kemp's ridley sea
turtle E marine
Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle E marine
10

TABLE II Federally Protected Species
Scientific name Common name Status* Habitat
Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T marine
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle T marine
Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth T beach dunes
Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's meadowrue E wet savannas, sandy
roadside
Lysimachia asperulifolia rough-leaved
loosestrife E pine upland/pocosin
edge
* Federal status : E = endangered; T = threatened
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida, west to eastern Texas, including the states of Kentucky, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Oklahoma and Missouri. It is currently known only in coastal states of its
historic range, plus southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. North Carolina
populations are found in the sandhills and southern coastal plain.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small red streaks on
the sides of the nape of the neck in the male. The back has horizontal stripes of black
and white and the breast and underside is white with streaked flanks. It has large
white cheek patches surrounded by a black cap, nape and throat.
This species uses open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly long leaf (Pin"
t ri ), for nesting and foraging. Suitable habitat must contain at minimum 50%
pine and a fairly open understory. The birds nest only in trees that are 60 years or
older and are contiguous with pine dominated forest stands that are at least 30 years
in age. The RCW foraging range is about 0.8 kilometers (0.5 mile) and must be
connected to suitable nesting sites.
11

RCWs nest exclusively in living pine trees that are frequently infected with the fungus
that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies and are found at 4 to
30 meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground, with an average height of 9 to 15
meters (30 to 50 feet). Large incrustations of running sap on the tree trunk is an
indicator sign of a nest tree. This may be a defense against predators. A clan of
RCWs consists of one breeding pair and the offspring of previous years. Eggs are laid
in April, May and June. Clutch size varies from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan
share in raising the young. Diet consists mainly of insects, but occasionally includes
seasonal fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There is no suitable habitat within the project area.
No mature longleaf pine forests are present.
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) E
The eastern cougar's historic range included eastern Canada, extending south through
the midatlantic region, merging with the Florida cougar's range. It may have occurred
in all of Kentucky and North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and northeastern South
Carolina. In North Carolina, it is thought to occur only in a few scattered locations in
the coastal swamps and in the mountains.
It is a large, long-tailed cat, lacking in spots. Its length, including the tail, ranges from
2.1 to 2.7 meters (7-9 feet) in length and weighs from 68 to 91 kilograms (150-200
pounds). Adults are light colored with dark muzzle, backs of the ears and tail. Kittens
are spotted with ringed tails.
Preferred habitats are large remote areas. It feeds on white-tailed deer, as well as wild
hogs, turkeys, and domestic livestock. It is most active at night and may occupy a
range of 40 kilometers (25 miles).
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There are few remote areas around the project area,
so it is unlikely (though possible) that a cougar would be found. However, since the
bridge will be built in place, no habitat will be permanently lost. Therefore, no impact
is expected for the species.
Legidochelys kempii (Ridley's sea turtle) E
The Ridley's sea turtle inhabits the Gulf of Mexico, while the young range from the
east coast to Massachusetts. This species is an infrequent visitor to North Carolina
and generally does not nest here. The only known nesting ground is on one beach in
Mexico. Here, it comes ashore in mass to lay eggs during the daytime. This can
occur up to three times during the April to June breeding season.
12

It is the smallest of the sea turtles that can be found near North Carolina. It is
580-750 millimeters (23-30 inches) in length and weighs from 36 to 50 kilograms (80-
110 pounds). It has a triangular shaped head and hooked beak. The head and flippers
are grey. Hatchlings are black.
The turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters, in association with red
mangrove trees, feeding on small marine animals and plants.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) E
The leatherback sea turtle is distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Indian Oceans, ranging as far north as Nova Scotia and New Foundland
and as far south as Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Major nesting areas are
found in tropical regions and the only nesting area in the United States is found in
Martin County, Florida. It nests from April to August and has very specific habitat
needs. A nesting area must have a sandy beach backed with vegetation in proximity
to deep water.
It is the largest of marine turtles, weighing from 295 to 680 kilograms (650-1,500
pounds), with an average length of 1180 to 1780 millimeters (46-70 inches). Unlike
other sea turtles, it has a shell composed of leathery skin. It is black to brown in
color, occasionally with white blotches on the head and limbs. It prefers deep water
and is often found near the edge of the continental shelf. It feeds mainly on jellyfish,
thought it has been known to feed on mollusks, tunicates, urchins, fish and
crustaceans.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) T
The loggerhead sea turtle nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke Inlet, North
Carolina through Florida, occasionally along the Gulf states, plus Australia. It lives
worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters.
Adults weigh between 77 and 227 kilograms (170-500 pounds) and are from 800 to
1,200 millimeters (31-47 inches) in length. It can be distinguished from other sea
turtles by its reddish-brown color, large head and blunt jaws.
Loggerheads feed mainly on small marine animals. They nest nocturnally between
May and September on isolated beaches with fine grained sediments.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
13
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) T
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical ocean water. Its ranges
extends as far north as Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia in the
west. For the North American continent, it is limited to nesting on the east coast of
Florida. It must have beaches with minimal disturbance and a sloping platform for
nesting. Nesting does not occur in North Carolina.
It can be distinguished by its single clawed flippers, a single pair of elongated scales
between the eyes and small head. It grows to a size of 760-1,530 millimeters (30-60
inches) and a weight of 100-295 kilograms (220-650 pounds). It can be found in
shallow waters, such as reefs, inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be
found, bays and mangrove swamps. It feeds mainly on marine grasses.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No ocean areas occur in the project area.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) E
Cooley's meadowrue was historically found in the southeastern coastal plain in North
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Currently known populations are limited to nine
locations in North Carolina and one in Florida.
This species is a perennial plant that grows to 1 meter (3 feet) in height. This
rhizomatous plant grows erect in sunlight but is often trailing in shady areas. Leaves
are generally lanceolate and unlobed, though two or three lobes can occur. Flowers
lack petals but sepals on staminate ones are somewhat showy, with yellow to white
color and lavender filaments that are about 5-7 millimeters long. Pistilate flowers have
smaller, greenish sepals. Fruits are narrowly ellipsoid achenes, 5-6 millimeters long.
Fruits mature in August and September.
Habitat for this species is sunny areas such as wet bogs, savannas and savanna-like
openings, sandy roadsides, right-of-ways, and old clearcuts. It is dependent on some
form of disturbance that keeps the habitat open. All known populations are on
circumneutral, poorly drained moderately permeable soils of the Grifton series.
Calcareous soils must be present for this species to occur (NHP, 1994).
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No calcareous soils occur within the project area.
14
Lysimachia asgerulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North Carolina
and South Carolina. It is currently known from nine North Carolina populations and
is believed to be extirpated from South Carolina.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb with slender stems, growing to a height
of 3-6 decimeters. The leaves are whorled at intervals along the stem below racemes
of bright yellow flowers. The five-petalled flowers occur in threes or fours. Fruits are
found from July through October.
The habitat for this species is in the ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond
pine pocosins with dense growth and wet, peaty, acidic soils or seasonally saturated
sands. It has been found in Carolina bays. Frequent fires seem to be an essential
factor for good habitat. It is rarely associated with hardwood forests.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No suitable habitat occurs within project area. No
dense undergrowth nor pine uplands are present.
Amaranthus pumilus (sea-beach amaranth) T
Sea-beach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches. It is presently
confined to 55 populations in North Carolina, New York, and South Carolina, but once
ranged from Massachusetts to Florida. It is an annual that grows in clumps up to 3
decimeters across, with 5 to 20 stems. The trailing stems are often reddish, fleshy,
and 1 to 6 decimeters in length. The leaves are fleshy, thick, round or spatulate, and
about 1-1.5 centimeters in length. They are deep green in color, with winged petioles.
The flowers grow in axillary fascicles and have smooth fruits that are indehiscent and
4-5 millimeters long and glossy black seeds. Fruits and flowers both are borne along
the stem and are inconspicuous.
The habitat for sea-beach amaranth is restricted to beaches functioning in a relatively
natural and dynamic manner. Overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands, lower
foredunes and upper strands of non-eroding beaches seem to create the best habitat.
Temporary populations may form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and
beach replenishment. This species is very intolerant to competition and is generally
not found around other species.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. There are no beach dunes in the project area,
therefore there is no habitat
15

Federal Candidate and State Protected S ep cies
Federal Candidate (C2) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act. These species show evidence of decline or vulnerability and may
become listed in the future. Presently, there has not been sufficient data gathered on
many of these species to ascertain the correct status. State listed species with
designations of Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern are granted protection
by the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Enforcement and administration falls under the jurisdiction
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species and their appropriate habitat were not
surveyed for in this study. Table III (below) lists Federal Candidate and state listed
species known to occur in Onslow County. Since the bridge will be built in place, very
little habitat will be lost.
TABLE III Federal Candidate Species, Including State Protected Status
Scientific name Common name Federal
Status* State
Status**
Ammordramus
henslowii Henslows sparrow C2
Procambarus
plumimanus Croatan crayfish C2
Asplenium
heteroresiliens Wagner's spleenwort C2 E
Dicanthelium sp (not
named yet) Hirst's panic grass C2
Dionaea muscipula venus flytrap C2
Litsea aestivalis pondspice C2
Lobelia boyldnii Boykin's lobelia C2
16
TABLE III Federal Candidate Species, Including State Protected Status
Scientific name Common name Federal
Status* State
Status**
Myriophyllum laxum loose watermilfoil C2 T
Oxypolis ternata Savanna cowbane C2
Parnassia caroliniana Car. grass-of-pamassus C2 E
Rhexia aristosa awned meadow-beauty C2 T
Rhyncospora thornei thorne's beakrush C2
Solidago pulchra Carolina goldenrod C2 E
Solidago verna spring-flowring
goldenrod C2 E
Sporobolus teretifolius wireleaf dropseed C2 T
Tofieldia glabra smooth bog-asphodel C2
* Federal status : C2 = candidate; **State Protection Status : E=endangered, T=threatened
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
17
The project is not in conflict with any land use plans or zoning regulations. No
significant change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of the
project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Acquisition of temporary
construction easements will be required. No relocatees will be involved with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Impacts on utilities as a result of the proposed action will be low.
There are no publicly owned parks, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity
to comment.
In a letter dated January 6, 1994, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
indicated there are no properties listed in or eligible for the National Register within the
area of potential effect (APE). Therefore, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
has no additional comments regarding historic architecture.
The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer's letter of January 6, 1994, (included
in the appendix) in response to a scoping letter, states "We recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with the project".
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils
by all land acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils
are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). According to the SCS, the
proposed project will not impact soils defined as prime, statewide or local important
farmland soils. Therefore, this project is exempt from further consideration under the
act.
18
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Wilmington Regional
Office of the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Onslow
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air
quality of this attainment area. Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease as a
result of the project. The existing noise levels are not expected to change
significantly, therefore, no impacts will occur. Noise levels may temporarily increase
during construction. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done
in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.05020. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
Records of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the N.C.
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section indicated that no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites are known to exist in the project
area.
Onslow County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project
limits for the Branch of New River are not located in a detailed FEMA study area.
Approximate limits of the 100 year floodplain in the project area are shown in Figure
5. Impacts to the floodplain as a result of roadway encroachment are not considered
to be significant.
There are no reasonable alignment alternatives which will avoid crossing the Branch
of New River.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of this project.
19

REFERENCES
Brown, P.M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. NC Geologic Survey. Raleigh,
NC.
Bull, J. & Farrand, J. Jr. 1988. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Birds, Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1,.US Army Engineer Waterways. Experiment Stn.,
Vicksburg, MS.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey & J.R. Harrison. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press
Chapel Hill, NC.
NC Department of Environmental Management. 1994. Unpublished data
for the New River Benthic Macroinvertebrate surveys.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles & C.R. Bell. 1981. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. & A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, 3rd approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh,
NC.
Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Personal correspondence was carried out by
telephone and mail with the Onslow County SCS office in Jacksonville, NC.
State of North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the
Lumber River Basin. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1993. Listed and Candidate Species of North Carolina,
by County.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
20
w
i

1' 11
/
1
1
1
1
NMI
Cathnmc? ?
J 3
'rEme Lake_N 5 S
+ lackson vil
F1
r la

i
00

6
fl`
News
IOM
\ Verona
i
is
% ? ason

EST
um
5
ca' snere,y
MOwa Park t
2! 1
nay een $wen?
....v :F ?E..wE
•• ..;r ust
SCALE
1 .? Q 1 2 MILES
NJ -4
.b of 1 KM
DETOUR
"R= cAAOLmL DWARTlQR OF
"ANWossartox
aTMoN or WoawaTS
PLANZW@ A" MMMONMEMAL
ssaxca
BRIDGE NO.49
ONSLOW COUNTY
B-2157
r FIGURE 1
``? ? °,?
?? ?`
? ?-
'?'
?; ?,:
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
LOOKING NORTH
NORTH APPROACH
(LOOKING NORTH)
SOUTH APPROACH
(LOOKING SOUTH)
FIGURE 3

BRIDGE NO. 49
ONSLOW COUNTY
B-2157
ELEVATION
(LOOKING SOUTHWEST)
'LAGOONS'
IN SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
'AUTO STORAGE'
IN NORTHWEST QUADRANT
FIGURE 3A
BRIDGE NO.49
ONSLOW COUNTY
B-2157
LOOKING UPSTREAM
(WEST)
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
(EAST)
FIGURE 3B

r
Q L
ui
~

Z
V*
H
O cp
Q

a°W
N
W N
c}=° X v
??WO w W
in3
o
y
J m O_J WU
Z LLJ ? :30-
/)QZ
W
CL O OW ?-•
cr o y
E o z ?
? ? 2
=V
mw_jm
ag ....p
? pw
MW=W V) O WQ U W my<

w CD
cc
)
0 3
L
o m a
?Q m

Q ?
p W
Q

O
y co
w ?
w
cr-

c' a m
9-0

-
4A Z

'
o

O
z m
M ?o
0CL 1
C CL
CL zW
V M
0 a. o
. a
U
Q
Z N
z
ao Q O
O ?
M

M O
LL. to

M N
O U
W z
W
N . .?

' z
ao I

O
• 0

?-
C=
j J

Q J

J
U o U a
W - ..
N _
Q N H LLI
J ~ O
Z

FL

F
0
z
..o
?z
y ?
... O
xtr.
W 0
IIGURE 4
ONSLOW COUNTY
B-2157
ZONE B
ZONE B

ZONE B
ZONE C
,?i;6Nt B
i
32
r
ZONE B f;

ti?
?1
6,
GREGORY FORKS
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ZONE C
BRIDGE NO. 49
ZONE B
FIGURE 5
AUG-03-1994 1527 FROM EhNJR WILM REG OFFICE TO 89198328798 P.01

State of North Carolina
Dgwtment of Environment, Health, and
Division of Coastal Management
Yrdmiag= Regional office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
JMdMn B. Howes, Secretary
August 3, 1994
Mr. Michad Krannitz, P. E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P. O. Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 10
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Kranitz:
Roger N. Scbecter
Director
This is with reference to NCDOT Bridge 0 located in Onslow County near Richlands. I visited the
site on August 2, 1994 and determined that navigation appears possible at this location except for the
physical presence of sand shoals and tree debris at the present low flow conditions. The bridge on SR
1231 may be just above the point of navigation and it is upstream of #49. The stream below Bridge
49 appears to be fay navigable. I also noticed that the bridge on SR 1231 appears to be a recent
replacement.
I apologize for the delay but this site is so remote that a special tap was necessary to make the
determination. As you recall I had asked another individual to inspect the site and his determination
was that it was navigable but that had to be confirmed by the CAMA staff.
If there are questions concerning the above, please advise.
Sincerely
r"
C. Robert Stroud, Jr.
District Manager
127 Cu*W DAw 8ommioo. Mwiapov. N.Q 28400 1W 0 T6160=0 910495,29W • FOX 91"S*=4
Natural Resources
As ZWW OMoo wiW AffmmWrt AWM 12VW et

?
d V?FATic,
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
February 9, 1994
Mr. Michael E. Krannitz, P. E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P. 0. Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 10
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr Krannitz:
Roger N.
Director
This is with reference to the request you made to Director Roger Scheme.- concerning the per t:tit
requirements for several bridges located in the Wilmington District. Due to the fairly isolated location
of these structures the field investigation has been slower than normal. On February 3, 1994 I visited
Bridge #67 and Bridge # 115. Bridge # 9 was visited by Ed Brooks of this office at an earlier date.
These three structures all fall within the Public Trust Area AEC and will require a CAMA Major
permit.
Bridge #49 has not had a site visit yet but will be evaluated in the very near future. Based on the
copies of the photographic information contained in your letter, and which was forwarded to tne, this
bridge may not require a CAMA permit.
For your future information, the CAMA has no provision for 'Categorical Exclusions' and if Public
Trust Area and/or Estuarine Water AEC's are involved permits are required.
Please feel free to contact me at any time for assistance in preparing the application packages for these
replacements.
If you have questions concerning the above or if I can be of any other assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
C. Robert Stroud, Jr.
District Manager
cc: Roger Schecter, DCM John Parker, DCM
.-'C C z.: '.4171 1 _=NH= WOc= ;-7 State of North Carolina
137 Cardinal Drivs Exteaaion. Wiltnitt@ton. N.C. 39405.3941 • Tdophone 919.395.3900 0 Fax [phone]
Ad Squal (> ,panunity Atramatiwr Action Entployar
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Wilmington Regional Office
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
F= F1
February 7, 1994 _

MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael E. Krann' , P.E.
THROUGH: Doug Holyfield, ead
Waste Management Branch
FROM: Larry D. Perry, Supervisor
Eastern Area Compliance Unit

RE: RCRA Comments on the NCDOT Group V Bridge Replacement Report
The Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the noted project and offers the following
comments:
There are numerous RCRA hazardous waste generating facilities in the counties where
the replacement projects are located, but we do not believe there are any located near
the proposed projects. I do not believe that these projects will cause any adverse
situation on any sites that might generate or handle hazardous waste nor any hazardous
waste generator facility cause an adverse situation on any project.
This review only considered hazardous waste sites or generators. By copy of this
memorandum, this packet is being referred to the Solid Waste Section and Superfund for
their review.
If a site is encountered that raises concerns or questions, please contact our office at
[phone].
LDP/lfb
cc: Solid Waste Section
Superfund
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affrmath a Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1••
MOM
GROUNDWATER SECTION
13 January 25, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz
Wilbur Smith Associates -
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh Bldg., Suite 910
Raleigh, INC 27602
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
The Groundwater Section has reviewed its records for the the items you requested in your
December 14, 1993, letter to Arthur Mouberry regarding thirteen bridges slated for replacement
in the State. All bridges, except for numbers 77 and 315, were reviewed with regards to
hazardous waste sites, hazardous waste generators, landfills, and underground storage tanks.
According to our records, none of the above situations were within 1000 feet of these
bridges. However, Solid Waste Management (SWM) for the State maintains complete records
for all landfills and hazardous waste sites and generators. I suggest contacting Doug Holvfield of
the Hazardous Waste Section of SWM, [phone], for more information. Fay Sweat, in our
Pollution Control Branch [[phone]], maintains the incident management database for all
reported underground storage tank incidents in the State.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone], ext. 406.
Sincerely,
24 le..'
Brian Wanner
Hydrogeologist
cc: Arthur Mouber y
Ted Bush
Bob Cheek
Fay Sweat
Doug Holyfield
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emcioyer 50% recycled/ 10°X, oost-consumer pacer
ONSLOW CO TRANS DEPT 919 455 5986 01-07-94 ;:04PM 1901 #2
Ons low Countu Schools Ba"d o
d 0. s WIM" P.O. Boar 99, Jacksonville, Noah Carolina 28541.0099 pred w. =! ca>m.
Lee
Phone [phone] Boobert IL a""
Freddie S. Cawady Fred A. Rots
C.6erter r. Xoys. Jr. Mary J. Joaee
Bacrbam 8. Newman C. Garry LaUN envier
L48 C. Meadows
January 7. 199.1
Mr. Michael Kranni t z
Principal Engineer
Wilbur Smith Associates
P .O. Box 2478
Raleigh. NC 27602
Subject: Bus Routes Affected
By Bridge Closure
Dear Mr . Kratnni t z :
In response to your request. I have reviewed the information
you provided. The replacement of the bridge on SR 1225 will
affect three buses on a daily basis. There should be no
problem re-routing these huses for the duration of the bridge
closure..
RespectfuIIy,
YK,
Jeff Smith
Transportation Director
On g l caw County Schools
ISlbir
.swr.
"? . is
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 6, 1994
Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC 27602
Re: Replace Bridge No. 49 on SR 1225 over a branch of the
New River, Onslow County, B-2157, ER 94-8016
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 14, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and determined that this structure is not
located in or adjacent to any property which is listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. In addition, the structure is neither listed in nor eligible for
listing in the National Register as an individual property. We, therefore, have no comment
on the project.
There are no known archaeological sites located within the proposed project area. Since
the proposed ground disturbance is to take place in areas where previous construction has
occurred, it is unlikely that this project will involve significant archaeological resources. We
have no preference concerning alternative selection, and recommend that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with the project.
Please note under normal procedures, requests concerning federally-funded roadway
projects come from the Federal Highway Administration and are directed to the Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, David Brook.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A K ,/
r
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
January 5, 1994
IN REPLY REFER m
Regulatory Branch
FILE NO. CESAW-C-010
Mr. Michael E. Krannitz, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
Post Office Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 910
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Krannitz:
Reference your letter dated December 14, 1993, concerning the proposed
replacement of 8 bridges by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in Bladen/Pender, Columbus/Brunswick, Duplin, Onslow, Wake, and
Wayne/Johnston Counties, North Carolina.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 330, Nationwide Permit Program Regulations, dated
November 22, 1991, Categorical Exclusion determinations are "activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined... that the activity, work, or discharge is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation...." and that the
Corps of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Our review of your information indicates that the work is eligible for
authorization under the terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusions). Temporary detours involving fills in wetlands or
waters of the United States or not authorized by this permit. However, such
temporary detours may be authorized under the provisions of Nationwide Permit
33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering), Nationwide Permit 14 (Minor
Road Crossing), or NCDOT General Permit No. 31.
The request for our concurrence for Categorical Exclusions should be
submitted directly to this office by NCDOT or their designated authorized
agent. It should be accompanied by information in support of this
determination. Please refer to this file number and the date of this letter
when requesting the concurrence(s).
If you have questions please call Mr. Ernest Jahnke, Wilmington Area
Field Office Manager, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Vee, Wrig
hieg ulatory Branch